Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[The Big Dog]

I wish we had "Like" buttons here.

You like lies?

Hillary 2016!

 

[wareyin]

You like lies?

Hillary 2016!

Trump lies 71% of the time. TBD is voting for Trump. Clinton lies 27% of the time. TBD hates Clinton. So, who likes lies?

 

[The Big Dog]

You multiplied the real amount by 22, yet you weren't misrepresenting? Right, totes legit, bro!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-emails-top-secret-219988

Top 2100 classified emails as of February. The work emails that Hillary deleted and have produced since then? Takes it over 2200

But hey, thanks for giving me the chance to post a link, again.

Fantastic!

 

[wareyin]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-emails-top-secret-219988

Top 2100 classified emails as of February. The work emails that Hillary deleted and have produced since then? Takes it over 2200

But hey, thanks for giving me the chance to post a link, again.

Fantastic!

And, the ones that were classified at the time were....drumroll: 81, with another "About 2,000 emails have been retroactively classified, meaning they were not classified at the time they were sent." But your claim of 2200 is totes not a misrepresentation, bro, totes legit!

 

[The Big Dog]

And, the ones that were classified at the time were....drumroll: 81, with another "About 2,000 emails have been retroactively classified, meaning they were not classified at the time they were sent." But your claim of 2200 is totes not a misrepresentation, bro, totes legit!

Let's start with the hilarious concession that 81 were classified when sent!

Next, I said that they were classified, which again you concede...

Finally, and this is the great part... The fact that Hillary and her gang did not mark them classified does not mean that they were not classified when sent! It just means Hillary and her gang were *********** sloppy!

fantastic. Seriously.

 

[wareyin]

Let's start with the hilarious concession that 81 were classified when sent!

Next, I said that they were classified, which again you concede...

Finally, and this is the great part... The fact that Hillary and her gang did not mark them classified does not mean that they were not classified when sent! It just means Hillary and her gang were *********** sloppy!

fantastic. Seriously.

Are you aware of the investigation Comey reported on this past summer? If so, please state how many classified emails the FBI found. (I'm hoping you are intelligent enough to realize that the emails recently released were included in that FBI review).

With me far?

Now, your claim that they sent 2200 classified emails is obviously false if the information was not classified when they sent it. As we know that over 2000 of your 2200 number was retroactively classified, we know that your 2200 number is a misrepresentation.


This leaves 81 out of 30,000...and you call that sloppy? If only we could compare that ratio to something. Too bad Powell never turned any over, nor any other Sec of State, nor Bush.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's something I've never really understood. If it's a felony to negligently allow the release of classified information to those not cleared to handle it, why doesn't that apply to the guy who set up the bathroom server? Or Clinton's lawyers?

It seems to me that using someone without security clearance to set up and manage an off the books, unsecure server for one of the highest officials in our government is negligent on its face. But even if it was not negligent at the beginning, how did it not become negligent when Clinton started to conduct (most?) business on it and classified information began to pass back and forth through the server that the guy without clearance was (supposedly) managing for her?

Similarly, I don't understand how passing all those emails to her attorneys (who were reportedly not cleared) to filter them for her was not negligent.

Am I crazy to suspect special treatment or would other people besides Clinton be allowed to do this or other things like repeatedly losing something like a dozen mobile devices containing potentially sensitive information without anyone batting an eye? From what I gather, lower level people in the government and military live in fear of mistakenly sending a sensitive email, leaving classified information on the wrong table, or taking a photo in the wrong place. Are they lying about these things?

Managing a service doesn't necessarily give you access to emails.

It wasn't unsecure, it just wasn't within the State Dept secure system.

Pretty sure Clinton's attorneys either have security clearance or there is some loophole for a politician's lawyers.

As for your last paragraph, I don't know about crazy but you are wrong. Comey pointed out that prosecuting Clinton is what would be treating her by a double standard.

 

[The Big Dog]

Are you aware of the investigation Comey reported on this past summer? If so, please state how many classified emails the FBI found. (I'm hoping you are intelligent enough to realize that the emails recently released were included in that FBI review).

With me far?

Now, your claim that they sent 2200 classified emails is obviously false if the information was not classified when they sent it. As we know that over 2000 of your 2200 number was retroactively classified, we know that your 2200 number is a misrepresentation.


This leaves 81 out of 30,000...and you call that sloppy? If only we could compare that ratio to something. Too bad Powell never turned any over, nor any other Sec of State, nor Bush.

Lolz, seriously? I cannot make this anymore simple: the fact that emails that no one but Hillary's gang knew existed were not marked classified does not mean they did not contain classified information when they were sent.

Retroactively classified is a made up claim created by the Hillary gang to pander to people who do not think these things through.

I cannot believe people buy her ********. You don't think that people put classified information in the emails when Hillary turned them over do you? No of course not, the classified information was there when it was written.

You understand that, don't you?

 

[The Big Dog]

Managing a service doesn't necessarily give you access to emails.

It wasn't unsecure, it just wasn't within the State Dept secure system.

Pretty sure Clinton's attorneys either have security clearance or there is some loophole for a politician's lawyers.

As for your last paragraph, I don't know about crazy but you are wrong. Comey pointed out that prosecuting Clinton is what would be treating her by a double standard.

 

[shuize]

I'm not going to call you crazy, but I am going to point out that your friend, and others, who lives in fear of prison for mistakenly sending an email, does not know the law, or the penalties of such as well as Comey. And how did Comey put it? Something about how nobody would be punished for what Clinton did, that singling her out would be celebrity hunting or some-such?

That's sort of my point. Clinton seems to be getting special treatment because of who she is. But I'll be sure to tell my friend you think he's free to conduct his foreign service business on an unapproved, private server and if he mistakenly releases a few "top secret" documents along the way, he really doesn't have anything to worry about after all.

As for Clinton's lawyers, I do not believe they had clearance. But if anyone knows otherwise, or knows of an exception that allowed them to handle classified, top secret info, I'd be very interested to hear about it.

* sorry for any typos, posting from iPhone standing a train.

 

[wareyin]

Lolz, seriously? I cannot make this anymore simple: the fact that emails that no one but Hillary's gang knew existed were not marked classified does not mean they did not contain classified information when they were sent.

Retroactively classified is a made up claim created by the Hillary gang to pander to people who do not think these things through.

I cannot believe people buy her ********. You don't think that people put classified information in the emails when Hillary turned them over do you? No of course not, the classified information was there when it was written.

You understand that, don't you?

You are trying to make it too simple. But, in deference to your obvious difficulty with this, I will try to make it simple (enough for you):
Do you understand what retroactive means? Yes or no?

Do you understand that information can be retroactively deemed classified? Yes or no?

Do you understand that over 2000 of the emails sent were deemed not classified at the time they were sent by the FBI, but were retroactively classified? Yes or no?


I think that's probably enough until you show you understand this much.

 

[wareyin]

That's sort of my point. Clinton seems to be getting special treatment because of who she is. But I'll be sure to tell my friend you think he's free to conduct his foreign service business on an unapproved, private server and if he mistakenly releases a few "top secret" documents, he really doesn't have anything to worry about after all.

* sorry for any typos, posting from iPhone standing a train.

No, the point is that treating Clinton the way you want her to be treated would be the special treatment, i.e. celebrity hunting. How many top secret documents did Clinton release again? Oh, yeah, zero.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's sort of my point. Clinton seems to be getting special treatment because of who she is. But I'll be sure to tell my friend you think he's free to conduct his foreign service business on an unapproved, private server and if he mistakenly releases a few "top secret" documents, he really doesn't have anything to worry about after all.....

Yeah, she's been attacked and lied about for 40 years because she's a Clinton and the GOP has been waging a war against her and her husband all that time.

But you keep repeating your POV with no evidence other than your incredulity and willingness to believe all the unproven accusations against the Clintons.

 

[The Big Dog]

You are trying to make it too simple. But, in deference to your obvious difficulty with this, I will try to make it simple (enough for you):
Do you understand what retroactive means? Yes or no?

Do you understand that information can be retroactively deemed classified? Yes or no?

Do you understand that over 2000 of the emails sent were deemed not classified at the time they were sent by the FBI, but were retroactively classified? Yes or no?


I think that's probably enough until you show you understand this much.

"At the time they were sent by the FBI"? Hee hee! 'K.

Fantastic.

 

[shuize]

Pretty sure Clinton's attorneys either have security clearance or there is some loophole for a politician's lawyers.

I wanted to quote this for later.

As I mentioned above, if anyone knows anything about this, I'd be interested to hear it.

Can we agree that if it turns out Clinton's lawyers did not have proper clearance, giving them access to hundreds or thousands of classified (in some cases top secret) documents that never should have been outside the government system might indeed be a problem?

Also, would you agree that if it turns out there is classified information among those emails found on Weiner's computer, or if there are documents discovered that were supposed to have been turned over earlier but were "bleached" somewhere along the way, that might also be a problem?

 

[OMGturt1es]

I don't really have time to respond in detail either. But just briefly, even if the initial purpose was innocent,* electing to conduct so much official business over a non-secure server opens the door to the risk of negligently releasing classified material, no?

First, it wasn't exactly non-secure. I mean, it's the Clinton's server. It might not be perfectly secure, but I strongly doubt it could be honestly described as completely non-secure. The truth is that most servers have some degree of vulnerability. An honest discussion would focus on how secure it was relative to other servers.

And part of that discussion should also concern visibility. Arguably, the fact that Hillary's emails did not reside on a known server actually improves security. Note that during the time that Hillary used her private server, the State Department servers were attacked multiple times. I don't recall if any attacks were successful. But their visibility alone makes them targets. Also note that classified cables were leaked from a classified system during this time. And of course we're now dealing with ongoing email dumps from the DNC server hack. Visibility increases vulnerability.

None of this is to say that Hillary's private server was more or less secure than State Department servers. Instead, it's to demonstrate just how dishonest this entire conversation is. An honest discussion about her private server use would consider the extremely small number of emails that the FBI interpreted as classified, the fact that the small number itself is strong evidence that these are likely due to differing judgment among officials and therefore probably doesn't indicate information of real significance, the degree to which the sever was secured compared with State Department servers, and the degree to which its reduced visibility reduced its vulnerability.

And none of this is to say that I think Hillary and others should use private emails. I would prefer to see Hillary and others use official servers. But I strongly disagree with making an example of Hillary for essentially doing what is more or less relatively common practice among senior State Department officials on both sides of the isle. It's completely unfair, it reeks of partisanship, and it strongly indicates that Hillary's distrust of the GOP, beltway media, and electorate is sadly justified.

Call me crazy, but somehow I don't believe many others would have been given the benefit of the doubt when even a small percentage of the information negligently released from an unapproved, "personal use" system contained top secret information.

You're right. But for the wrong reason. In the past, these email "scandals" just weren't investigated to this degree. Even when evidence strongly indicated intentional deletion. I mean, look, just read the Wiki entry for the Bush Admin email scandal, for example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy). Numerous folks were using private RNC servers for official business. Over 20 million emails appear to be missing, many of which concerned specific actions that were investigated.

And this isn't to say that just because Bush broke the rules that Hillary should. It doesn't justify Hillary's actions. But it should be considered for context. And it should be properly assessed because it's a great example of what intentional deleted email scandals look like; specific information ends up missing. Trump has done the same thing. It's far more reasonable to assume nefarious intent when specific emails are actually missing.

In Hillary's case, specific emails don't appear to be missing. If Hillary wanted to delete emails to avoid trouble, we'd probably expect her to have advised her team to assess her emails to remove anything that could be retro-classified or could be otherwise interpreted as classified by others. But these emails were not missing. The FBI found what it was looking for.

As I mentioned above, when I first heard about this I asked a friend working in the U.S. Foreign Service what would happen if he did what Clinton was accused of doing. His one word answer: "Prison." Since this all came out I've read a number of statements from lower level people in government and military who say they lived in fear of mistakenly sending a sensitive email or leaving classified material on the wrong place. I guess the rules are just different for them.

I would suspect this is due to the incomplete and inaccurate narrative that concerning these emails. It seems extremely likely that anyone who has to handle classified and non-classified documents separately and is also responsible for interpreting what is and isn't classified could be easily interpreted to have mis-handled classified information by a comprehensive outside review just due to the subjective nature of classification and well known problems of over classification.

* It still seems suspicious to me that one of our highest government officials would go to the trouble of setting up an off the books server with reportedly even less security than my computer at work.

Well, I mean, look at Colin Powell's email to Hillary (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/hillary-clinton-colin-powell-emails/). He even went a step further, intentionally keeping his emails out of State Department servers.

I don't think that means Colin Powell is evil or stupid. If so many folks on both sides of the isle are doing this, I think there's probably a reason. And I think this very thread and the year-long mud-drag that Hillary has received is a good example of this reason: FOIA abuse, partisan witch hunts, sensationalist 24/7 cable media, and an uninformed, polarized electorate that is unable or unwilling to spend time reading non-partisan material from independent authors and refuse to see the world in the shades of gray that actually define it. Smart people would be well advised to shield themselves however possible.

And Hillary knows this more than anyone. She was the first real target of the now-known right-wing echo chamber, and I'm sure a part of died when the media jumped onto conspiracy theories that she murdered arguably her best friend in the world-- a friend whose suicide note indicated a deep shame for not being able to protect her from ongoing, endless attacks from the GOP.

Even if every single email was "private," doesn't it stand to reason that foreign intelligence services might be interested in knowing a little more about Sec. (possible future president) Clinton's private life? Also, the lack of security over her "private" information doesn't really seem to square with her desire to filter through lawyers and "bleach" it to keep it out of official hands later.

I'm sure many would be. And they'd probably start with something that our electorate apparently can't be bothered to do: They'd read the already existing literature, which includes a wealth of knowledge in various biographies, books covering her as Secretary of State, etc.

But globally, Hillary is generally well respected and liked. From what I can gather, most global leaders see her as fair, thoughtful, and smart. Those wanting counter intelligence would almost certainly be better off simply partnering with the many think tanks that have been conducting oppositional Clinton research for decades.

 

[OMGturt1es]

You can't be bothered to look up the facts you are misrepresenting? No kidding.

The New York Times article you did bother to look up shows that her it guy took the fifth. Just like I said. And therefore contradicts your lie that the it professional testified.

Not sure what exactly what you are doing, but whatever. I got lots of time to correct falsehoods.

I just posted links to two quick articles that completely back my initial claim, which was that the IT professional who deleted the email did so on his own, well after the original date that he was initially requested to, because he had dropped the ball and was effectively covering his tracks. That's what the FBI concluded, and that's what these two articles report:

"The technician told the FBI that he had been instructed to delete the e-mails in December 2014 and had forgotten to do so before having what he called an 'oh s--t moment.'" (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...-33-000-hillary-clinton-e-mails-quicktake-q-a)

"In the days after Mrs. Clinton’s staffers called Platte River Networks in March 2015, Mr. Combetta said realized that he had not followed a December 2014 order from Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers to have the emails deleted. Mr. Combetta then used a program called BleachBit to delete the messages, the bureau said.

In Mr. Combetta’s first interview with the F.B.I. in February, he said he did not recall seeing the preservation order from the Benghazi committee, which Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, Cheryl D. Mills, had sent to Platte River. But in his May interview, he said that at the time he made the deletions “he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton’s email data” on the Platte River server." (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-investigation.html?_r=0)

And no. I don't have time to re-read the FBI report. My apologies. But it does not appear to me that you have interest in honest argument-- it is beyond clear that the IT professional conducted multiple interviews with the FBI, and that my recollection of his testimony was more or less accurate. So I'm not going to make time.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Can we agree that if it turns out Clinton's lawyers did not have proper clearance, giving them access to hundreds or thousands of classified (in some cases top secret) documents that never should have been outside the government system might indeed be a problem?

According to Hillary, her lawyers only searched for key terms. They did not open and review emails.

I think it's dishonest to criticize Hillary for this. I think had Hillary conducted the search herself, she would have been criticized for selectively, personally reviewing her emails for nefarious intent. Not that it matters, as even having offloaded the search to others she's still being accused.

She's in a lose/lose situation. She's been tried and found guilty in the court of oppositional opinion long ago. Anything she does is interpreted as nefarious.

Also, would you agree that if it turns out there is classified information among those emails found on Weiner's computer, or if there are documents discovered that were supposed to have been turned over earlier but were "bleached" somewhere along the way, that might also be a problem?

It could be. Or not. It would depend on context.

How many were classified? Is it 0.001% again? How many had otherwise been bleached? How many were related to Hillary in the first place? Even if there were some that had been bleached, if it were a very small percentage of emails that were related to Hillary out of some thousands of emails, it would seem perfectly likely to me that they were simply not found at the time. And I think anyone honest whose dealt with lots of files at work should be able to relate.

 

[Kestrel]

At one time I thought the job of Secretary of State was all about managing our relationships with other nations. Apparently none of that really matters. The job is actually about keeping track of every email message ever sent or received by you or your staff.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Retroactively classified is a made up claim created by the Hillary gang to pander to people who do not think these things through.

http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9475&context=penn_law_review

Retroactive classification is a very real thing and part of the larger conversation concerning the well known problems of over classification. You should not revel in the problems these issues cause your political foes, because your political allies could be the next targets. I really, really hope that Democrats don't follow the GOP's lead of weaponizing over classification for their short-term political benefit. But if right leaning folks don't punish their elected officials for such awful tactics, the GOP will have effectively changed the rules of the game once again, and Democrats will have to decide to either play ball or forfeit.