• 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.
TheL8Elvis said:
FRA does not require govt systems, and simply using a govt system does not automatically ensure compliance.

We learned in great detail in this thread that the govt systems are antiquated and don't don things like automatically archive emails that one would assume they would do.
Click to expand...
They ensure compliance with the FRA, nothing else, but of course that assumes, as I did, that the emails are retained on the system, just like Clinton's were retained on hers.
 
Garrette said:
They ensure compliance with the FRA, nothing else, but of course that assumes, as I did, that the emails are retained on the system, just like Clinton's were retained on hers.
Click to expand...

They ensure compliance with the FRA .. if we assume they do things that ensure compliance ?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
They ensure compliance with the FRA .. if we assume they do things that ensure compliance ?
Click to expand...
You got me semantically, yes. Since I was responding only to what I (wrongly) perceived as Newton Bits impression that the FRA required use of a government server, I focused only on that bit.

My understanding really isn't so far off as you apparently think it is, only my communication.
 
Assistant Attorney General tipping Podesta on Clinton Email investigation

Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik was sending "heads up" emails from his personal g-mail account to John Podesta regarding the Justice Department's strategy:

There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the emails.
Click to expand...

Podesta sends it to Hillary's gang writing:

Additional chances for mischief.
Click to expand...

Kadzik is presently involved on behalf of the Justice Department in investigating the Huma's lap top cache of emails.

Utterly contemptible

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik was sending "heads up" emails from his personal g-mail account to John Podesta regarding the Justice Department's strategy:



Podesta sends it to Hillary's gang writing:



Kadzik is presently involved on behalf of the Justice Department in investigating the Huma's lap top cache of emails.

Utterly contemptible

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=11568213
Click to expand...

Here is an article about the letter Kadzik wrote Monday promising swift movement on the Abedin cache:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...ck-work-on-renewed-clinton-email-probe-230552

Unbelievable what snakes these people are....
 
Garrette said:
You got me semantically, yes. Since I was responding only to what I (wrongly) perceived as Newton Bits impression that the FRA required use of a government server, I focused only on that bit.

My understanding really isn't so far off as you apparently think it is, only my communication.
Click to expand...

Wasn't trying to get you, just clarify.

What I learned about the FRA and Dept of state in this thread is that there is no automated system or process. It still requires employees to decide what emails are relevant, and print them out. It's a piss poor system.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Wasn't trying to get you, just clarify.

What I learned about the FRA and Dept of state in this thread is that there is no automated system or process. It still requires employees to decide what emails are relevant, and print them out. It's a piss poor system.
Click to expand...
Can't disagree.
 
The Big Dog said:
Bingo! Can you imagine the amount of energy Hillary wasted setting up her own private cowboy server so she could keep her emails from the public.
Click to expand...

I could. Or I could read books that chronicle her and her top aids' work at the State Department. Which I did. And I can say that, effectively, zero time was wasted on emails-- that is, until the partisan witch hunts started.

Hillary and top aids generally communicated classified information verbally and through large physical-copy reports that her aids diligently produced and Hillary voraciously read. Email was mostly for boring coordination stuff.

This could have all been avoided but for Hillary's raging paranoia and monstrous ego.
Click to expand...

I think Hillary's paranoia of the GOP/beltway media/electorate system is her biggest downfall. And to some extent, her actions to shield herself from the ignorant wrath of that system directly lead to this "scandal." On the other hand, it's absolutely clear that the over reaction sadly confirms her paranoia.

There's a reason Hillary tries to shield herself from real scrutiny and transparency. You are part of that reason. Drop your hate and read a *********** book.

As her friend said, who ever told Hillary that setting up her own server should be drawn and quartered!
Click to expand...

Thanks. This is a perfect example of why Hillary wants to shield herself from folks like you. This is a perfect example of why Hillary is not alone in her disdain and distrust of the beltway media and electorate. This is a perfect example of why our system is broken.
 
shuize said:
...

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?...
Click to expand...
No, we cannot agree. You continue to have this fixation trying to make your imaginary case. Comey overruled you. Get over it.
 
Kestrel said:
The eyes of most Americans seem to glaze over at any idea too complex to fit on a bumper sticker. The press understands this and would rather write about the horse race or an invented scandal than discuss the complexities of policy or foreign affairs. As a result the US is full of people that think Hillary started the civil war in Libya, siding with ISIS over that nice Mr. Gaddafi.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I agree with you entirely.

Reality is depressing.
 
OMGturt1es said:
Drop your hate and read a *********** book.

Thanks. This is a perfect example of why Hillary wants to shield herself from folks like you. This is a perfect example of why Hillary is not alone in her disdain and distrust of the beltway media and electorate. This is a perfect example of why our system is broken.
Click to expand...

Busts out laughing! She should shield herself from me? Oh dear, that drawn and quartered quote was from Neera Tanden, who is on Clinton Transition team!

Drop your hate and read a *********** book newspaper! :D

You **** people baffle me. Spend all your money on
these **** fancy books you surround yourselves with
'em and they're the wrong *********** books.
Click to expand...

W. Hunting
 
The Big Dog said:
But now they know the Hillary's friends were telling her to take credit for the "victory" as it slid into anarchic abyss due to Iraq level post war bungling by Obama and Hillary.
Click to expand...

The initial results were promising. And Hillary and her supporters wanted to formalize their success as a new "Clinton Doctrine" in foreign policy approach. And that's fine. That's just called publishing. In technical, scientific disciplines, that's just called "science." And it's a good thing. If a new approach works, we want leaders who formalize the approach to apply for increasing the odds of formal success. I guess maybe this didn't seem such an explosive idea to me because I read about it far before wikileaks emails. So it didn't come with that negative "leak" connotation.

Of course, things are complex. Especially in that region. And the promising results didn't last. Given the frustratingly complex network of desperate allies and enemies and geopolitical aims, Obama's radically skeptical approach is probably more realistic, unfortunately. We tried a very involved approach in Iraq. It didn't work that well. We tried a much less involved approach in Libya. It didn't work that well. We tried almost nothing in Syria. It didn't work that well. The truth is that it's easy to criticize results when situations effectively provide no room for positive results. It's easy to rail against decision makers when the reality is that strategy is selected based on the least ****** outcome possible. And acknowledging such sheds light on Obama's infamous foreign policy summary: "Don't do stupid ****."

Viewing Iraq, Libya, and Syria, as well as the rest of the region, from that perspective and from the unfortunate truth that, in reality, foreign policy in that region is really just about guessing at the least ****** outcome, it's honestly difficult to criticize much. I prefer Obama's minimalist approach because I think it best acknowledges reality. But I also deeply empathize with Hillary's more hands on approach-- especially with respect to Syria, though given no local, regional, or global consensus, action there wasn't really feasible. And I even empathize with Bush's far more hands on approach. Indeed, I supported the Iraq invasion, and if I were to vote again, I might support it if I could simply ensure that we'd listen to experts and provide immediate security and political infrastructure, rather than simply secure the oil fields and let the civilians fall into chaos. I think there's a fair argument to be made regarding humanity's responsibility to itself. Of course, the Obama approach is probably the only reason we're not neck-deep in post-Arab Spring **** right now.

The point is that I strongly believe that anyone honestly trying to understand the region and trying to work to improve the region and the rest of the world must acknowledge that uncertainties probably dwarf what little we know. And even inaction is action. It's still a decision. Innocent people are still murdered or saved due to inaction. So it's just unfair to blame all the region's woes on a single actor or even administration.

And it's even more unfair to blame the region's woes on post-Bush Iraq under Obama and Hillary, given that Bush negotiated the troop withdrawal date. Obama simply followed it. Maybe Obama could have fought harder to prolong the withdrawal date? Maybe. Sure. But then, so could have Bush, right? Even the delay in re-deploying forces to help push back ISIS isn't so cut and dry. Obama delayed action to force new leadership in Iraq, as the then Prime Minister generally supported the very secretarial conditions that help drive groups like ISIS. By forcing political change, Obama at least created an opportunity to better avoid these situations in the future. Maybe it was a good idea. Maybe not. I don't know. I wish we could say, "only time will tell," but I don't think we could even make a fair judgement over time, unless results radically and profoundly depart from the chaotic and uncertain projection we'd otherwise assume. The noise is just louder than the signal.
 
OMGturt1es said:
This should really be the thrust of the story. The weaponization of FOIA is deeply troubling and sadly widespread, impacting everyone from the Secretary of State to everyday scientists.
Click to expand...

That is utterly absurd. Governmental transparency is a good thing.
 
The Big Dog said:
Busts out laughing! She should shield herself from me? Oh dear, that drawn and quartered quote was from Neera Tanden, who is on Clinton Transition team!

Drop your hate and read a *********** book newspaper! :D
Click to expand...

Dressing up a sarcastic remark as otherwise isn't a "gotcha." Obviously sarcasm is fine. And obviously those in Hillary Land don't believe other folks in Hillary Land should be drawn and quartered. Jesus.

But I listen to talk radio. I watch Fox News. I read right-wing news sites, blogs, and message boards. So I know that there are those who use that type of language not with sarcasm but with rage. And you know it to.

I don't have time for cute tricks and psudeo-gotchas. That fact that you do begs the question: Why are you posting at a Skeptics board anyway?

And to your GW Hunting quote, which I had to Google, since I've never actually watched the movie: When I decide to read about a topic, I create a list containing the book titles and authors of the first 4 to 5 pages of related Amazon results. I then hide the title column and research each author. I categorize and rate each author based on distance from political organizations. And then I unhide the title column and read reviews of the books written by my top-rated (non-partisan) authors to get a qualitative sense for which books seem to piss off an equal number of liberals and conservatives. And then I usually try to pick 2 to 3 books that take different perspectives on the subject. So yeah. You're quote is neat. But I think we all have the tools to be reasonably successful in identifying relatively non-partisan, objective books that help us to understand and predict the world. Even if sometimes that perspective causes us to better appreciate uncertainty and become far less partisan regarding certain topics.
 
The Big Dog said:
That is utterly absurd. Governmental transparency is a good thing.
Click to expand...

It is!

Which is why weaponizing transparency is deeply troubling. I want transparency. I think we all do. But when we allow it to be weaponized, government will either find creative ways to hide itself, or it will eventually amend FOIA law to allow it to hide from disingenuous agitators.

The choice is yours. Either embrace transparency or embrace outrage and polarization. You can't have both. At least, not for long .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

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