Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[Giz]

Having that not happen ever in a large organization? Yes, that might be impossible. Not having it be the average behavior of employees? I think that's a bare minimum expectation.

Indeed. Otherwise, what would be the point in labeling anything as "classified"?

 

[Bob001]

Indeed. Otherwise, what would be the point in labeling anything as "classified"?

There have been extensive studies of overclassification by the federal government. Many thousands of people have the authority to "classify" records, and several million people actually have clearances to access it at various levels. Matters that were public records have been classified after the fact. Newspaper stories have been classified. Often records are classified because the contents would embarrass officials, not because they contain defense or diplomatic secrets. Clinton did something she shouldn't have, and she compounded it with multiple insulting explanations, but it's just dishonest to pretend she was shipping nuclear secrets to the Russians. There's no evidence that she sent anything to anybody who wasn't entitled to get it, or that anything was intercepted by outside actors. Meanwhile, the drumbeat about her emails helped give us Trump.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...tate-has-massive-amount-of-overclassification
https://www.cjr.org/criticism/hillary_clinton_emails.php
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/...stem-of-classifying-government-documents.html

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Meanwhile, the drumbeat about her emails helped give us Trump.

Mission accomplished!

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I'm sure a majority of Republicans in Congress would prefer 4 years of publicly berating Clinton than having to pretend to be on the side of Trump and his crazy, half-assed ideas.

 

[pgwenthold]

Yeah, remember all that stuff Comey said about Huma forwarding hundreds and thousands of Clinton emails to her husband, with classified information?

Um, no...

https://www.propublica.org/article/..._twitter&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

The FBI is trying to figure out how to correct the record of his incorrect testimony.

According to two sources familiar with the matter — including one in law enforcement — Abedin forwarded only a handful of Clinton emails to her husband for printing — not the “hundreds and thousands” cited by Comey. It does not appear Abedin made “a regular practice” of doing so. Other officials said it was likely that most of the emails got onto the computer as a result of backups of her Blackberry.

It was not clear how many, if any, of the forwarded emails were among the 12 “classified” emails Comey said had been found on Weiner’s laptop. None of the messages carried classified markings at the time they were sent.

So, only a handful of emails forwarded, and none of them marked classified when they were sent.

But other than that, I'm sure his testimony was spot on...

 

[The Big Dog]

Yeah, remember all that stuff Comey said about Huma forwarding hundreds and thousands of Clinton emails to her husband, with classified information?

Um, no...

https://www.propublica.org/article/..._twitter&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

The FBI is trying to figure out how to correct the record of his incorrect testimony.



So, only a handful of emails forwarded, and none of them marked classified when they were sent.

But other than that, I'm sure his testimony was spot on...

Um, you really have not contradicted his testimony at all, and the fact that they were not marked classified is no defense to Hillary and her team.

 

[varwoche]

I'm sure a majority of Republicans in Congress would prefer 4 years of publicly berating Clinton than having to pretend to be on the side of Trump and his crazy, half-assed ideas.

Ted Cruz must have a dealer providing him with an ample supply of Impervious-To-Embarrassment pills, what with his line of questioning addressed to Sally Yates about Clinton's email on Wiener's computer. At a hearing about Russian meddling in US election.

 

[The Big Dog]

Um, you really have not contradicted his testimony at all, and the fact that they were not marked classified is no defense to Hillary and her team.

Blown away at how much traction this Comey fake news story is getting.

There is no dispute that there were classified emails on Weiner's laptop, nor that there were hundreds or thousands of emails on the laptop (there were) the alleged misstatement seems to be that Huma did not personally forward all of them but rather most were automatically forwarded from her blackberry.

I cannot fathom what difference the Clinton apologists in the press thinks that makes.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Blown away at how much traction this Comey fake news story is getting.

There is no dispute that there were classified emails on Weiner's laptop, nor that there were hundreds or thousands of emails on the laptop (there were) the alleged misstatement seems to be that Huma did not personally forward all of them but rather most were automatically forwarded from her blackberry.

I cannot fathom what difference the Clinton apologists in the press thinks that makes.

Because when emails were classified is relevant to the level of improper behavior.

 

[The Big Dog]

Because when emails were classified is relevant to the level of improper behavior.

False

See here among dozens of other articles about it

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...cret-security-clearance-knows-or-should-know/

 

[BobTheCoward]

False

See here among dozens of other articles about it

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...cret-security-clearance-knows-or-should-know/

It isn't a false claim. It is about ethics, and the government doesn't get to decide what I think is ethical.

 

[The Big Dog]

It isn't a false claim. It is about ethics, and the government doesn't get to decide what I think is ethical.

It is about the law, and you don't get to decide what you think is legal for people that signed specific agreements to comply with the laws and regulations regarding the handling of classified data and they do not get a pass because they found it inconvenient.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It is about the law, and you don't get to decide what you think is legal for people that signed specific agreements to comply with the laws and regulations regarding the handling of classified data and they do not get a pass because they found it inconvenient.

No, it isn't about the law, and that seems to be one of your source's of misunderstanding people with different opinions on this subject.

There are a lot of issues that when I judge people I don't give two figs what the law is.

 

[Bob001]

False

See here among dozens of other articles about it

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...cret-security-clearance-knows-or-should-know/

The author of your link was himself fired (later "allowed to retire") for misconduct. Maybe not the best source.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...1/gIQAiXNSCS_blog.html?utm_term=.6ed4c41814b7

His claim is that everyone should know that something should be classified, even if it's not. That's quite a stretch, and it's one of the things that leads to ridiculous overclassification.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, it isn't about the law, and that seems to be one of your source's of misunderstanding people with different opinions on this subject.

There are a lot of issues that when I judge people I don't give two figs what the law is.

Well of course it is about the law, it is absurd to discuss the legalities of classification without examining what the law requires. I could not give "two figs" what one's "opinion" is if it disregards what the law requires.

 

[The Big Dog]

The author of your link was himself fired (later "allowed to retire") for misconduct. Maybe not the best source.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...1/gIQAiXNSCS_blog.html?utm_term=.6ed4c41814b7

His claim is that everyone should know that something should be classified, even if it's not. That's quite a stretch, and it's one of the things that leads to ridiculous overclassification.

That is what is known as an ad hominem fallacy, and investigating the matters further, he was "fired" for writing a book?

I see you do not understand, it is classified even if not marked.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well of course it is about the law, it is absurd to discuss the legalities of classification without examining what the law requires. I could not give "two figs" what one's "opinion" is if it disregards what the law requires.

Then you are trying not to understand what difference it makes to certain apologists.

You: I don't understand position X.

Me: It is premised on position Y.

You: I reject premise Y.

Me: I do not reject premise Y.

 

[Bob001]

That is what is known as an ad hominem fallacy, and investigating the matters further, he was "fired" for writing a book?

I see you do not understand, it is classified even if not marked.

If he's presenting himself as an expert on procedures, it is relevant that he was terminated for violating procedures.

And here's a different perspective about classification after the fact:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/...john-kerry-condeleezza-rice-colin-powell.html

 

[The Big Dog]

Then you are trying not to understand what difference it makes to certain apologists.

You: I don't understand position X.

Me: It is premised on position Y.

You: I reject premise Y.

Me: I do not reject premise Y.

Yeah, I don't care what difference its makes to certain apologists if it is objectively wrong.

 

[The Big Dog]

If he's presenting himself as an expert on procedures, it is relevant that he was terminated for violating procedures.

And here's a different perspective about classification after the fact:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/...john-kerry-condeleezza-rice-colin-powell.html

No it is still an ad hominem.

Not sure that is a different view:

It is against the law to have classified information outside a secure government account.

I have constantly advocated putting Colin Powell in a cell right next to Hillary.