Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[sunmaster14]

This is not a theory. Theories are backed up with reliable evidence. This is more like unfounded speculation.

I'm pretty sure I don't agree with your definition of "theory," but, in any case, there is quite a bit of evidence for mine. Here is a good summary of the coverage devoted to three big stories over the last two weeks:

FBI and State Department Officials Speak Out on E-Mail Investigation:
Big Three network coverage: 0 seconds

Immunity Deals for Clinton Aides that Scrubbed E-Mails:
Big Three network coverage: 65 seconds (ABC 0, CBS 17, NBC 48)

Arms Dealer Claims He Was Scapegoated on Libya Operation to Protect Clinton:
Big Three network coverage: 0 seconds

How is it possible that Fox News and the NY Post can find current and former, high level FBI employees (the NY Post sources are actually named) to claim that Comey was lying when he said that the decision not to prosecute was unanimous, and yet no other mainstream media source can, let alone even report what Fox and the Post dug up? Do you think that it wouldn't be newsworthy? How about relative to a claim that Trump groped a woman on a plane over 30 years ago (which is literally impossible to corroborate)?

 

[plague311]

I'm not amazed by people who aren't outraged just because someone had a home server. I'm amazed by the fact that people try to make it out that just because nothing happened it makes the risks she took as a high level state official acceptable by any measure. I am equally disturbed that people would not only find it acceptable, but argue that there are legitimate reasons to use those setups and take those risks knowingly, as well as knowingly creating impediments to the government's ability to abide by it's own record keeping laws.

You can argue all you want about how you think her set up was superior, great, unhacked, etc.... fact of the matter is even if you can argue that what she did didn't violate the spirit of the law, she certainly took a risk that no responsible entity would ever allow. But here we are, actually having a discussion that debates whether she did anything wrong at all... Forget whether or not she broke the law... you're telling me basically that her decision was fine because nothing bad happened. No, her decisions were still stupid. She was just "fortunate" nothing happened to make her liable for her actions.

I guess I haven't seen to many people say it was ok for her to do it, but then again I wouldn't agree with that either. She's admitted to it being a mistake, that it was something she wouldn't do again if she were to have that option. I just don't know how long we can beat it into the ground. Obviously I agree with the FBI investigation, along with the other investigations, and at this point I just view it as a dead issue. It's over. What else can she possibly do to resolve this? Would the naysayers be happy with anything short of her volunteering to do time in prison? Does she have to drop out of the race? I'm just trying to figure out what you guys want her to do?

 

[sunmaster14]

I just came across this op-ed by Kimberly Strassel in the WSJ (behind a subscription firewall, but it will probably be available via Google in a few days). It corroborates my theory:

If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know that Donald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.

But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.

There's a lot of stuff that even I didn't know in there, which has recently been uncovered in the Wikileaks dump. Some of it is related to the Clinton Foundation, and I'll post it in that thread if and when it comes off of moderation.

Here is one key point about the email scandal:

Clinton staffers debated how to evade a congressional subpoena of Mrs. Clinton’s emails—three weeks before a technician deleted them. The campaign later employed a focus group to see if it could fool Americans into thinking the email scandal was part of the Benghazi investigation (they are separate) and lay it all off as a Republican plot.

...

The Obama administration—the federal government, supported by tax dollars—was working as an extension of the Clinton campaign. The State Department coordinated with her staff in responding to the email scandal, and the Justice Department kept her team informed about developments in the court case.

 

[Giz]

I just came across this op-ed by Kimberly Strassel in the WSJ (behind a subscription firewall, but it will probably be available via Google in a few days). It corroborates my theory:



There's a lot of stuff that even I didn't know in there, which has recently been uncovered in the Wikileaks dump. Some of it is related to the Clinton Foundation, and I'll post it in that thread if and when it comes off of moderation.

Here is one key point about the email scandal:

Sigh.

Trump's remarks about NATO make me want to vote for Clinton. But a Clinton vote seems to to be encouraging the USA to slide into becoming a corrupt banana republic. OTOH, trump seems like the kind of guy who would be el supremo in a banana republic. And a better descriptor of where we are headed is an incestuous beltway oligarchy, rather than anywhere with actual bananas.

It's awful.

 

[Meadmaker]

How is it possible that Fox News and the NY Post can find current and former, high level FBI employees (the NY Post sources are actually named) to claim that Comey was lying when he said that the decision not to prosecute was unanimous, and yet no other mainstream media source can, let alone even report what Fox and the Post dug up?

I haven't looked it up. Maybe I will.

One possible explanation is that although the employees are "high level", they were not actually involved in the decision whether or not to recommend prosecution.

At some point Comey gathered a group of people into a meeting room and said, "We have to make a decision about whether or not to recommend prosecution to the Justice Department." If the people in that room were unanimous, then Comey is not lying. If the people Fox and the Post are quoting were not in the room, then the story is misleading.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

a Clinton vote seems to to be encouraging the USA to slide into becoming a corrupt banana republic.

How so?

Banana Republic

Banana republic or banana state is a political science term for politically unstable countries in Latin America whose economies are largely dependent on exporting a limited-resource product, e.g. bananas. It typically has stratified social classes, including a large, impoverished working class and a ruling plutocracy of business, political, and military elites.[1] This politico-economic oligarchy controls the primary-sector productions to exploit the country's economy.

How do you expect Hillary will do this? By increasing farm subsidies and oil industry tax breaks?

Or perhaps you are just worried about sliding into a 'ruling plutocracy of business, political, and military elites'. If so then don't worry - we already have that!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I just came across this op-ed by Kimberly Strassel in the WSJ (behind a subscription firewall, but it will probably be available via Google in a few days). It corroborates my theory:

There's a lot of stuff that even I didn't know in there, which has recently been uncovered in the Wikileaks dump. Some of it is related to the Clinton Foundation, and I'll post it in that thread if and when it comes off of moderation.

Here is one key point about the email scandal:

1) just type the title of the article in google - if google is the referer, you can read the article without a subscription

2) It was an opinion piece, with no links to back up the claims. "proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of." ... meh.
If the article had specific claims and specific emails, that might be something. It doesn't.

 

[The Big Dog]

State Dept. official offered 'quid pro quo' in Clinton email scandal Rea

In the interview, the unnamed official says that Patrick Kennedy, under secretary of state for management, tried in late June or early July of last year to get the FBI to change a classified email to unclassified, in exchange for the State Department allowing the FBI to place agents in more countries.

The article continues:

The allegation deepens the scandal around Clinton’s use of a private email server, which has continued to dog her presidential campaign, even in the late stages. An unnamed official interviewed by the FBI also accuses the State Department of being in cahoots with Clinton. “[REDACTED] believes STATE has an agenda which involves minimizing the classified nature of the CLINTON emails in order to protect STATE interests and those of CLINTON,” the FBI notes state.

It is good to be the Queen, huh? Simply appalling, but not at all surprising because we know the State Department has been running interference for Hillary and her Gang for years.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/fbi-state-department-clinton-email-229880

 

[plague311]

The article continues:



It is good to be the Queen, huh? Simply appalling, but not at all surprising because we know the State Department has been running interference for Hillary and her Gang for years.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/fbi-state-department-clinton-email-229880

Yeah, another devastating blow to her polling numbers and chances of being the next President.

I hope she recovers in time.

 

[sunmaster14]

The article continues:



It is good to be the Queen, huh? Simply appalling, but not at all surprising because we know the State Department has been running interference for Hillary and her Gang for years.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/fbi-state-department-clinton-email-229880

Blockbuster stuff. I checked to see if any mainstream media reported it. I found out that CNN did, but the spin was entirely different. Take a look at the headline:

"FBI, State deny 'quid pro quo' over Clinton email"


(C)linton (N)ews (N)etwork indeed.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Blockbuster stuff.

An unnamed FBI official alleges Patrick Kennedy asked agency to downgrade classified email in exchange for FBI agents in more countries.

Blockbuster indeed...

 

[sunmaster14]

An unnamed FBI official alleges Patrick Kennedy asked agency to downgrade classified email in exchange for FBI agents in more countries.

Blockbuster indeed...

Not unnamed. The name was redacted. We don't know who the accuser is, but the FBI sure does. And the accusation was made in an FBI interview where lying constitutes a felony. Eyewitness testimony doesn't really get any better than that.

ETA: Also, it was a State Department official.

 

[plague311]

Not unnamed. The name was redacted. We don't know who the accuser is, but the FBI sure does. And the accusation was made in an FBI interview where lying constitutes a felony. Eyewitness testimony doesn't really get any better than that.

Wait, so we've gone from "the FBI is a shady organization that does anything to help Clinton" to trusting them again? I'm not sure I can keep up with this stuff anymore.

 

[The Big Dog]

An unnamed FBI official alleges Patrick Kennedy asked agency to downgrade classified email in exchange for FBI agents in more countries.

Blockbuster indeed...

The FBI agents were indeed named but their names were redacted from the documents released today.

Blockbuster? damn straight

 

[sunmaster14]

Wait, so we've gone from "the FBI is a shady organization that does anything to help Clinton" to trusting them again? I'm not sure I can keep up with this stuff anymore.

I am not familiar with this quote. Can you provide a citation?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Not unnamed. The name was redacted. We don't know who the accuser is, but the FBI sure does. And the accusation was made in an FBI interview where lying constitutes a felony. Eyewitness testimony doesn't really get any better than that.

ETA: Also, it was a State Department official.

Right, but since he is since retired, and now a private citizen, I'm sure he'll be speaking right up.

 

[plague311]

I am not familiar with this quote. Can you provide a citation?

No, we aren't doing that anymore. I can just state my opinion in whatever way I'd like, imply that what I'm saying is factual based on nothing other than my statements, and then claim my point has been proven time and time again.

It's what seems to be the hot stuff around here.

Are you now saying that you've never implied that the FBI is in Hillary's pocket, and the investigation was nothing more than a sham for her benefit? I don't know where you've moved the goalposts to anymore. They seem to be entirely dynamic.

 

[The Big Dog]

Blockbuster stuff. I checked to see if any mainstream media reported it. I found out that CNN did, but the spin was entirely different. Take a look at the headline:

"FBI, State deny 'quid pro quo' over Clinton email"


(C)linton (N)ews (N)etwork indeed.

Looks like CNN does not get the concept of "offering a bribe"

By the way, the picture that was served up with that article? Putin meeting several top Russian military officers.

Very "subtle" CNN.

scumbags

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/17/stat...-unclassify-clinton-emails-fbi-documents.html

For its part, the FBI also denied such a "quid pro quo," offering NBC News the following statement:

... Having been previously unsuccessful in attempts to speak with the senior State official, during the same conversation, the FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending, unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad. Following the call, the FBI official consulted with a senior FBI executive responsible for determining the classification of the material and determined the email was in fact appropriately classified at the Secret level...

Holding my breath waiting for the accusation that it's all an FBI cover up ...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Looks like CNN does not get the concept of "offering a bribe"

By the way, the picture that was served up with that article? Putin meeting several top Russian military officers.

Very "subtle" CNN.

scumbags

You agree the FBI official was offering a bribe ? Fantastic.