• 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.
16.5 said:
Not worth it.
Click to expand...

Apparently not.

But wait.....

Last edited by 16.5; Today at 08:50 PM.
Click to expand...

Gasp! You DELETED something? What could be in that deleted text? We better get the Gowdy Committee on that. That could be the proof that you're really Sid Blumenthal and here to destroy the GOP. Or maybe the long form of your birth certificate proving that you're the product of a mad night of love between Glenn Beck and Richard Daley.

Just asking questions. Questioners have the rights to answers, correct?
 
Foolmewunz said:
Woo! We got someone to say "criminal"! Victory! Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

And we got Obama to say "Radical Islam".... twice! We win!


Well, yeah, true we got our motion quashed... and Trump's still running third to a dog catcher from Dubuque.... but hey, We Won! ..... 'Cuz we have something totally insignificant to harp on for the eight years of the Clinton Administration to come.
Click to expand...

Foolmewunz said:
Apparently not.

But wait.....



Gasp! You DELETED something? What could be in that deleted text? We better get the Gowdy Committee on that. That could be the proof that you're really Sid Blumenthal and here to destroy the GOP. Or maybe the long form of your birth certificate proving that you're the product of a mad night of love between Glenn Beck and Richard Daley.

Just asking questions. Questioners have the rights to answers, correct?
Click to expand...

These types of posts come across as poor rather than witty. Maybe it's just me but just an FYI I guess.
 
Foolmewunz said:
You're absolutely right. It's just you.
Click to expand...

There is really no way to say something like that without it feeling like an attack, even when that wasn't the intention.

I think most people here would like their posts to be high quality or respectable or however we'd like to phrase it, but sometimes it's hard for us to judge our own posts.

Obviously your posting is up to you, so if that's the kind of posting you want then keep on truckin
 
For comic relief:

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...s-russia-intercepted-hillarys-private-emails/

Sources: Russian Government Intercepted and Will Release Hillary’s Emails

WASHINGTON DC – Sources are reporting that the Russian government is prepared to release private emails that it obtained from Hillary Clinton’s email server, proving Clinton allowed classified information to end up in the hands of foreign adversaries.

Intelligence sources are bracing for the Russian release of Clinton’s intercepted emails, according to a report in the trade publication Oilprice.com:

Reliable intelligence sources in the West have indicated that warnings had been received that the Russian Government could in the near future release the text of email messages intercepted from U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server from the time she was U.S. Secretary of State. The release would, the messaging indicated, prove that Secretary Clinton had, in fact, laid open U.S. secrets to foreign interception by putting highly-classified Government reports onto a private server in violation of U.S. law, and that, as suspected, the server had been targeted and hacked by foreign intelligence services.​
​

So they will release them, are prepared to release them, and could in the near future release the text of email messages.

It's like a game of telephone, all in the same article :boggled:

Personally, I won't be holding my breath waiting for any of this to be validated.
 
The_Animus said:
There is really no way to say something like that without it feeling like an attack, even when that wasn't the intention.

I think most people here would like their posts to be high quality or respectable or however we'd like to phrase it, but sometimes it's hard for us to judge our own posts.

Obviously your posting is up to you, so if that's the kind of posting you want then keep on truckin
Click to expand...

You seem to have mistaken me for Pollyanna and Gandhi's child. Yes, it was an attack - - of the contents, not the member. If I post meaningless nit-picking blather like that, I'd expect to be called out on it, too.

No one looks at this crap with a critical eye? Well, no one lined up on the witch hunting team, that's for certain. A White House aide says "criminal" and that's twisted for a series of posts into "Obama said "criminal". And we're supposed to accept that that was an error? It was intentional distortion IMHO.

The larger issue is the extreme effort being given to this. No news? Let's go cherry pick something and bump the thread. A civil court judge uses the word? A ha! Look what I found! Come back when the FBI says "it's a criminal investigation"... or the AG/DoJ. You guys are just filling time because apparently it would kill you to just shut up and wait.

It's partisan nonsense. It's ridiculous and it merits ridicule.
 
16.5 said:
White House aide.

Shake my *********** head.
Click to expand...

Shake it, don't break it. What you ought to be doing is bowing it in shame.

White House something or another. Big deal. Oooh.... the president's spokesperson said "criminal". He mis-spoke, has never supported that idea, but you truthers have a "gotcha" moment. Maybe you'll start plugging for a "new independent investigation" or a "citizen's grand jury".

Remember the good old days when we all made fun of silly quote-mining of crazy-assed theories? "He said Pull It!" "Oooh, here's more people who heard explosions!"
 
Hillary's Website Lies

Hillary's FAQ about her email scandal says:

Is Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry into Clinton’s email use?

No. As the Department of Justice and Inspectors General made clear, the IGs made a security referral. This was not criminal in nature as misreported by some in the press. The Department of Justice is now seeking assurances about the storage of materials related to Clinton’s email account.
Click to expand...

What a liar.
 
16.5 said:
Hillary's FAQ about her email scandal says:
Is Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry into Clinton’s email use?

No. As the Department of Justice and Inspectors General made clear, the IGs made a security referral. This was not criminal in nature as misreported by some in the press. The Department of Justice is now seeking assurances about the storage of materials related to Clinton’s email account.

What a liar.
Click to expand...

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/...ng_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials.


Seems correct to me.

Please provide your evidence the Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry.
 
Judicial watch has filed a motion in its FOIA lawsuit seeking Hillary's deposition, soon as they post it I will provide a copy.

The motion will be heard by Judge Sullivan. I suspect that if and when Hillary takes the Fifth he might be sympathetic given his recent order stating:

Indeed, the privacy interests at stake are high because the government’s criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential.
Click to expand...

Corrupt Hillary taking the 5th? Win-win.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/...ng_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials.


Seems correct to me.

Please provide your evidence the Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry.
Click to expand...
Seriously, now. The FBI is investigating whether or not there is enough evidence to file criminal charges. That is a criminal investigation. How is this at all confusing?
 
xjx388 said:
Seriously, now. The FBI is investigating whether or not there is enough evidence to file criminal charges. That is a criminal investigation. How is this at all confusing?
Click to expand...
What's confusing is when responding to a request for evidence you don't supply any. It seems so obvious to so many, you'd think it would take seconds to provide some.

I'll be clear (again), I don't care what kind of investigation it is. If it results in an indictment or charges, so be it, let the chips fall where they may.
 
Last edited:
xjx388 said:
Seriously, now. The FBI is investigating whether or not there is enough evidence to file criminal charges. That is a criminal investigation. How is this at all confusing?
Click to expand...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...sified-info-in-hillary-clintons-email/447648/

A spokeswoman for I. Charles McCullough, III, the intelligence community IG, said he sent a referral to the FBI earlier this month.

"The letter IC IG sent to FBI earlier this month was a counterintelligence referral indicating there is a compromise of classified national security information in former Sec. Clinton's emails. The emails exist on a at least one private server and thumb drive and that was the counterintelligence information concern we referred to the FBI," said spokesman Andrea Williams in an email.

A Justice Department official said Friday that "The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral."

Although it's definitely not a criminal referral, it's a criminal investigation ? :confused:
 
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