Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[Kestrel]

The Judicial Watch FOIA requst was a fishing expedition. The goal was to find a way to attack Clinton. The scope of the request was immense, every work related email sent or received by Cliinton during her service as SOS. Leaving no stone unturned in the search for mud to throw at Clinton.

We are left with vague claims the Clinton put our nations security at risk. When in fact none of the emails had information that was classified at the time. We have claims that her server was insecure, but no evidence that it had actually been hacked. What we really have is a right wing disgusted at the idea of this moderate and competent woman becoming our President.

They have succeeded at one of their goals. The election campaign so far this year has stayed away from discussions of policy and raised negative perceptions of Clinton. That is easier than attemting once more to sell trickle down and austerity economic policies to Americans who have been getting screwed by these same policies for years.

 

[sunmaster14]

The Judicial Watch FOIA requst was a fishing expedition. The goal was to find a way to attack Clinton. The scope of the request was immense, every work related email sent or received by Cliinton during her service as SOS. Leaving no stone unturned in the search for mud to throw at Clinton.

We are left with vague claims the Clinton put our nations security at risk. When in fact none of the emails had information that was classified at the time. We have claims that her server was insecure, but no evidence that it had actually been hacked. What we really have is a right wing disgusted at the idea of this moderate and competent woman becoming our President.

They have succeeded at one of their goals. The election campaign so far this year has stayed away from discussions of policy and raised negative perceptions of Clinton. That is easier than attemting once more to sell trickle down and austerity economic policies to Americans who have been getting screwed by these same policies for years.

That is utterly, embarrassingly false.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<>
That would leave me to believe, since he mentions the server by name, that it couldn't have been that bad. I'm not positive but I seem to remember she was using the TrendMicro suite. I'm open to being corrected though.

Good

http://arstechnica.com/information-...-by-spam-filters-so-state-it-turned-them-off/

That software was on the State dept systems

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That coin has two sides.

Comey clearly and deliberately avoided saying Clinton lied. Go listen to Gowdy try to twist Comey's findings that Clinton erred into Clinton lied in the post-decision Congressional hearing.

Clinton is correct that Comey exonerated her of criminal-level actions that he was assigned to investigate.

I have no doubt that Gowdy would love to prove Clinton purposefully lied, but the best he can do is the same old , accuse accuse accuse and hope the narrative sticks even though he knows full well no perjury conviction will ever be had in this case.

You want mistakes to be criminal. They weren't. You'd be wiser to go for what you can actually get, she made a significant mistake. But even that is seriously problematic. One, because the general electorate is tired of it. And two, because nothing happened and there's a good argument that particular mistake is run of the mill in many workplaces.

Comelys remarks exonerated clinton of nothing... all his remarks indicate is that reasonable doubt could not be established to prove she did something criminal. An indictment would thus fail on those grounds. That is the only reasonable interpretation of comely's remarks. To interpret beyond that notion further is to spin. He stays strictly to the legal interpretation of what was found...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That is utterly, embarrassingly false.

Why ?

Just add the words "properly marked" then it's exactly correct.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Comelys remarks exonerated clinton of nothing... all his remarks indicate is that reasonable doubt could not be established to prove she did something criminal. An indictment would thus fail on those grounds. That is the only reasonable interpretation of comely's remarks. To interpret beyond that notion further is to spin. He stays strictly to the legal interpretation of what was found...

Not an indictment. A trial. They could have indicted her if they wanted to. Could they have found a prosecutor at the DoJ to take the case? Probably not.

 

[sunmaster14]

Why ?

Just add the words "properly marked" then it's exactly correct.

It would also be correct if you changed the word "none" to "some." That doesn't make it anything other than false, though, absent the change.

In any case, pretty much everybody who has ever been granted a security clearance knows that lack of classified markings is not an excuse for mishandling classified information. As Comey said, Hillary should have known that some of the top secret material on her server was top secret, even though it wasn't marked as such.

 

[plague311]

Good

http://arstechnica.com/information-...-by-spam-filters-so-state-it-turned-them-off/

That software was on the State dept systems

Ah, buckets. I should have looked before the post. My fault.

I couldn't remember if they were speaking to them about shutting Hillary's off, or if it was referring to their system. As a follow up, and after looking even more, I still can't find any details on her server.

 

[DavidJames]

Comelys remarks exonerated clinton of nothing... all his remarks indicate is that reasonable doubt could not be established to prove she did something criminal. An indictment would thus fail on those grounds. That is the only reasonable interpretation of comely's remarks. To interpret beyond that notion further is to spin. He stays strictly to the legal interpretation of what was found...

of course, the only correct way to interpret is your way. Me, I'll stick with his actual words.

 

[Tony Stark]

Remember when 16.5 was promising that Obama would have to pardon Hillary to keep her out of prison?

LMAO.

Good times.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Comelys remarks exonerated clinton of nothing... all his remarks indicate is that reasonable doubt could not be established to prove she did something criminal. An indictment would thus fail on those grounds. That is the only reasonable interpretation of comely's remarks. To interpret beyond that notion further is to spin. He stays strictly to the legal interpretation of what was found...

You are conflating reasonable doubt that she lied vs erred with reasonable doubt that the offense rose to the level of criminal.

How do you figure doubt came into play in the mishandling of state secrets?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

of course, the only correct way to interpret is your way. Me, I'll stick with his actual words.

. His actual words indeed state that his basis was positioned on reasonable doubt in a legal context. Yet you continue to conflate what he says with the belief that i am pulling things out my backside. I dont know if you're doing this intentionally or simply refusing to go back and review his remarks but you're clearly not reading his actual words. Thats for certain.

This is from polifact:
Comey said there is "no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI" about her email practices. But Comey has specifically declined to comment on whether Clinton’s public remarks have been accurate.

I'll post the direct quote later today since obviously you havent seen it.

 

[DavidJames]

. His actual words indeed state that his basis was positioned on reasonable doubt in a legal context. Yet you continue to conflate what he says with the belief that i am pulling things out my backside. I dont know if you're doing this intentionally or simply refusing to go back and review his remarks but you're clearly not reading his actual words. Thats for certain.

This is from polifact:
Comey said there is "no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI" about her email practices. But Comey has specifically declined to comment on whether Clinton’s public remarks have been accurate.

I'll post the direct quote later today since obviously you havent seen it.

Sigh, I've seen it and watched his new conference and the subsequent hearing.

He never used the phrase "reasonable doubt. But I'm sure you can find it for me. While you're finding his words, find the ones he responded with when asked if she committed a crime.

Edit - I can't help but laugh at the bold part.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

. His actual words indeed state that his basis was positioned on reasonable doubt in a legal context. Yet you continue to conflate what he says with the belief that i am pulling things out my backside. I dont know if you're doing this intentionally or simply refusing to go back and review his remarks but you're clearly not reading his actual words. Thats for certain.

This is from polifact:
Comey said there is "no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI" about her email practices. But Comey has specifically declined to comment on whether Clinton’s public remarks have been accurate.

I'll post the direct quote later today since obviously you havent seen it.

I don't think I've seen what you are claiming to have seen, either.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

He never used the phrase "reasonable doubt. But I'm sure you can find it for me.

I did locate the remark, in fact. Ironically posted in this thread previously. The only part you're reading in the blue. The part that follows in red is where he clarifies

"Did Hillary Clinton break the law?" Chaffetz asked.

"In connection with her use of the email server? My judgment is that she did not," Comey said.

Chaffetz then asked whether it was that he was just not able to prosecute it or that Clinton broke the law.

"Well, I don't want to give an overly lawyerly answer," Comey said. "The question I always look at is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute, and my judgment here is there is not. "

The fact that he said that almost immediately following the remarks youre going by makes the rebuttals you levied against me even more ironic considering the ease of locating it. I'm OK with eating crow if i do indeed make a mistake however you criticized my remarks without following up on the information i referenced. Sorry but this is your error... not mine. Still think I'm pulling things out of thin air? Fine by me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

. His actual words indeed state that his basis was positioned on reasonable doubt in a legal context. Yet you continue to conflate what he says with the belief that i am pulling things out my backside. I dont know if you're doing this intentionally or simply refusing to go back and review his remarks but you're clearly not reading his actual words. Thats for certain.

This is from polifact:
Comey said there is "no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI" about her email practices. But Comey has specifically declined to comment on whether Clinton’s public remarks have been accurate.

I'll post the direct quote later today since obviously you havent seen it.

The reason he didn't say erred rather than lied was Gowdy's leading question did not ask it that way.

Gowdy: "So she lied."
Comey: "The statement was not correct."

If you expected Comey to say she was mistaken, then you should expect Gowdy not to ask leading questions.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The reason he didn't say erred rather than lied was Gowdy's leading question did not ask it that way.

Gowdy: "So she lied."
Comey: "The statement was not correct."

If you expected Comey to say she was mistaken, then you should expect Gowdy not to ask leading questions.

Go read my last response. I gave the direct quote regarding his judgement. Its posted and linked. There is no excuse anymore for people to presume i made assumptions about what he said

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I did locate the remark, in fact...

"The question I always look at is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute, and my judgment here is there is not. "

Again two sides of the coin. This wording is dragged out after more leading questions trying to get Comey to say she broke a law but he wasn't going to prosecute her. Comey was too smart for that BS.

One side of the coin, Comey was saying she probably broke the law but I can't prove it. Nothing in his answers says this. It takes some serious confirmation bias to cherry pick that meaning out of the exchange.

The other side of the coin, he's trying to satisfy the leading questions which are trying to put words in his mouth. Notice he purposefully uses the pronoun, "somebody"

is there evidence ... somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute

That's because nowhere in any of this has he said I just can't prove it. He said her actions did not break the law.

In connection with her use of the email server? My judgment is that she did not," Comey said.

My side of the coin, Gowdy and his crowd tried to lead Comey. Comey concluded Clinton did not commit a criminal act.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Go read my last response. I gave the direct quote regarding his judgement. Its posted and linked. There is no excuse anymore for people to presume i made assumptions about what he said

You are interpreting the words with significant confirmation bias. You are reading Comey's answers to positively affirm Gowdy's leading questions. Comey very clearly, carefully answered Comey's actual answers avoiding leading question traps.

 

[sunmaster14]

You are interpreting the words with significant confirmation bias. You are reading Comey's answers to positively affirm Gowdy's leading questions. Comey very clearly, carefully answered Comey's actual answers avoiding leading question traps.

It wasn't Gowdy. The rest of your argument is similarly rooted in ignorance.