• 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.
It was scrutinized, thoroughly. How long are you going to keep being outraged about it?

No outrage here. Im simply calling your argument that her efforts were legitimate for the balony that it is. She circumvented the foia process and assumed personal liability for the storage of sensitive emails. But instead of focusing on a fix youre arguing she should be allowed to abide by a separate set of rules.

Nobody else in this thread is attempting to rationalize her actions as completely in the right like this.
 
Last edited:
The FBI agent at the heart of the issue, the one who had the conversation with Patrick Kennedy, says there's nothing to see here.

I think this one can be put to bed safely.
 
No outrage here. Im simply calling your argument that her efforts were legitimate for the balony that it is. She circumvented the foia process and assumed personal liability for the storage of sensitive emails. But instead of focusing on a fix youre arguing she should be allowed to abide by a separate set of rules.

Nobody else in this thread is attempting to rationalize her actions as completely in the right like this.

The BS language in this thread is one reason no one actually debates anything.

"her efforts were legitimate" What does that mean and where did I post it?

"She circumvented the foia process and assumed personal liability for the storage of sensitive emails." And yet Comey did not come to that conclusion and there are other explanations such as she was fine with legit FOIA requests and protective of the crap that the GOP was bound to try to distort and make hay with.

"instead of focusing on a fix youre arguing she should be allowed to abide by a separate set of rules." That one is a straight outright lie. The fix was in the OIG report and I have no doubt the State Department took action after the report.

The separate set of rules straw man comes from all you guys that don't understand why Comey not only didn't prosecute, but also did not find anyone else who had been similarly prosecuted for typical errors in workplace law compliance. I can't help it if you don't get it. I get it because as a consultant, part of my job is to help facilities maintain compliance with workplace law. No facility is in perfect compliance and no one is EVER prosecuted with the exception of blatant willful severe negligence leading to fatalities or serious injuries.
 
Last edited:
The BS language in this thread is one reason no one actually debates anything.

"her efforts were legitimate" What does that mean and where did I post it?

"She circumvented the foia process and assumed personal liability for the storage of sensitive emails." And yet Comey did not come to that conclusion and there are other explanations such as she was fine with legit FOIA requests and protective of the crap that the GOP was bound to try to distort and make hay with.

"instead of focusing on a fix youre arguing she should be allowed to abide by a separate set of rules." That one is a straight outright lie. The fix was in the OIG report and I have no doubt the State Department took action after the report.

The separate set of rules straw man comes from all you guys that don't understand why Comey not only didn't prosecute, but also did not find anyone else who had been similarly prosecuted for typical errors in workplace law compliance. I can't help it if you don't get it. I get it because as a consultant, part of my job is to help facilities maintain compliance with workplace law. No facility is in perfect compliance and no one is EVER prosecuted with the exception of blatant willful severe negligence leading to fatalities or serious injuries.

I agree with the first sentence!

She was "fine" with legit foia requests? And she decided what was a legit request, and it turned out that none of the foia requests that were served while she was sos were "legit" because she did not make her emails available for any of them.

Foia is not a "workplace" law. Baffled why you keep repeating that misrepresentation.
 
It appears I need to clarify something.

The FOIA is not the law Clinton supposedly violated. She turned over all her work related emails.

Show me where in the FOIA it says a federal employee cannot use personal email. I believe the law says all such communications should be preserved.

The issue with classified material and using personal email services, including having one's own server, had to do with regulations regarding handling classified materials and State Department policy.

Unless you have evidence that Clinton specifically broke FOIA law, all you have is speculation she may have. Comey knew full well he did not have that evidence.
 
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.

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

Blockbuster? damn straight

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

And lo and behold .... http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/1...ton-email.html?referer=https://www.google.com

A former F.B.I. official at the center of the latest controversy over Hillary Clinton’s private emails acknowledged on Tuesday that an offer to swap favors with a State Department counterpart on an email classification issue had originated with him

This is the entire thread in a nutshell. Fox reports ********. Some posters throw out critical thinking and slobber all over it. Corrections are pointed out but studiously ignored.

Blockbuster indeed :rolleyes:
 
The FBI agent at the heart of the issue, the one who had the conversation with Patrick Kennedy, says there's nothing to see here.

I think this one can be put to bed safely.

Of course. Anyone could see it was just another attempt at a manufactured controversy.

It's complete right wing desperation. They throw up a Hail Mary. Their problem is that instead of throwing it downfield, they are turning around and throwing it the wrong direction. That's how bad they are missing
 
And lo and behold .... http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/1...ton-email.html?referer=https://www.google.com

A former F.B.I. official at the center of the latest controversy over Hillary Clinton’s private emails acknowledged on Tuesday that an offer to swap favors with a State Department counterpart on an email classification issue had originated with him

This is the entire thread in a nutshell. Fox reports ********. Some posters throw out critical thinking and slobber all over it. Corrections are pointed out but studiously ignored.

Blockbuster indeed :rolleyes:

It's still a blockbuster. I can't see how it is muted much by the fact that the quid pro quo was first offered by the FBI. It is still a fact that the State Department, for an obvious and extremely illegitimate reason (i.e. protecting Hillary's candidacy), wanted to prevent as many emails as possible from being classified. It also shows that the State Department, which should have remained neutral with respect to the email scandal, saw itself as Hillary's advocate and acted accordingly. We should assume that almost all of its actions were motivated by the same goal. Indeed, I think it has been pretty clear from the start that the State Department, aside from its IG, has gone out of its way to obstruct the investigation of Hillary's email scandal.

I'll note also that Patrick Kennedy didn't shoot down the quid pro quo idea immediately (as any honest State Department employee would have done). He clearly entertained it. It only didn't happen because the FBI realized, in the end, that it would have been inappropriate.

While none of this bore directly on Hillary, it does speak to the State Department's role in protecting Hillary from scrutiny, as well as the ways in which the FBI could be enticed, or at least pressured, to overlook some of Hillary's misfeasance.
 
It's still a blockbuster. I can't see how it is muted much by the fact that the quid pro quo was first offered by the FBI. It is still a fact that the State Department, for an obvious and extremely illegitimate reason (i.e. protecting Hillary's candidacy), wanted to prevent as many emails as possible from being classified. It also shows that the State Department, which should have remained neutral with respect to the email scandal, saw itself as Hillary's advocate and acted accordingly. We should assume that almost all of its actions were motivated by the same goal. Indeed, I think it has been pretty clear from the start that the State Department, aside from its IG, has gone out of its way to obstruct the investigation of Hillary's email scandal.

I'll note also that Patrick Kennedy didn't shoot down the quid pro quo idea immediately (as any honest State Department employee would have done). He clearly entertained it. It only didn't happen because the FBI realized, in the end, that it would have been inappropriate.

While none of this bore directly on Hillary, it does speak to the State Department's role in protecting Hillary from scrutiny, as well as the ways in which the FBI could be enticed, or at least pressured, to overlook some of Hillary's misfeasance.

That's a nice spin. However, your opinions are at odds with what the parties themselves say:

Mr. Kennedy, who also did not identify Mr. McCauley in his statement, said he called the F.B.I. official for help last year because he “wanted to better understand” why the bureau wanted to classify a portion of the Benghazi email before its release to the public.

Like Mr. McCauley, he said the issue of the F.B.I.’s positions in Baghdad had come up in the conversation, but he said that there had never been an implicit or explicit offer to exchange favors.

“At no point in our conversation was I under the impression we were bargaining,” he said, adding that in nearly four decades in the Foreign Service, he served Democratic and Republican administrations. “My motivations were never political,” Mr. Kennedy said.
 
The FBI agent at the heart of the issue, the one who had the conversation with Patrick Kennedy, says there's nothing to see here.

I think this one can be put to bed safely.

Yep, another

wAqAtPWs5hQ7S.gif
 
"her efforts were legitimate" What does that mean and where did I post it?

In the scheme of things, given the State Department emails were also unsafe, and given the vast majority of classified documents were not sent via email but via a secure fax se-up of some kind...

In other words, rather than simply acknowledge that she took an unnecessary risk that reflected badly on her judgement you've argued that what she did actually had a net benefit.

We are talking about a tiny fraction of classified materials. You make it sound like it was all the confidential materials that passed through Clinton's hands.
The legal argument may be about classified emails. The overall argument entails classified emails, policy standards, ethics, judgement, and FOIA. That's likely the hole in your argument
 
Last edited:
Just to summarize, an FBI walked back what he told his colleague about the quid pro quo?

Quelle Surprise.

But he did not walk back the fact one of Hillary's lackeys wanted to bury a document?

JACKPOT! Hopefully the lackey can get the cell next to Hillary's
 
Just to summarize, an FBI walked back what he told his colleague about the quid pro quo?

Except ... no one (aside from The Big Dog) ever claimed KENNEDY suggested a quid-pro-quo.

You've been provided the evidence. When you willfully ignore it and continue to post things based only fantasy.....
 
thum_5004458066a9805614.jpg



Except ... no one (aside from The Big Dog) ever claimed KENNEDY suggested a quid-pro-quo.

You've been provided the evidence. When you willfully ignore it and continue to post things based only fantasy.....

So silly!

say how's about the desire to bury a document under FOIA. Damn Daniel!
 
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5004458066a9805614.jpg[/qimg]

So silly!

I know, right ? Maybe you could point out which specific words you think provide evidence for your silly notion KENNEDY suggested a quid pro quo ? I don't see any ....

say how's about the desire to bury a document under FOIA. Damn Daniel!

How about it ? Are desires illegal now ? :confused:
 
I know, right ? Maybe you could point out which specific words you think provide evidence for your silly notion KENNEDY suggested a quid pro quo ? I don't see any ....

How about it ? Are desires illegal now ? :confused:

The part that says "quid pro quo." :thumbsup:

The desire to ask the FBI to declassify something so the scumbag could bury it? Oh yeah man, that is what we call an "overt act."
 
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