RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
Now it's an investigation? I thought it was a security review. Also, Hillary claims there's no chance there will be an indictment, so what would she be worried about?
Click to expand...

Semantic quibbles don't make your case. I did not say a criminal investigation of Clinton.

But yes, I believe officially it is a security review.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Semantic quibbles don't make your case. I did not say a criminal investigation of Clinton.

But yes, I believe officially it is a security review.
Click to expand...

You're really all over the map. I suggest you sit back and not try to defend Hillary for now. Her behavior is indefensible really, so it's a losing proposition. Better to just focus on the political consequences. Would you be willing to have Biden parachute in if it appears Hillary is tanking in the polls?
 
sunmaster14 said:
You're really all over the map. I suggest you sit back and not try to defend Hillary for now. Her behavior is indefensible really, so it's a losing proposition. Better to just focus on the political consequences. Would you be willing to have Biden parachute in if it appears Hillary is tanking in the polls?
Click to expand...

But she believes it is "officially" it is a security review/inquiry

FBI Director James Comey: "I am not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry....We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do.”
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Semantic quibbles don't make your case. I did not say a criminal investigation of Clinton.

But yes, I believe officially it is a security review.
Click to expand...

But then it's an investigation when calling it a criminal investigation is advantageous to explaining Hillary's actions? :rolleyes:

Or was it not a criminal investigation, and some sort of civil investigation where she still had "culpability"?
 
16.5 said:
Ahh "open." She also said: "I have turned over all of my emails."

Yeah, except all the emails that were discussed for the first time in the IG Report. What a liar.
Click to expand...

On the bright side, I am sure the Russians or Chinese will declassify them eventually.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
But an additional possibility is she thought what she was doing was allowed. Mistakes differ from dishonesty.

Discussed on the news (I think Andrea Mitchell): The report could not find a single instance where she was advised or told it broke the rules and surely everyone who emailed her would have seen it was not a .gov address, ever.The pundit they were interviewing (sorry I don't recall the name) said that a lower level management of office procedures is really where the deficiency was focused. Not that Clinton didn't make the decision to use her server, but that a person whose job it was to manage procedural issues should have advised her not to.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's possible

But although I have been defending the legality of what she did ( or at worst the unlikeliness of an indictment/charges) it seems pretty clear:

1) She claims she turned over "all her emails" - but clearly she hasn't. I would have thought she would choose her words more wisely.

2)did you ever hear the saying "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission " ? That's what she did. She clearly avoided getting State dept legal OK on the matter

3) She didn't cooperate with the IG, whether or not it was sound legal advice ... after claiming she would cooperate, and claiming she exhorted her staff to also

That's a lof of stupid mistakes, that, at best , give an appearance of dishonesty and secrecy.

At worst ... she did it on purpose, thinking it would not be a big deal.

BTW, yes, I agree, she should have her chief of staff telling her what a dumb idea it was - instead, he was the biggest TS email offender.

And the fact that "surely everyone who emailed her would have seen it was not a .gov address, ever" makes the state dept looked pretty inept when they claim "OH, we can't find a single Secretary Clinton email" , doesn't it ?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Semantic quibbles don't make your case. I did not say a criminal investigation of Clinton.

But yes, I believe officially it is a security review.
Click to expand...

Even after the director of the FBI says he's not familiar with the term ?

puh-leeze

Clearly the term "security review" is a more positive spin than the term "investigation"

It's an investigation. No one has confirmed "criminal".
 
John Nowak said:
On the bright side, I am sure the Russians or Chinese will declassify them eventually.
Click to expand...

I get the joke - but there is no evidence the Russians or Chinese hacked her email. Or guccifer.

The only email we know for sure that were hacked were @state.gov
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And yet the report says she didn't follow the rules and neither did a whole slew of people in the State Department.
Click to expand...

Unless by "a whole slew of other people" you mean the other people who also used her server, then a whole slew of other state dept. people did NOT violate the rules the same way that Hillary did.

Let's go after Trump for all his criminal business frauds.
Click to expand...

Knock yourself out, I won't stand in your way, I promise.

How about Sanders' wife and her mismanagement of the college funds? Surely there might be a workplace violation there if it gets an audit and daily scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Oh, believe me, I'd love to see her go to jail for that fraud.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
....
2)did you ever hear the saying "it's easier to ask for permission than forgiveness" ? That's what she did. She clearly avoided getting State dept legal OK on the matter
...
Click to expand...

I think it's the other way around: "Ask for forgiveness, not permission." In other words, do what you want (or in some circumstances, what you're sure is morally right), and make your best case after the fact. But Hillary isn't really asking for forgiveness, either; her mantra is she didn't do anything wrong, everything was approved, everybody did it, etc., etc.
 
John Nowak said:
Oh. Thanks. I feel much better now. It's not like the Russians or Chinese could possibly keep classified information secret for a few years.
Click to expand...

Sure thing. :)

Anyone paranoid enough to claim the russians/chinese have someones email with no evidence needs all the reassurance they can get.
 
Bob001 said:
I think it's the other way around: "Ask for forgiveness, not permission." In other words, do what you want (or in some circumstances, what you're sure is morally right), and make your best case after the fact. But Hillary isn't really asking for forgiveness, either; her mantra is she didn't do anything wrong, everything was approved, everybody did it, etc., etc.
Click to expand...

UHm whoops, yes - had it backwards. :blush:
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Sure thing. :)

Anyone paranoid enough to claim the russians/chinese have someones email with no evidence needs all the reassurance they can get.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that the Secretary of State is probably not a target for foreign intelligence? Really?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Sure thing. :)

Anyone paranoid enough to claim the russians/chinese have someones email with no evidence needs all the reassurance they can get.
Click to expand...

Just when L8 was starting to make some sense, I read this.

" US government hack stole fingerprints of 5.6 million federal employees

Office of Personnel Management hack, which US believes China is responsible for, originally thought to have compromised prints of only 1.1 million workers"

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/23/us-government-hack-stole-fingerprints

Stupid paranoid federal workers.
 
Last edited:
John Nowak said:
Ah, well then. I'm sure sure the server wasn't compromised.

Amelia Earhart? She should be turning up any moment now, too.
Click to expand...

Could you try actually making an argument ?

Here's the argument I see you making:

P: The chinese are hackers
p: The russians are hackers
p: hackers like juicy targets
p: clinton is a juicy target
c: clinton was hacked

Fill in the premises you haven't stated that might actually prove your conclusion.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Could you try actually making an argument ?

Here's the argument I see you making:

P: The chinese are hackers
p: The russians are hackers
p: hackers like juicy targets
p: clinton is a juicy target
c: clinton was hacked

Fill in the premises you haven't stated that might actually prove your conclusion.
Click to expand...

As I said, just wait. They'll declassify the emails eventually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom