Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[Ziggurat]

I must be misunderstanding ... you are claiming the only way for the president to know if national security had been harmed is to know if her server had been compromised.

That's ludicrous.

Not quite. If the president knows the server was never hacked, then he knows security wasn't compromised. If he knows there was nothing sensitive on the server, then he knows security wasn't compromised.

But there were sensitive emails on the server, and the president doesn't know if it was hacked. So how can he possibly know that security was not compromised? You provide no possible way that he could.

There are other ways to detect a compromise, aside from forensics of the compromised host itself.

Yes, there are sometimes other ways of proving that a server was compromised. But how do you prove it wasn't compromised? That's a harder task. And the FBI has stated explicitly that they would not expect to be able to detect an intrusion, had one occurred.

Law enforcement could review these "top secret" emails for content, and then see if there were any actual security incidents related to the content.

Did Obama do that? No, he did not.

Additionally, the FBI would certainly be able to determine if any of Clintons email had been identified in any of the foreign assets the FBI/CIA spies on.

Again, the problem is proving that it didn't happen. If the Russians or Chinese or Iranians got Hillary's email, it's possible the CIA might find out, but it's also possible that they would never know.

But then again, I'm not making a claim - the president made the claim that national security wasn't harmed. You are claiming there's no way for him to know that. And clearly there are ways for him to know.

No. You have provided possible means by which he could know national security WAS harmed. You have provided no means by which he could know national security was NOT harmed. Simple logic fail here.

 

[Ziggurat]

But you know?

I said nobody knows. Pay attention.

 

[Meadmaker]

Did Obama do that? No, he did not.

Umm....how would you know that? If he did do that, it would be classified.

 

[Dog Town]

Umm....how would you know that? If he did do that, it would be classified.

Maybe it was in HRC's e-mail?

 

[Ziggurat]

Umm....how would you know that?

Because he didn't even get briefings on the investigation. He was talking out his ass, like he always does.

If he did do that, it would be classified.

If it was so classified, then why would he announce the results publicly? You're getting desperate.

 

[Fudbucker]

"We"? I wasn't. By whom were you assured? And why did you believe those assurances? I never considered him above reproach. He's a black box, as far as I'm concerned, and always has been.



Yes, there's zero evidence he was influenced by outside pressure. And there's zero evidence that he was not influenced by outside pressure.

All we know for sure is that outside pressure was applied. And the people who applied that pressure will suffer no consequences for having done so. What incentive structure does that create? You have no answer for that, do you?



There is nothing unexplained about the pressure in question, and your ignoring the details doesn't make it so.



I remember rumors of that. But it was nothing more than rumors, I never believed them, so I don't know why you think that's relevant to me. Have you confused me with someone else?



Comey was supposed to come up with a recommendation. Are you suggesting that Lynch would even consider prosecuting Hillary given Comey's recommendation?



Yes, really.

RE: Bolded.

Definitely not zero evidence. The fix-is-in-theory only works if Comey is some corrupt politician. The evidence is the opposite: everyone who's worked with him gives high praise, from both parties. He's not even a Democrat.

I take Comey at his word: this was not a good case. The Clintons, as they masterfully do, go right up to the edge of criminality, and somehow know just where to stop before immoral becomes illegal.

 

[Ziggurat]

RE: Bolded.

Definitely not zero evidence. The fix-is-in-theory only works if Comey is some corrupt politician. The evidence is the opposite: everyone who's worked with him gives high praise, from both parties. He's not even a Democrat.

I take Comey at his word: this was not a good case. The Clintons, as they masterfully do, go right up to the edge of criminality, and somehow know just where to stop before immoral becomes illegal.

According to Comey, Hillary DID break the law. He laid out the details of the violation quite clearly. He claims that it's not worth prosecuting (and it's true that not all crimes are), but he absolutely stated that Hillary didn't stop at immoral but not illegal. She stepped over that line, there's really no arguing otherwise.

Furthermore, as I've already pointed out, it's not just about Hillary. Actions such as Lynch's meeting with Bill are setting a precedent that will lead to future attempts to influence prosecutors, and even if Comey was unswayed, that will not always be the case. This is a very, very bad thing for our democracy and the rule of law.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Looking back over your posts Zig, it's clear that the assumptions you make take on absolute truth despite the fact all you have as evidence are your assumptions.

Any counter arguments are dismissed as, there being no way to know.

 

[Tony Stark]

According to Comey, Hillary DID break the law. He laid out the details of the violation quite clearly. He claims that it's not worth prosecuting (and it's true that not all crimes are), but he absolutely stated that Hillary didn't stop at immoral but not illegal. She stepped over that line, there's really no arguing otherwise.

Furthermore, as I've already pointed out, it's not just about Hillary. Actions such as Lynch's meeting with Bill are setting a precedent that will lead to future attempts to influence prosecutors, and even if Comey was unswayed, that will not always be the case. This is a very, very bad thing for our democracy and the rule of law.

Stop lying.

 

[Fudbucker]

According to Comey, Hillary DID break the law. He laid out the details of the violation quite clearly. He claims that it's not worth prosecuting (and it's true that not all crimes are), but he absolutely stated that Hillary didn't stop at immoral but not illegal. She stepped over that line, there's really no arguing otherwise.

But not to the point where a prosecution would be warranted. Saying she broke the law at that point is like saying she went 30 in a 25 m.p.h. zone. Yeah, she did, and is technically a law-breaker, but if this Republican FBI director everyone likes so much won't recommend charges, is what she did worth freaking out over, or was it just really really stupid? Hillary is smart, but smart people still do dumb things without criminal intent and I think this was one of them. It's the difference between careless recklessness and gross negligence. I think you could slide maybe a sheet of paper in between the two phrases. I think Comey was very close to recommending charges, and it just didn't rise to what he thought was worth prosecuting (i.e., something major).

Furthermore, as I've already pointed out, it's not just about Hillary. Actions such as Lynch's meeting with Bill are setting a precedent that will lead to future attempts to influence prosecutors, and even if Comey was unswayed, that will not always be the case. This is a very, very bad thing for our democracy and the rule of law.

The optics are bad. But do you really think Bill and Loretta were trying to work a deal to spare Hillary? I find that very implausible. I think that, despite terrible optics, the Dept. of Justice, through the FBI, did it's job and wasn't pressured (or if there was pressure, didn't submit to it).

 

[Meadmaker]

Because he didn't even get briefings on the investigation. He was talking out his ass, like he always does.



If it was so classified, then why would he announce the results publicly? You're getting desperate.

I think you must have forgotten what you initially claimed he didn't do.

 

[Ziggurat]

But not to the point where a prosecution would be warranted.

That's a subjective call which plenty of people don't agree with.

Saying she broke the law at that point is like saying she went 30 in a 25 m.p.h. zone.

No, it is not. Hillary committed a crime. Going 30 in a 25 zone is not a crime, it's an infraction.

but if this Republican FBI director everyone likes so much won't recommend charges

I'm not sure why you think him being Republican makes everything OK, nor is being liked by the DC crowd something that impresses me.

is what she did worth freaking out over, or was it just really really stupid?

It's stupid enough that she should never set foot in the oval office.

Hillary is smart, but smart people still do dumb things without criminal intent

Criminal intent isn't relevant to the law here, and with good reason.

It's the difference between careless recklessness and gross negligence.

No, criminal intent is NOT the difference between careless rechlessness and gross negligence.

The optics are bad.

The reality is bad.

But do you really think Bill and Loretta were trying to work a deal to spare Hillary? I find that very implausible.

They didn't have to. The existence of the meeting under these conditions sends a message, regardless of what they talked about. That was the whole point. Do you honestly think that Bill and Lynch are really that into each others' grandchildren that they just had to meet like this to talk about them? That there was honestly no ulterior motive at all?

 

[Tony Stark]

The career agents and prosecutors that investigated the case unanimously recommended that no charges be pursued.

I guess that means they are all corrupt stooges in Hillary's pocket.

LOL

Republicans are so pathetic. I hope they stay furious about this for the rest of their lives.

 

[Fudbucker]

That's a subjective call which plenty of people don't agree with.



No, it is not. Hillary committed a crime. Going 30 in a 25 zone is not a crime, it's an infraction.



I'm not sure why you think him being Republican makes everything OK, nor is being liked by the DC crowd something that impresses me.



It's stupid enough that she should never set foot in the oval office.



Criminal intent isn't relevant to the law here, and with good reason.



No, criminal intent is NOT the difference between careless rechlessness and gross negligence.



The reality is bad.



They didn't have to. The existence of the meeting under these conditions sends a message, regardless of what they talked about. That was the whole point. Do you honestly think that Bill and Lynch are really that into each others' grandchildren that they just had to meet like this to talk about them? That there was honestly no ulterior motive at all?

I don't see conspiracies behind every action. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Call me naive, but I think the meeting between Lynch and Clinton was innocent. I can see Bill Clinton maybe trying to steer the conversation towards Hillary, but Loretta Lynch going along with that? I don't think she's that corrupt. It's a subjective judgement. You think she is, I don't.

ETA: and if you don't like the comparison with getting caught speeding, let's compare what Clinton did to a misdemeanor crime. Yes, crime occurred, but it wasn't serious. Would I not vote for Hillary if she had a misdemeanor on her record? I don't know. It didn't bother me terribly that George W. Bush had a DUI conviction, which was similar evidence of stupid (criminal) behavior. Plenty of non-stupid people have gotten DUI's too. It's not disqualifying.

But against Trump, I would vote for the sane candidate who may have done minor criminal things. That's still much better than letting Trump be President.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't see conspiracies behind every action. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Call me naive, but I think the meeting between Lynch and Clinton was innocent. I can see Bill Clinton maybe trying to steer the conversation towards Hillary, but Loretta Lynch going along with that? I don't think she's that corrupt. It's a subjective judgement. You think she is, I don't.

Again, nothing here requires that they talked about Hillary or the case. The purpose would have been accomplished even if they just chatted about their grandchildren as claimed. And Lynch IS corrupt. Had she not been, she would have refused the meeting. It was obviously the wrong thing to do, and Lynch is not so stupid that she wouldn't understand that. She knew, and did it anyways.

 

[Ziggurat]

The career agents and prosecutors that investigated the case unanimously recommended that no charges be pursued.

Well, duh. They've got careers to protect. They know which way the wind blows.

Republicans are so pathetic. I hope they stay furious about this for the rest of their lives.

... said one of the angriest members of the forum.

 

[Tony Stark]

Again, nothing here requires that they talked about Hillary or the case. The purpose would have been accomplished even if they just chatted about their grandchildren as claimed. And Lynch IS corrupt. Had she not been, she would have refused the meeting. It was obviously the wrong thing to do, and Lynch is not so stupid that she wouldn't understand that. She knew, and did it anyways.

Blah blah blah corrupt blah blah.

You really do sound like the orange racist conman you are going to vote for while at the same time laughably pretending that you care about corruption.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't see conspiracies behind every action. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Call me naive, but I think the meeting between Lynch and Clinton was innocent. I can see Bill Clinton maybe trying to steer the conversation towards Hillary, but Loretta Lynch going along with that? I don't think she's that corrupt. It's a subjective judgement. You think she is, I don't.

My opinion is that even if she were, it wouldn't matter.

I believe that most of the people who work for the FBI are honest, conscientious, and competent. I'm sure there are exceptions, but most of them would not lie or go easy on a politician.

In order to believe that the non-indictment of Hillary Clinton was unwarranted, you have to assert the existence of a conspiracy. Like all conspiracy theories, it falls apart when you realize just how many people have to be in on the conspiracy to make it work. Sure, you could get the FBI director to cut you a favor, but his whole staff? It's crazy.

Hillary was not indicted because a lot of highly paid professionals who took their jobs very seriously evaluated the evidence, and determined that Hillary Clinton did nothing for which she ought to be prosecuted.

And of course the same the same conspirators who chose not to indict her also chose to issue a report that was incredibly critical of her, and painted her in a very bad light. For a person who wants to be seen as smart, prepared, and experienced, "extremely careless" is probably the worst thing you could say about her. In the fine tradition of conspiracy theorists everywhere, this will become part of the conspiracy theory. They issued a critical report as cover.

 

[Fudbucker]

My opinion is that even if she were, it wouldn't matter.

I believe that most of the people who work for the FBI are honest, conscientious, and competent. I'm sure there are exceptions, but most of them would not lie or go easy on a politician.

In order to believe that the non-indictment of Hillary Clinton was unwarranted, you have to assert the existence of a conspiracy. Like all conspiracy theories, it falls apart when you realize just how many people have to be in on the conspiracy to make it work. Sure, you could get the FBI director to cut you a favor, but his whole staff? It's crazy.

Hillary was not indicted because a lot of highly paid professionals who took their jobs very seriously evaluated the evidence, and determined that Hillary Clinton did nothing for which she ought to be prosecuted.

And of course the same the same conspirators who chose not to indict her also chose to issue a report that was incredibly critical of her, and painted her in a very bad light. For a person who wants to be seen as smart, prepared, and experienced, "extremely careless" is probably the worst thing you could say about her. In the fine tradition of conspiracy theorists everywhere, this will become part of the conspiracy theory. They issued a critical report as cover.

This ^^, exactly, esp. bolded.

 

[Tony Stark]

Well, duh. They've got careers to protect. They know which way the wind blows.



... said one of the angriest members of the forum.

I'm glad that Republicans are stupid enough to follow their "leader" Donald Trump and go with conspiracy theories about how the FBI is corrupt and in Hillary's pocket.

Seriously, if I was pretending to be a Republican and wanted to make them look bad, that's what I would do.

Stay mad about this forever. LOL