• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a Hillary supporter, maybe you can tell us what the latest euphemism is for what the FBI is doing. Security review? Investigation? Email retrieval? Criminal investigation?

The FBI is expected to interview Clinton this summer about the scandal. Law-enforcement officials told the Journal they don’t think criminal charges will be filed against her after the investigation.
 
As a Hillary supporter, maybe you can tell us what the latest euphemism is for what the FBI is doing. Security review? Investigation? Email retrieval? Criminal investigation?

lolz, the Shillaries really went for that line in the article that several law enforcement officials don't expect her to be indicted.

Heck of an Endorsement!

Hillary 2016, Loves the **** out of Drones, loathes transparency, thinks she is above the law and Not Indicted Yet!
 
lolz, the Shillaries really went for that line in the article that several law enforcement officials don't expect her to be indicted.

Heck of an Endorsement!

Hillary 2016, Loves the **** out of Drones, loathes transparency, thinks she is above the law and Not Indicted Yet!
Just like you totally ignored it. Were you hoping nobody would read it? LOL.

How mad will you be, after wasting over a year of your life obsessing over her emails, that nothing comes of it and she is elected President anyway?
 
lolz, the Shillaries really went for that line in the article that several law enforcement officials don't expect her to be indicted.

Heck of an Endorsement!

Hillary 2016, Loves the **** out of Drones, loathes transparency, thinks she is above the law and Not Indicted Yet!

Heck of an Endorsement ? She was put under the microscope and the outcome is law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed.

Heck of an Endorsement!
 
LOL. Is your password ABC123!?

WTF kind of non-sequitur is this ?


I run my own mail server. I see "hacking attempts." I don't run out and change my password.

Do you have an actual question, or want to have a serious discussion about this ?
 
WTF kind of non-sequitur is this ?


I run my own mail server. I see "hacking attempts." I don't run out and change my password.

Do you have an actual question, or want to have a serious discussion about this ?

I may be wrong, but I don't see changing a password having much affect on a decent hacker. I did read, however, that this Guccifer fella had to guess Blumenthal's password. I dunno - in the movies they just... ;)

By the way, how do we know that the password was not changed? I don't remember seeing that anywhere.
 
Just like you totally ignored it. Were you hoping nobody would read it? LOL.

How mad will you be, after wasting over a year of your life obsessing over her emails, that nothing comes of it and she is elected President anyway?

I don't know about 16.5, but I won't lose sleep either way (although it would be nice to collect $2,000 from you if I'm right, AND you pay up).

What surprises me more than anything is that on a skeptics board, so many people feel justified in claiming any odds of the outcome of an FBI investigation nobody knows anything about. The scant public knowledge that's been released doesn't support either side. In the absence of some source within the FBI, how is any position about the outcome other than agnosticism warranted?
 
WTF kind of non-sequitur is this ?


I run my own mail server. I see "hacking attempts." I don't run out and change my password.

Do you have an actual question, or want to have a serious discussion about this ?

The point is obvious: multiple hacking attempts (and those are just the ones we know about through the IG report) increase the odds that her server was compromised. Add to that you have a hacker who hacked Bush and Sidney Blumenthal claiming he got into Clinton's server, and it becomes ridiculous to claim "there's no evidence her server was hacked".

The evidence isn't rock-solid, but it wouldn't certainly be better for Clinton if there were NO admitted hacking attempts from her IT guy and NO claims by a notorious hacker.
 
I don't know about 16.5, but I won't lose sleep either way (although it would be nice to collect $2,000 from you if I'm right, AND you pay up).

What surprises me more than anything is that on a skeptics board, so many people feel justified in claiming any odds of the outcome of an FBI investigation nobody knows anything about. The scant public knowledge that's been released doesn't support either side. In the absence of some source within the FBI, how is any position about the outcome other than agnosticism warranted?
The position that people sending Hillary emails could possibly make her a criminal has always been extremely ridiculous.
 
The position that people sending Hillary emails could possibly make her a criminal has always been extremely ridiculous.

A) there's multiple ways she could be in legal trouble (sending classified info, destroying classified info, classified info being stolen from her private server), so your position is a very naive read of the situation.

B) when has the FBI ever dedicated a dozen agents to investigating something "extremely ridiculous"? Give me an example of an FBI investigation that involved this much time and effort on something that was patently absurd.
 
"Several law-enforcement officials said...."

If they had said she was likely to be indicted, the HRC apologists would have pointed out that "Several law-enforcement officials" means absolutely nothing.

But if they say she won't be then suddenly it's perfectly valid!
 
A) there's multiple ways she could be in legal trouble (sending classified info, destroying classified info, classified info being stolen from her private server), so your position is a very naive read of the situation.

B) when has the FBI ever dedicated a dozen agents to investigating something "extremely ridiculous"? Give me an example of an FBI investigation that involved this much time and effort on something that was patently absurd.
We've known for a long time that the big issue was classified info that her employees sent to her. It is flat out ridiculous to believe that she is going to be indicted because of that.

And there has never been any evidence that Hillary Clinton herself is the main target of the investigation. Rather it seems that the investigation was how classified info was handled within the State Department. If anyone is going to be indicted it is going to be the various State Department employees that sent classified info via email, including some that ended up in Hillary's inbox. But even that doesn't seem very likely.

Also, the FBI has no doubt wasted resources investigating crap only to find nothing many times. You just never hear about it. The only reason that anybody even cares about this is because Hillary is running for President.
 
"Several law-enforcement officials said...."

If they had said she was likely to be indicted, the HRC apologists would have pointed out that "Several law-enforcement officials" means absolutely nothing.

But if they say she won't be then suddenly it's perfectly valid!
But they said that they don't expect indictments.

Deal with it.
 
"Several law-enforcement officials said...."

If they had said she was likely to be indicted, the HRC apologists would have pointed out that "Several law-enforcement officials" means absolutely nothing.

But if they say she won't be then suddenly it's perfectly valid!

Did they address the substance of the article (the fact that fbi's criminal investigation is focusing on cia drone attacks and hillary's lust for them)

Lol, i am guessing not

Hillary 2016, not indicted yet.
 
We've known for a long time that the big issue was classified info that her employees sent to her. It is flat out ridiculous to believe that she is going to be indicted because of that.

And there has never been any evidence that Hillary Clinton herself is the main target of the investigation. Rather it seems that the investigation was how classified info was handled within the State Department. If anyone is going to be indicted it is going to be the various State Department employees that sent classified info via email, including some that ended up in Hillary's inbox. But even that doesn't seem very likely.

Also, the FBI has no doubt wasted resources investigating crap only to find nothing many times. You just never hear about it. The only reason that anybody even cares about this is because Hillary is running for President.

From the IG's report, we found out for the first time that Hillary's server came under attack from a hacker. Given that classified information existed on the server at the time, and Hillary should have known that that, it was grossly negligent of her not to report the attach to the State Department IT people as well as the FBI. Personally, I think that is an unforgivable breach of duty, and I doubt that people in the FBI's computer security area would think differently. The only thing worse from a security perspective than allowing classified information to fall into the hands of our enemies is to have that happen and not to know about it. Hillary's actions (and inaction) exacerbated the risk of that happening.

Also, I would revise your last sentence. The only reason that Hillary might not be indicted is that she is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. People would care whether or not the person undermining our national security were famous.
 
From the IG's report, we found out for the first time that Hillary's server came under attack from a hacker. Given that classified information existed on the server at the time, and Hillary should have known that that, it was grossly negligent of her not to report the attach to the State Department IT people as well as the FBI. Personally, I think that is an unforgivable breach of duty, and I doubt that people in the FBI's computer security area would think differently. The only thing worse from a security perspective than allowing classified information to fall into the hands of our enemies is to have that happen and not to know about it. Hillary's actions (and inaction) exacerbated the risk of that happening.

Also, I would revise your last sentence. The only reason that Hillary might not be indicted is that she is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. People would care whether or not the person undermining our national security were famous.
I think it is extremely laughable that you even pretend that you care about this for reasons that do not include harming the Democrats. We both know you wouldn't give two ***** about any of this if the same exact thing happened except that Hillary was a Republican.
 
I think it is extremely laughable that you even pretend that you care about this for reasons that do not include harming the Democrats. We both know you wouldn't give two ***** about any of this if the same exact thing happened except that Hillary was a Republican.

Attack the argument, not the arguer.
 
I think it is extremely laughable that you even pretend that you care about this for reasons that do not include harming the Democrats. We both know you wouldn't give two ***** about any of this if the same exact thing happened except that Hillary was a Republican.

I might still vote for her, but I sure as hell wouldn't be defending her. I'm not defending Trump's idiocy or dishonesty. Saying that I can look past certain kinds of behavior, because there are more important issues which trump the scandals, isn't the same as lying to defend him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom