Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[Foolmewunz]

From the link I posted:
The very heart of FBI operations lies in our investigations—which serve, as our mission states, “to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.” We currently have jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal law, and you can find the major ones below, grouped within our national security and criminal priorities. [Emphasis added.] Also visit our Intelligence program site, which underpins and informs all our investigative programs.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/what_we_investigate

What on earth do you think the FBI does? They may well determine that no prosecutable crime was committed. But reaching that conclusion requires a criminal investigation. The FBI doesn't write parking tickets.

So, you're saying that you're SURE, then?

You do have one last chance to go check and retract. [Jeez, you'd think people would smell my traps coming, by now.]

 

[Fudbucker]

Figuring out my motives is not part of this thread. Try addressing the points I raised and not second-guessing. Does whether or not Foolmewunz said that Hillary spins things really have any bearing on the Great Hillary Witch Hunt?

You bristled at being called "partisan" yet your outrage seems decidedly selective.

As for whether the investigation is criminal or not, it's a meaningless derail started by Clinton herself, when she referred to it as a "security review" and got slapped down by the FBI director.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You bristled at being called "partisan" yet your outrage seems decidedly selective.

As for whether the investigation is criminal or not, it's a meaningless derail started by Clinton herself, when she referred to it as a "security review" and got slapped down by the FBI director.

Yet he didn't call it criminal, either ...

Your explanation of why ?

 

[Fudbucker]

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.



Your fallacy is ... appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.


Please provide your evidence the Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry.

To help you, here is the FBI director declining to use the word "criminal" when discussing the investigation:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-...ntons-description-fbi-email/story?id=39048269

Even though Hillary Clinton has repeatedly described the FBI probe over her use of a private email server as a "security inquiry," FBI Director James Comey today questioned the use of that phrase.

“I don’t know what that means," Comey told reporters today in Washington, D.C. "We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do."


Oh, and BTW:

Sources have told ABC News that so far the investigation has found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

How can it be a criminal investigation when there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.



Yes, your fallacies and poor arguments are ridiculous partisan nonsense.

That's only a fallacy in formal logic. An appeal to authority is perfectly valid if the person is in fact an authority.

 

[The Big Dog]

You bristled at being called "partisan" yet your outrage seems decidedly selective.

As for whether the investigation is criminal or not, it's a meaningless derail started by Clinton herself, when she referred to it as a "security review" and got slapped down by the FBI director.

Well, not meaningless. The lie that it is not a Criminal Investigation is right now, today on her website.

The Judge overseeing part of her case specifically said that it was and based his ruling on it.

That is definitive.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's only a fallacy in formal logic. An appeal to authority is perfectly valid if the person is in fact an authority.

And in this case, the Judge is not an authority on the FBIs investigation, is he ?

 

[Foolmewunz]

You bristled at being called "partisan" yet your outrage seems decidedly selective.

As for whether the investigation is criminal or not, it's a meaningless derail started by Clinton herself, when she referred to it as a "security review" and got slapped down by the FBI director.

What word do you think the FBI director was objecting to?

 

[Fudbucker]

And in this case, the Judge is not an authority on the FBIs investigation, is he ?

I don't know, has he presided over FBI cases before?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Well, not meaningless. The lie that it is not a Criminal Investigation is right now, today on her website.

The Judge overseeing part of her case specifically said that it was and based his ruling on it.

That is definitive.

The judge overseeing the civil suit. That is not "part of her case". That is what we call "a case". See the difference?

 

[The Big Dog]

That's only a fallacy in formal logic. An appeal to authority is perfectly valid if the person is in fact an authority.

Your correspondent is claiming that the Judge's ruling, after he looked at the FBI's use immunity agreement with Pagliano is an "appeal to authority" fallacy?

Bwhahahaha!!!!!!!

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.

He is a United States District Court judge who specifically reviewed the "empirical evidence" (the immunity agreement) and based his legal order on it.

Claiming that relying on that order is fallacious is absolutely ludicrous and totally HILARIOUS!

 

[Foolmewunz]

I don't know, has he presided over FBI cases before?

He's not presiding over one, now.

 

[The Big Dog]

Rosen reports the emails show “dozens of State Department officials working overtime to get Fernando a … ‘Top Secret’ security clearance before ISAB’s first meeting.” Some were outraged that he was even appointed due to his lack of experience. Rosen also added that emails show Clinton aide Huma Abedin “scrambling to accommodate a sudden request by Fernando for some facetime with … [Secretary Clinton].”

Hillary had her staff rushing around to accommodate a big Clinton Foundation donor, who she stuck on a top secret panel despite his complete lack of qualifications.

By the way, why are we just hearing about it now?

After his resignation, Clinton aide Huma Abedin sent an email notifying Heather Samuelson about his departure. Samuelson served as then-Secretary Clinton’s liaison to the White House and later she was the woman who determined which of Clinton’s e-mails were work related and which could be deleted.

Let me guess, Heather concluded that any emails about Hillary's donor buddy were "personal."

 

[Foolmewunz]

Your correspondent is claiming that the Judge's ruling, after he looked at the FBI's use immunity agreement with Pagliano is an "appeal to authority" fallacy?

Bwhahahaha!!!!!!!



He is a United States District Court judge who specifically reviewed the "empirical evidence" (the immunity agreement) and based his legal order on it.

Claiming that relying on that order is fallacious is absolutely ludicrous and totally HILARIOUS!

Nitpick: You mis-spelled Hillaryous.

 

[Fudbucker]

He's not presiding over one, now.

Doesn't matter. He had cause to refer to the investigation. He's been a federal court judge for 20 years. He's probably dealt with the FBI numerous times in those years. I would say he's an authority on how to characterize an investigation.

We all knew it was a criminal investigation anyway.

"In August, the FBI entered the case.

The FBI is determining if criminal activity occurred in connection with the email setup.

We talked to experts in federal criminal investigations, and they told us that the FBI doesn’t look into issues just for the heck of it. They assess cases to find out whether criminal activity occurred."

"We don’t do these because we’re curious," said Ellen Glasser, a retired FBI special agent who worked on cases regarding mishandled classified information. "There’s a potential that a criminal violation took place."

"But of course, Clinton’s actions are clearly front-and-center in the FBI investigation. Based on her knowledge of how classified information mishandling cases proceed, and her understanding of public reports about Clinton’s role in the email setup, Glasser said the FBI is very likely looking at Clinton specifically.

"My experience tells me that Hillary Clinton is a subject of a criminal investigation," Glasser said."

"The investigation has been going on for nine months now. To Pollitt, that means it’s probably a tough case to pin down.

"If this thing was dead on arrival, nobody would be willing to keep this thing going," he said.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/

 

[Foolmewunz]

Doesn't matter. He had cause to refer to the investigation. He's been a federal court judge for 20 years. He's probably dealt with the FBI numerous times in those years. I would say he's an authority on how to characterize an investigation.

We all knew it was a criminal investigation anyway.

"In August, the FBI entered the case.

The FBI is determining if criminal activity occurred in connection with the email setup.

We talked to experts in federal criminal investigations, and they told us that the FBI doesn’t look into issues just for the heck of it. They assess cases to find out whether criminal activity occurred."

"We don’t do these because we’re curious," said Ellen Glasser, a retired FBI special agent who worked on cases regarding mishandled classified information. "There’s a potential that a criminal violation took place."

"But of course, Clinton’s actions are clearly front-and-center in the FBI investigation. Based on her knowledge of how classified information mishandling cases proceed, and her understanding of public reports about Clinton’s role in the email setup, Glasser said the FBI is very likely looking at Clinton specifically.

"My experience tells me that Hillary Clinton is a subject of a criminal investigation," Glasser said."

"The investigation has been going on for nine months now. To Pollitt, that means it’s probably a tough case to pin down.

"If this thing was dead on arrival, nobody would be willing to keep this thing going," he said.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/

Please quote that honestly. Either indicate where you have snipped paragraphs or quote those paragraphs.

 

[The Big Dog]

Doesn't matter. He had cause to refer to the investigation. He's been a federal court judge for 20 years. He's probably dealt with the FBI numerous times in those years. I would say he's an authority on how to characterize an investigation.

As I said before, it goes way beyond that. He actually had the immunity agreement in front of him and used that to conclude that the FBI was doing a criminal investigation in order to rule on two legal issues before him:

1. whether the immunity agreement should be unsealed and

2. whether Paglianao had a proper basis to assert the 5th.

In making that ruling he had to and did make the judicial determination that the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation.

 

[Foolmewunz]

As I said before, it goes way beyond that. He actually had the immunity agreement in front of him and used that to conclude that the FBI was doing a criminal investigation in order to rule on two legal issues before him:

1. whether the immunity agreement should be unsealed and

2. whether Paglianao had a proper basis to assert the 5th.

In making that ruling he had to and did make the judicial determination that the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation.

Hilited: You are making this up. Cite your source or admit that it's speculation. I mean it sounds impressive, but people make up impressive sounding bull **** legal terminology all the time. He made a judicial determination did he? Sounds might weighty. So, if you could just cite the source for that, we'll all be fine.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Your correspondent is claiming <snip>

You know this reflects on you, not me, right ?

 

[Fudbucker]

""The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential," U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in an order issued Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-judge-investigation-224314#ixzz4Br5Va8jj
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

 

[TheL8Elvis]

""The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential," U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in an order issued Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-judge-investigation-224314#ixzz4Br5Va8jj
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Yes. He wrote the words criminal investigation. The question is why.

Did he assume criminal part, or does the immunity agreement literally say "criminal investigation" ?

We don't know.

We can only assume or infer. Speculation.