Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[Tony Stark]

Clinton set up the cowboy server and made her staff use it. It is ludicrous to suggest that she is not responsible and reprehensible to suggest that her subordinates should take the fall for her

She made her staff send her classified info via emails? Source?

Oh, and it seems like nobody is taking the fall. And certainly Hillary has not suggested that anyone should take the fall for her.

How mad will you be when nothing comes of this after wasting over a year of your life obsessing over it?

 

[The Big Dog]

Emails in Clinton Probe Dealt With Planned Drone Strikes
Some vaguely worded messages from U.S. diplomats in Pakistan and Washington used a less-secure communications system

As noted above the ongoing criminal investigation deals with, in part, impending drone strikes in Pakistan.



The problem is, of course, while the original low side communication was vague, Hillary's crew's subsequent deliberations were not! Mills asks "you good with this" and a series of redacted communications ensues that were eventually sent to Hillary's cowboy server in the open.

Emails

Deliberations regarding impending Drone strikes, Guccifer must have enjoyed reading those.

/If you are having trouble accessing, look for it on google news.

Can you prove that she even read the emails or knew what they were about given that they were according to the liberal rag the WSJ, "vaguely worded messages [that] didn’t mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the militant targets."

And of course, it was hardly only State this type of thing happened at, "government workers at several agencies, including the departments of Defense, Justice and State, have occasionally resorted to the low-side system to give each other notice about sensitive but fast-moving events, according to one law-enforcement official."

But of course Hillary is the only one you guys care about. I wonder why. j/k, I know why.

You clearly did not read the thread or an example of the emails in question.

That is some next level blind devotion to a blatantly corrupt politician.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Is this the sort of argument that convinces you? Quoting the most biased source imaginable, repetition, and bolding?

If that was your takeaway, you should go back and read the entire post, in context.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The point is obvious: multiple hacking attempts (and those are just the ones we know about through the IG report) increase the odds that her server was compromised. Add to that you have a hacker who hacked Bush and Sidney Blumenthal claiming he got into Clinton's server, and it becomes ridiculous to claim "there's no evidence her server was hacked".

No, it's not, because .... those things are not evidence her server was hacked.

Let me paraphrase your argument:
The more you drive, the greater the odds are you will have a car accident.
You have friends who have been in car accidents.
Therefore, you have been in a car accident.

The evidence isn't rock-solid, but it wouldn't certainly be better for Clinton if there were NO admitted hacking attempts from her IT guy and NO claims by a notorious hacker.

I agree it would be better for her without those things.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Fox is claiming Clinton received (and forwarded) an email that was marked classified (confidential level). So far, Fox is the only one running this, but they have a link to the email. If it's accurate, the email contains information that was classified confidential at the time she received and sent it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/06/10/banda-email/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...claims-2012-email-had-classified-marking.html

Remember when Hillary said that none of the emails she received were marked as classified? Surprise, surprise, she lied about that too.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...claims-2012-email-had-classified-marking.html

The scandal isn't over, because Hillary cannot tell the truth.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/06/10/banda-email/
(C) Purpose of Call: To offer condolences on the passing of President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.

Holy ****, that could totally endanger national security !!

TBH, I didn't even know Malawi was a country.

There are no other markings, as there should be according to the manual Fox news linked.

Lying requires intent, it doesn't seem likely there was some intent to lie and try to cover up these so-called "markings" , or that any reasonable person would see that information should be "confidential".

Weak sauce, non-issue.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'd say she has reason to feel confident. Obama just said he wants her to be the next President, for one.

Obama said, regarding her server, there's confidential, then there's confidential. He's mocked it from the start.

Why worry, the President is in her corner. Either he knows something we don't (though he claims he does not know anything about the investigation), or he's even dumber than I thought. Obama has been known to back some real losers (criminals) in the past few years, so it isn't out of the question.

I don't think he's dumber than you thought (although I guess I don't actually know how dumb that you think he is).

 

[wareyin]

Weak sauce, non-issue.

That describes this whole email manufactroversy!

 

[Tony Stark]

You clearly did not read the thread or an example of the emails in question.

That is some next level blind devotion to a blatantly corrupt politician.

What was in the emails that we can see is very vague and you don't actually know what was redacted.

I would say that this is next level dishonesty on your part in order to smear a politician you have a fanatical obsession with and ironically say is dishonest. But really it is par for the course.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Looks like a new development:

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/fbi...ssassinations_with_her_cellphone_report_says/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863

Covered earlier.

To quote:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863

Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation, although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton this summer.

One reason is that government workers at several agencies, including the departments of Defense, Justice and State, have occasionally resorted to the low-side system to give each other notice about sensitive but fast-moving events, according to one law-enforcement official.

When Mrs. Clinton has been asked about the possibility of being criminally charged over the email issue, she has repeatedly said “that is not going to happen.’’

not going to happen.

not going to happen.

not going to happen.

...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Judicial Watch today released the deposition transcript of Karin Lang, director of executive secretariat staff and designated representative for the State Department. Lang was designated by the State Department as its 30(b)(6) witness. A 30(b)(6) witness is assigned to provide the agency’s testimony on the Clinton email issue.

Why did State Record keeping officials not know? This is because Hillary loathes transparency and thinks she is above the law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...d99194-2e93-11e6-b5db-e9bc84a2c8e4_story.html

In a deposition Wednesday, answers provided by Karin M. Lang seemed to corroborate several defenses raised by Clinton and her aides in the handling of the controversy while challenging other explanations given in a lawsuit by the conservative group Judicial Watch that examines whether Clinton’s email setup thwarted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Judicial Watch’s lawsuit concerns a 2013 request for public records information about Clinton aide Huma C. Abedin’s employment arrangement.

Lang, a career employee who in July 2015 became director of the executive secretariat staff, which is responsible for records management, said that while a unit responsible for FOIA requests was told Clinton had no government email account when she took office in January 2009, no one in the unit asked whether she used a personal account to conduct business before she stepped down in 2013.

“Prior to Secretary Kerry, no secretary of state used a state.gov email address,” said Lang, supporting an explanation given by aides to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee that her email setup at the State Department was not unusual.

Judicial Watch lawsuits going nowhere ... Clinton won't be testifying.

 

[The Big Dog]

What was in the emails that we can see is very vague and you don't actually know what was redacted.

Yes, Tony, I do because I read the article, I read the emails, I researched the codes referenced in the emails

 

[Tony Stark]

Yes, Tony, I do because I read the article, I read the emails, I researched the codes referenced in the emails

The unredacted portion of emails don't say jack and according to the article "the vaguely worded messages didn’t mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the militant targets, officials said."

You're making stuff up. It is pathetic.

 

[The Big Dog]

The unredacted portion of emails don't say jack and according to the article "the vaguely worded messages didn’t mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the militant targets, officials said."

You're making stuff up. It is pathetic.

lolz, 'k.

Say, at least you finally read the article (although not the emails, Oh well).

 

[The Big Dog]

State Delays release of TPP Docs/emails until after the election.

Of the many, many flip flops Corrupt Hillary has made throughout her career, her trade policies are most notable.

Understandably, people want to use FOIA to research them. In what is probably another "stall" State pushed back the response for this request:

All correspondence between the Office of the Secretary of State and the United States Trade Representative's Office that references the Trans Pacific Partnership, or "TPP." I request such correspondence from the dates 1/20/09 to 3/1/13.

From April to "November 31, 2016."

Coincidentally that day both does not exist and is after the election.

https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/clinton-ustr-20030/#comm-253356

“We must protect the Secretary’s and Under Secretary’s name" lolz so stall.

 

[Tony Stark]

lolz, 'k.

Say, at least you finally read the article (although not the emails, Oh well).

I read the article before I even saw that you posted it. I was going to come here and say how officials don't expect any indictments. When I saw that you posted the article, I quoted you and pointed out that you failed to mention that for some odd reason.

And I read the emails. There is very little there and it is amazing that you are pretending that they are anything other than extremely vague. Do you expect people to believe you?

 

[Ziggurat]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/06/10/banda-email/
(C) Purpose of Call: To offer condolences on the passing of President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.

Holy ****, that could totally endanger national security !!

Did you see what was on the next page?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Did you see what was on the next page?

It's almost like the non-redacted part is unimportant and the redacted part is...

 

[wareyin]

Did you see what was on the next page?

Is the redacted, blank part the one that Fox and Fudbucker (eta: and you) are claiming was marked classified? Because what I could read didn't have that marking.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is the redacted, blank part the one that Fox and Fudbucker (eta: and you) are claiming was marked classified? Because what I could read didn't have that marking.

This is the document:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...0/banda-email/

At the bottom of the first page we find the following:

(C) Purpose of Call: To offer condolences on the passing of President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.

That (C) marking indicates that what follows contains classified information. The first sentence following that remark is unredacted. Everything else following that mark is redacted. TheL8Elvis claimed that since the unredacted part did not contain sensitive information, any possible compromise of the email would have been irrelevant. There is no basis for this opinion, however. We do not know what was redacted, but the redacted information is part of what was marked as classified, and is sensitive enough that it is still not being released, so it might indeed have been significant if it had been compromised.

 

[The Big Dog]

Assange threatens to release new Clinton emails.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/ne...nton-Emails-Julian-Assange-20160613-0005.html

They previously released a seachable archive of her emails, but as far as I know, they were identical to the emails released by State. New previously unreleased emails would be big.