RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
This was not a "leak." Judicial Watch's action is a "civil action" not a "criminal action."

Judicial Watch is a "party" to the "civil" action.

Judicial Watch, and a few others like Jason Leopold, were instrumental in getting to the bottom of Hillary's cowboy server and the steps she took to thwart FOIA.

The FBI is in charge of the indictment criminal investigation.
Click to expand...

FTFY. And the DOJ (i.e. Loretta Lynch) is in charge of the indictment. Otherwise, bang on.

Pretty simple stuff.
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have written another open letter to the President: Those “Damn Emails” – “Really a Concern”

[...] The Truth Will Out

Not all workers at the NSA or the FBI are likely to keep their heads in the sand, as they watch very senior officials and politicians with their own agendas disregard laws to safeguard the nation’s security. We know what it is like to do the difficult, disciplined work of protecting information from being compromised by strictly abiding by what often seem to be cumbersome rules and regulations. We’ve been there; done that.

If you encourage the Department of Justice and the FBI to continue slow-walking the investigation, there is a good chance the truth will come out anyway. As you are aware, the Justice Department, the FBI, and NSA have all yielded recent patriots who, in such circumstances, decided that whistleblowing – rather than silence – was the only way to honor the oath we all swore – to support and defend the Constitution.

To sum up our concern regarding how all this plays out, if you order the Justice Department and FBI to pursue the investigation with “all deliberate speed,” so to speak, and Secretary Clinton becomes president, the juicy email secrets in the hidden hands of the NSA and FBI are likely to give those already powerful institutions a capacity for blackmail that would make J. Edgar Hoover’s mouth water. In addition, information hacked by foreign intelligence services or Guccifer-like hackers can also provide useful grist for leverage or blackmail.

Taking Care the Laws Are Faithfully Executed

We strongly urge you to order Attorney General Loretta Lynch to instruct FBI Director James Comey to wind up a preliminary investigation and tell the country now what they have learned. By now they – and U.S. intelligence agencies – have had enough time to do an early assessment of what classified data, programs and people have been compromised. Realistically speaking, a lengthier, comprehensive post-mortem-type evaluation – however interesting it might be, might never see the light of day under a new president.

We believe the American people are entitled to prompt and full disclosure, and respectfully suggest that you ensure that enforcement of laws protecting our national security does not play stepchild to political considerations on this key issue.

On April 10, you assured Chris Wallace, “I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI – not just in this [Clinton email] case, but in any case. Full stop. Period.”

We urge you to abide by that promise, and let the chips fall where they may. Full stop. Period.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis said:
Amazingly fact free and craptacular opinion piece. Thanks !
Click to expand...


The last time this group openly demanded something of the President was before he, coincidently or not, indeed refused to bomb Syria after the false flag Ghouta chemical weapons attack in 2013 crossed his red line. That's a bit over your pay grade, I guess.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Amazingly fact free and craptacular opinion piece. Thanks !
Click to expand...

The spinning of each little new factlet* associated with this issue is reducing the information value of this thread to almost zero. But craptacular? I like it. I'm going to try to work this in to my posts every now and then.

*Factlet - Facts of low significance with regard to a central issue created by partisan spinners. Usually for the purpose of keeping an issue alive and embarrassing a political opponent.

This was my attempt at creating a new word. Perhaps I should leave this kind of thing to people with a gift for it like TheL8Elvis.
 
davefoc said:
The spinning of each little new factlet* associated with this issue is reducing the information value of this thread to almost zero. But craptacular? I like it. I'm going to try to work this in to my posts every now and then.

*Factlet - Facts of low significance with regard to a central issue created by partisan spinners. Usually for the purpose of keeping an issue alive and embarrassing a political opponent.

This was my attempt at creating a new word. Perhaps I should leave this kind of thing to people with a gift for it like TheL8Elvis.
Click to expand...

Not my creation. But thanks. Perhaps CE would like to tell us what was compelling about the article , since it was above my pay grade and all ....
 
Clinton and Staff REFUSE to cooperate with State IG Probe into her email practices

The State Department inspector general concluded that Hillary Clinton did not comply with the agency’s policies on records, according to a report released to lawmakers on Wednesday that also revealed that Clinton and her top aides chose not to cooperate with the review.
Click to expand...

The Report goes on to state:

“Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary,” the report states. “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."
Click to expand...

While the Report explains that the agency suffers from "longstanding, systemic weaknesses" with records that "go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State,” it specifically dings Clinton for her exclusive use of private email.

More importantly, Clinton's refusal to cooperate is indicative of her arrogant contempt for governmental transparency and shows that she is completely unfit to run the US Government.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...inspector-general-report-223553#ixzz49g6g2x6a
 
Clinton Cowboy Server Target of Hackers

On January 9, 2011, the non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed “someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to.” Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.” On January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary “anything sensitive” and stated that she could “explain more in person.”
Click to expand...

From the IG report which I suggest you all take the time to read:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/State-Dept.-OIG-Report-on-HRC-Emails.pdf

No wonder she won't talk to the press or debate Bernie
 
Do Not Speak of it ever again....

According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’ s personal email system again.
Click to expand...

Remember, Hillary and her staff refused to talk to the IG.

She wants to be President?
 
And the conclusion reads:
Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State. OIG recognizes that technology and Department policy have evolved considerably since Secretary Albright’s tenure began in 1997. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership. OIG expects that its recommendations will move the Department steps closer to meaningfully addressing these risks
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like they are not blaming Clinton but rather saying this practice was ongoing before Clinton and should now stop.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And the conclusion reads:

Sounds to me like they are not blaming Clinton but rather saying this practice was ongoing before Clinton and should now stop.
Click to expand...

“Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary,” the report states. “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."
Click to expand...

Sounds to everyone else like they were blaming Hillary.

Of course Hillary refused to talk to them, she wants to be President
 
Hillary Lied

another major revelation:

In November 2010 Secretary Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations discussed the fact that Secretary Clinton’s emails to department employees were not being received. The Deputy Chief of Staff emailed the secretary that “we should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you’re not going to spam.” In response, the Secretary wrote, “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible. “
Click to expand...

This directly contradicts her claim that it was simply a matter of convenience.

By the way, it does not appear that this email was included in Hillary's emails from clintonemails.com.

Did she destroy this one too??
 
16.5 said:
another major revelation:

This directly contradicts her claim that it was simply a matter of convenience.

By the way, it does not appear that this email was included in Hillary's emails from clintonemails.com.

Did she destroy this one too??
Click to expand...

Follow up on this email shows that it is not available on the Wikileaks site, and Politico is calling it a "new" email.

Pretty damning.
 
16.5 said:
another major revelation:

This directly contradicts her claim that it was simply a matter of convenience.

<>
Click to expand...

How does:

"I don’t want any risk of the personal [email address] being accessible.[to everyone] “

Contradict:

"I wanted to carry one device for email"

:jaw-dropp
 
TheL8Elvis said:
How does:

"I don’t want any risk of the personal [email address] being accessible.[to everyone] “

Contradict:

"I wanted to carry one device for email"

:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

I would tentatively agree because I can't see how to parse "I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible" in a meaningful way.

How is that a coherent thought in response to the suggestion?
 
Beeyon said:
I would tentatively agree because I can't see how to parse "I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible" in a meaningful way.

How is that a coherent thought in response to the suggestion?
Click to expand...

It seemed clear to me that the response parsed as she didn't want to give her personal email address to all her employees because then it would be out there in the public for all to see and use.

Which, I assume, would make it impossible to use as an email address, unless she had a someone sifiting it for her 24x7.

YMMV
 
Beeyon said:
I would tentatively agree because I can't see how to parse "I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible" in a meaningful way.

How is that a coherent thought in response to the suggestion?
Click to expand...

well, of course, the real problem is that your correspondent intentionally deleted part of the sentence. Here it is:

In response, the Secretary wrote, “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible. “
Click to expand...

She said that she would get a separate device, but that never happened, and when State offered it? Huma flatly rejected it.

Keep in mind: she didn't have another email address!

Of course, we could just ask Slick Hilly and Huma what they meant...

Oh RIGHT, they refused to cooperate with the State Department Inspector General.

Sounds legit.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
well, of course, the real problem is that your correspondent intentionally deleted part of the sentence. Here it is:



She said that she would get a separate device, but that never happened, and when State offered it? Huma flatly rejected it.

Keep in mind: she didn't have another email address!

Of course, we could just ask Slick Hilly and Huma what they meant...

Oh RIGHT, they refused to cooperate with the State Department Inspector General.

Sounds legit.
Click to expand...

So to summarize, you can't point out a contradiction.

Thanks !:thumbsup:
 
From my 2015 rpt. Ex-DOJ FOIA official on HRC email practice: "blatant circumvention of FOIA & Federal Records Act"

-Jason Leopold, and confirmed by the IG's report today.

Man, every single thing Hillary has said about this is confirmed to be a huge lie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom