Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[logger]

Clearly broke the law?

During the 2016 election cycle when Hillary's email was front page news, Hugh Hewitt had a guest on his morning show. I don't remember who the guest was, although it was a "big name" Republican congressman, involved in the investigations. The congressman was talking about how serious these allegations were and how they all took handling, and mishandling, of classified data very, very, seriously. To illustrate his point, he talked about how some members of the committee staff had left classified documents in an unclassified area, accessible to uncleared personnel. He explained that those staffers ALMOST GOT FIRED!


He said it without any hint of irony in his voice.

Do you deny passing classified information on a unauthorised system is breaking the law.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Ask the question with more than two words.

How are my posts interesting to you?

 

[logger]

How are my posts interesting to you?

Already answered it, go look.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Already answered it, go look.

You've answered why you find Clinton interesting, not why you find me interesting.

 

[logger]

You've answered why you find Clinton interesting, not why you find me interesting.

Lol

No, there are two posts that answer it, keep looking.

 

[logger]

Clearly broke the law?

During the 2016 election cycle when Hillary's email was front page news, Hugh Hewitt had a guest on his morning show. I don't remember who the guest was, although it was a "big name" Republican congressman, involved in the investigations. The congressman was talking about how serious these allegations were and how they all took handling, and mishandling, of classified data very, very, seriously. To illustrate his point, he talked about how some members of the committee staff had left classified documents in an unclassified area, accessible to uncleared personnel. He explained that those staffers ALMOST GOT FIRED!


He said it without any hint of irony in his voice.

Meadmaker take a look at this. Once you get past the first paragraph, which is related to your question, the rest is equally amazing.

Could it be that the Weiner laptop was not thoroughly investigated?

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...laims-about-weiner-abedin-laptop/#more-150669

 

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker take a look at this.

Why? Why would I bother to do that?

I just made a post and, rather than addressing it, you said, "Here's a link to a conservative site that says something I think is interesting."

Why would I follow that link? No need to answer that, by the way. Just know that I didn't.


if you have something you think is interesting, tell us what it is and why it is interesting. Use links to document your comments so that anyone who wants to check out your story, can. "I have a link" is too lazy to make it worth anyone's time to look into it.

 

[Meadmaker]

cool story

"A former defense contractor was sentenced to 41 months in prison for unlawfully retaining classified material while serving in the Navy and while working for a defense contractor, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

Weldon Marshall, 43, pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully retaining national defense information in March and was sentenced Wednesday."

Imagine if the stuff he kept ended up a laptop of a person who was being investigated for sexting underage teens

Indeed.

It's almost as if some breaches of classified information are more significant than others.

Here's the thing. How many people are prosecuted for mishandling classified information each year? If it were as high as 5, I would be very surprised. I'm guessing it might reach as high as 1, conceivably 2. Any more would be very surprising to me.


Now, how many people mishandle classified data each year? Well, that's an unfair question because the vast majority of mishandling cases never create an actual record. So, let's modify the question. How many documentable cases of mishandling classified data occur each year. To be documentable, there is some sort of record that it happened. There's a workplace reprimand, some sort of incident report, some piece of paper, or electronic equivalent, saying "So and so was found to have mishandled classified data by..... maybe removing a document to their home. Maybe sending an email on an unclassified link. Maybe composing a document on an unclassified computer, but the document contains classified information. Maybe disclosing the material to someone without proper clearance.

How many such incidents are there per year. I would be surprised if there were not hundreds. Most of those result in a reprimand being placed in a file. Some might get a day's suspension without pay. Some might result in revocation of security clearance. Some might result in termination of employment. They darned near never result in prosecution.

What do you think? The defense contractors are swarming with Democrats, protecting each other? Let me assure you, as one who has been in such a place, that that is not the case. Oh, wait. You only believe sources that are insulting Democrats, so I'm not a credible source in your book.

 

[Ziggurat]

How, in your opinion, did he think that it could possibly help Clinton? What do you think his actual plan was?

I think the plan was just to sit on the information until after the election.

Ah yes, conspirators who are too stupid to effectively pull off the massive conspiracy they somehow organized despite being so stupid.

You have missed the point completely. It wasn't organized at all, because it wasn't a conspiracy, which is also why it blew up in their faces. It was a bunch of individual actors acting with bias.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think the plan was just to sit on the information until after the election.

But why? And why make the information public at all?

You have missed the point completely. It wasn't organized at all, because it wasn't a conspiracy, which is also why it blew up in their faces. It was a bunch of individual actors acting with bias.

Then you are not talking about the "Deep State" conspiracy after all. Make up your mind.

 

[Ziggurat]

But why?

To protect Clinton.

And why make the information public at all?

Because Strzok didn't have the final word on it, and other people realized that they'd be in potential trouble if it came out that they were sitting on it.

Then you are not talking about the "Deep State" conspiracy after all. Make up your mind.

Check my spelling again. That wasn't accidental.

 

[NoahFence]

To protect Clinton.



Because Strzok didn't have the final word on it, and other people realized that they'd be in potential trouble if it came out that they were sitting on it.



Check my spelling again. That wasn't accidental.

Are you people still butt hurt that someone elevated an investigation on a clear attack on our country over a stupid already-investigated laptop "controversy"?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

To protect Clinton.

How?

Because Strzok didn't have the final word on it, and other people realized that they'd be in potential trouble if it came out that they were sitting on it.

So nothing to do with helping Clinton?

Check my spelling again. That wasn't accidental.

No, I understood the "joke" you were making. I also know that you replied to a post of mine in which I was disputing the existence of a conspiracy by saying "You say that like that contradicts the theory. But it doesn't, when you allow for incompetence."

And now you're claiming that there isn't a conspiracy, rather than that the conspiracy was hampered by incompetence.

As I said - make up your mind.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Are you people still butt hurt that someone elevated an investigation on a clear attack on our country over a stupid already-investigated laptop "controversy"?

That is the strength of the counter-argument, yes - that the only possible reason for prioritising investigating a presidential candidate potentially collaborating with a hostile foreign power actively engaged in attacking America over a minor security breach of a kind that is commonplace and which rarely results in more than minor disciplinary action is political partisanship.

If that weren't ridiculous enough on the face of it alone, I've yet to see anybody who is saying that the latter is more important than the former say that Trump using an insecure phone which potentially allows him to be surveilled or his communications to be hacked in to is at all problematic, when that's actually a much bigger security risk.

 

[Meadmaker]

Are you people still butt hurt that someone elevated an investigation on a clear attack on our country over a stupid already-investigated laptop "controversy"?

One of the things that has gone wrong in this whole process is that in the media, the focus of the Russia investigation has been whether or not Donald Trump can be nabbed by it. Before the election, that meant exposing details that might make him unpopular. After the election that meant impeachment.

For so many people, that's what the investigation is all about. Nothing else matters. This is true of many Trump supporters as well as many Trump opponents.

So, for Trump supporters, they might see some sort of equivalence between the investigations. In their mind, one of them targets Clinton, and the other Trump, and that's the difference between the two investigations. They don't look and see that the fact that the Russians were actively engaged in measures designed to divide Americans and undermine elections is somewhat more significant than the contents of a ,, campaign's laptop, related to issues that had already been investigated ad nauseum.

Interestingly, the fake news that Russians were distributing wss often related to phony "scandals" of Mrs. Clinton. In other words, these people are being played like a fiddle by Vladmir Putin and his cronies, and they don't even realize it.

Fortunately, it appears that the investigators themselves haven't been overly distracted by that. Most of the indictments made by Mueller have actually been of Russians who committed crimes in the course of their propaganda campaign. There's no reason to believe, at least as of yet, that the Mueller team is operating in a biased fashion.

I just wish that the American public were sufficiently informed and sufficiently capable of critical thinking that a "fake news" campaign couldn't work against us, but alas, that is not the case.

 

[Lurch]

One of the things that has gone wrong in this whole process is that in the media, the focus of the Russia investigation has been whether or not Donald Trump can be nabbed by it. Before the election, that meant exposing details that might make him unpopular. After the election that meant impeachment.

For so many people, that's what the investigation is all about. Nothing else matters. This is true of many Trump supporters as well as many Trump opponents.

So, for Trump supporters, they might see some sort of equivalence between the investigations. In their mind, one of them targets Clinton, and the other Trump, and that's the difference between the two investigations. They don't look and see that the fact that the Russians were actively engaged in measures designed to divide Americans and undermine elections is somewhat more significant than the contents of a ,, campaign's laptop, related to issues that had already been investigated ad nauseum.

Interestingly, the fake news that Russians were distributing wss often related to phony "scandals" of Mrs. Clinton. In other words, these people are being played like a fiddle by Vladmir Putin and his cronies, and they don't even realize it.

Fortunately, it appears that the investigators themselves haven't been overly distracted by that. Most of the indictments made by Mueller have actually been of Russians who committed crimes in the course of their propaganda campaign. There's no reason to believe, at least as of yet, that the Mueller team is operating in a biased fashion.

I just wish that the American public were sufficiently informed and sufficiently capable of critical thinking that a "fake news" campaign couldn't work against us, but alas, that is not the case.

Too bloody true!

 

[Ziggurat]

How?

By letting the issue lie fallow. Clinton herself claims that this would have made the difference in her election.

So nothing to do with helping Clinton?

Well, no. Comey explicitly stated that he did it to help Clinton. Not to help her get elected, which he thought was going to happen regardless, but by making sure the election was seen as legitimate afterwards. He was worried that if it came out after the election that the FBI had sat on this information, it would have made her election seem illegitimate. I don't think he's wrong on that count.

No, I understood the "joke" you were making. I also know that you replied to a post of mine in which I was disputing the existence of a conspiracy by saying "You say that like that contradicts the theory. But it doesn't, when you allow for incompetence."

And now you're claiming that there isn't a conspiracy, rather than that the conspiracy was hampered by incompetence.

As I said - make up your mind.

Depends what you mean by "conspiracy". I don't think there was any vast coordinated plan. But I do think a number of people acted in secret to try to push a common agenda of helping Clinton.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

By letting the issue lie fallow. Clinton herself claims that this would have made the difference in her election.

No, having the fact that she was under investigation announced to the world had an impact on the election. Her actually being investigated by the FBI would not, as can be testified to by the fact that Donald Trump was also under investigation by the FBI, and for much more serious crimes.

Well, no. Comey explicitly stated that he did it to help Clinton. Not to help her get elected, which he thought was going to happen regardless, but by making sure the election was seen as legitimate afterwards. He was worried that if it came out after the election that the FBI had sat on this information, it would have made her election seem illegitimate. I don't think he's wrong on that count.

According to Horowitz's report the factors being considered were: the belief that not announcing would be an act of concealment, the belief that Comey was obligated to inform Congress of new information, the assumption that Clinton would be elected, and the real fear that the information would get out anyway due to the leakers in the FBI NY office.

Depends what you mean by "conspiracy". I don't think there was any vast coordinated plan. But I do think a number of people acted in secret to try to push a common agenda of helping Clinton.

This seems to be a way for you to simultaneously say that it is and is not a conspiracy. In other words, you appear to be arguing for the sake of it.

 

[The Big Dog]

The biggest news coming out of the hearing today was that IG Horowitz confirmed existence of a Grand Jury looking into the Clinton Email fiasco.

while it ain't exactly lock her up time, it is a damn good start.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The biggest news coming out of the hearing today was that IG Horowitz confirmed existence of a Grand Jury looking into the Clinton Email fiasco.

while it ain't exactly lock her up time, it is a damn good start.

I heard no such thing, got a link?

Here's Politico's only mention of a grand jury: Senators spar over Clinton email probe watchdog report

"One of the challenges we have to gain access to personal emails would have required either a grand jury subpoena or a search warrant," Horowitz said. He said investigators got "oral representations" from lawyers for some of those messages mentioned in the report, but added: "We were not given access to the emails."

That was during a discussion of all the devices Horowitz didn't search.