Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[The Big Dog]

No one claimed "Judicial Watch are the bad guys here." , that is yet another frivolous strawman intentionally generated to mislead.

They are indeed bad guys, they are funded by right wing billionaires like the Scaife family, similar to the Kochs, with the sole purpose of creating negative propaganda about Democrats. They were formed and started with Bill Clinton. They are not an honest think tank.

You were saying TheL8elvis?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Salon: Judicial Watch vs. Hillary: The conservative group has a long history of spreading Clinton lies

One of the biggest players in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was an outfit called Judicial Watch, formed in the early 90s by a conservative gadfly named Larry Klayman. Klayman was a one-man wrecking crew who filed more than 18 lawsuits against members of the Clinton administration costing them millions of dollars in legal fees. The most notable of these was a $90 million invasion of privacy suit filed against Hillary Clinton and others on behalf of the “victims” of Filegate, one of the many scandals for which both Bill and Hillary Clinton were completely exonerated by two different independent counsels.

Joe Conason: Pay For Play? The Scandal Is Judicial Watch Misleading Gullible Media

Listening to the national media over the past few weeks, many Americans may now believe that the Clinton Foundation was set up as a “pay-to-play” scheme for Hillary Clinton to squeeze wealthy foreigners and rich Americans for millions of dollars. According to this theory, popularized by a lavishly funded right-wing organization called Judicial Watch, the Secretary of State would only deal with people and governments that had donated big money to her husband’s foundation.

But that story is itself a scam and a fraud, perpetrated by Judicial Watch with misleading information fed to gullible and lazy Washington journalists.

We all know if there had been even the slightest evidence that some play went with the pay the GOP would have found it. But they didn't.

These guys are not honest brokers.

 

[The Big Dog]

Salon: Judicial Watch vs. Hillary: The conservative group has a long history of spreading Clinton lies

Joe Conason: Pay For Play? The Scandal Is Judicial Watch Misleading Gullible MediaWe all know if there had been even the slightest evidence that some play went with the pay the GOP would have found it. But they didn't.

These guys are not honest brokers.

That folks is what we call "ad hominem fallacy.' The good news is? Judicial Watch actually links the actual emails that they went to Federal Court to get.

Like the one I linked and quoted above that show Huma doing favors for CFF donors, although Clinton agreed to not do that.

 

[The Big Dog]

say, you know what is FUN?

You can actually go and search the emails that Hillary was forced to release to see stuff, such as whether a writer who attacked Judicial watch with an unbelievably biased piece is "credible."

Like Joe Conason? You know, Sid Blumenthal's good friend?

Talk about gullible media, huh folks?

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-email...o=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=0#searchresult

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How is it anyone thinks they have new evidence here? And how is it, Comey, with a stated bias he expected to find evidence of a crime if only he had the emails from the first 3 months, did not charge Clinton with pay for play? And how is it the GOP vultures looking for anything, anything at all, failed to find anything they could charge Clinton with?

This is going to be like 911 and the Kennedy assassination, decades from now there will still be hangers-on pushing CTs about the crimes Clinton so cleverly hid from her political enemies.

 

[The Big Dog]

Edited by jsfisher: 

Moderated content redacted.

Despite the presence of the "laughing dog" thing, not "opposed to," at all.

You see, noah, it is not one or the other. In this thread, "Those emails show unmistakable evidence that Clinton was improperly handling classified data."

That was shown in this thread. Now you are bringing up something different that has nothing to do with Clinton and her emails I assume. Well that does not, as they say, contradict Clinton's malfeasance, now does it?

Of course it does not, despite your very excellent use of the laughing dog "analysis."

 

[wareyin]

Despite the presence of the "laughing dog" thing, not "opposed to," at all.

You see, noah, it is not one or the other. In this thread, "Those emails show unmistakable evidence that Clinton was improperly handling classified data."

That was shown in this thread. Now you are bringing up something different that has nothing to do with Clinton and her emails I assume. Well that does not, as they say, contradict Clinton's malfeasance, now does it?

Of course it does not, despite your very excellent use of the laughing dog "analysis."

Except, despite the claims made by Judicial Watch and those gullible enough to repeat them, information that was not classified at the time cannot be "improperly handled classified information". A separate agency deciding half a decade later that it was classified does not mean what you think it means. Recall, as has already been discussed in this thread, that the CIA was classifying information that had been published by major newspapers after the fact.

 

[The Big Dog]

Except, despite the claims made by Judicial Watch and those gullible enough to repeat them, information that was not classified at the time cannot be "improperly handled classified information". A separate agency deciding half a decade later that it was classified does not mean what you think it means. Recall, as has already been discussed in this thread, that the CIA was classifying information that had been published by major newspapers after the fact.

HI! Thanks ever so much for "chiming" in.

Had you read anything I posted you would see:

1. the fact that Hillary and her pals failed to mark the classified data as classified does not mean it is not classified.

2. the newly released emails that are available on Judicial watch's web site were reviewed and classified by the State department, not the CIA.

3. the CIA and MSGA data was marked classified when it was sent to State, and Hillary and her gang stripped it of its markings.

In sum, you are providing a ton of misinformation. I am here to disabuse people of Clinton propaganda.

 

[wareyin]

1. the fact that Hillary and her pals failed to mark the classified data as classified does not mean it is not classified.

The fact that information is not classified at the time it was sent does not mean it was not classified at the time it was sent? Well, ok then. Good luck finding anyone with relevant knowledge to agree with your, ...unusual understanding, here.

2. the newly released emails that are available on Judicial watch's web site were reviewed and classified by the State department, not the CIA.

And they were reviewed and not found worthy of acting on by the FBI, so the histrionics by Judicial Watch and other CDS sufferers mean nothing.

3. the CIA and MSGA data was marked classified when it was sent to State, and Hillary and her gang stripped it of its markings.

Your evidence for this is...?

In sum, you are providing a ton of misinformation. I am here to disabuse people of Clinton propaganda.

Right, right, spreading obvious nonsense like that propagated by Judicial Watch is providing a public service, not spewing anti-Clinton propaganda as it appears.

 

[The Big Dog]

The fact that information is not classified at the time it was sent does not mean it was not classified at the time it was sent? Well, ok then. Good luck finding anyone with relevant knowledge to agree with your, ...unusual understanding, here.

here is what i wrote:

1. the fact that Hillary and her pals failed to mark the classified data as classified does not mean it is not classified.

A more blatant misrepresentation of my statement you are not likely to see.

Oh well.

 

[NoahFence]

HI! Thanks ever so much for "chiming" in.

Had you read anything I posted you would see:

1. the fact that Hillary and her pals failed to mark the classified data as classified does not mean it is not classified.

Whose responsibility is it to make information classified?

PLEASE don't say Hillary and her pals.

 

[wareyin]

here is what i wrote:

1. the fact that Hillary and her pals failed to mark the classified data as classified does not mean it is not classified.

A more blatant misrepresentation of my statement you are not likely to see.

Oh well.

Your evidence that it was classified at the time it was sent, rather than 5 years later by a separate agency is...?

 

[Meadmaker]

We all know of course that the failure to mark the documents as classified does not at all mean that they did not contain classified data, of course, rather it means that Clinton and her staff mishandled the classified data.

Oh well. In that case, according to that committee chair guy who was on the Hugh Hewitt show, she should ALMOST GET FIRED!



In all seriousness, really, not exaggerating, if Hillary Clinton should be in jail, then so should I, because I have done exactly the same thing. I was very excited to see my first classified document, until I actually opened it, and when I read it I discovered I had written it, before I had a clearance, on an unclassified computer.

More than once when I worked at that company I stumbled on data that I didn't have the appropriate clearance for. Either someone blurted it out in a meeting room not realizing there were uncleared, or insufficiently cleared, people in the room, or they got the classification level wrong and marked something unclassified that should have been classified.

Jail time for anyone? Don't be ridiculous. Maybe, at most, someone might get a day off without pay, assuming it wasn't a repeat offense.

I did know one guy who got fired. He took a copy of a classified document home with him. (That's a no-no. Can't do that.) He stopped at a bar on the way home. While at the bar, his car was stolen. Oopsie! He was fired right away. He was rehired two years later. No jail time. No trial. No charges.

This idea that anyone on Earth would be prosecuted for what Hillary did is just stupid.

 

[NoahFence]

Your evidence that it was classified at the time it was sent, rather than 5 years later by a separate agency is...?

...not coming any time soon.

 

[Newtons Bit]

...not coming any time soon.

Some of the emails were marked classified by the State Department using their own rules for determining what is classified when the information is born.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Some of the emails were marked classified by the State Department using their own rules for determining what is classified when the information is born.

You're arguing issues the FBI resolved and declined to prosecute because it was such a minor matter. How long are you going to keep repeating this?


Here's a new one for you. Fox News is reporting BS from the discredited Clinton Basher Schweitzer (wrote Clinton Cash, a book full of unsupported accusations) who is now claiming some new pay to play charges are being investigated.

They just make this crap up out of whole cloth.

There you go, take that new shiny thing and go play in your Google sandbox.

 

[mgidm86]

Oh well. In that case, according to that committee chair guy who was on the Hugh Hewitt show, she should ALMOST GET FIRED!



In all seriousness, really, not exaggerating, if Hillary Clinton should be in jail, then so should I, because I have done exactly the same thing. I was very excited to see my first classified document, until I actually opened it, and when I read it I discovered I had written it, before I had a clearance, on an unclassified computer.

More than once when I worked at that company I stumbled on data that I didn't have the appropriate clearance for. Either someone blurted it out in a meeting room not realizing there were uncleared, or insufficiently cleared, people in the room, or they got the classification level wrong and marked something unclassified that should have been classified.

Jail time for anyone? Don't be ridiculous. Maybe, at most, someone might get a day off without pay, assuming it wasn't a repeat offense.

I did know one guy who got fired. He took a copy of a classified document home with him. (That's a no-no. Can't do that.) He stopped at a bar on the way home. While at the bar, his car was stolen. Oopsie! He was fired right away. He was rehired two years later. No jail time. No trial. No charges.

This idea that anyone on Earth would be prosecuted for what Hillary did is just stupid.

No idea where or what your job was, but according to this, it is possible for someone to share classified info even though it was not marked as classified at the time they shared it. Pretty obvious, but it's a major sticking/talking point for some people.

If a department improperly marked anything as classified at a later date to ruin Hillary, well that would be a pretty big conspiracy. But hey, after watching House Of Cards, I suppose anything's possible.

I would think any punishment would depend on the nature of what was shared, and possibly intent. This feels like ancient history, I'm just bored and thread surfing. I can't remember half of this stuff.

 

[Meadmaker]

No idea where or what your job was, but according to this, it is possible for someone to share classified info even though it was not marked as classified at the time they shared it. Pretty obvious, but it's a major sticking/talking point for some people.

If a department improperly marked anything as classified at a later date to ruin Hillary, well that would be a pretty big conspiracy. But hey, after watching House Of Cards, I suppose anything's possible.

I would think any punishment would depend on the nature of what was shared, and possibly intent. This feels like ancient history, I'm just bored and thread surfing. I can't remember half of this stuff.

All of the above, especially the last part.

However, the post hoc classification isn't about some conspiracy to ruin Hillary. It's just different interpretations of what should and should not be classified. That classified document that I had written was similar. No one in our department thought it ought to be classified. Someone else did. Once anyone with authority puts a classification level on it, everyone is obligated to treat it as classified, and it's a real nuisance trying to get it declassified, so lots of things stay classified even though they are of no real significance.

 

[The Big Dog]

...not coming any time soon.

Good, you are learning.

As I have explained, they were classified by the state department.

 

[NoahFence]

Good, you are learning.

As I have explained, they were classified by the state department.

And who ran the state department?