Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reheat said:
Obviously, you are apparently unaware that is a crime, right there. Who was in charge of the State Department? Gomer Pyle?
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
Are you claiming that Clinton is at fault because someone sent her email? What a fascinating twist. Have you shared this information with the FBI, who seem to disagree with you?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am. If she disciplined or otherwise had someone charged, she would be shouting that from the rooftops just like you are doing in trying defend this incompetent and lying wench. The FBI isn't through yet, you know.

Reheat said:
Yet, she was/is condoning people who worked for her to commit breaches of National Security. Partisan witch hunt my ass.
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
Evidence that she condoned committing breaches of National Security?
Click to expand...

The very fact that she hasn't commented on it is all the evidence that any sensible person needs. All she's done is comment on her personal actions and even those comments appear to be false based on the IG's findings. She's hoping that everyone is stupid and so far she's right at least among her ardent supporters.

Reheat said:
Also, who are these experts who are estimating that no harm was done to National Security?
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
Did you read the linked article?
Click to expand...

Yes, I did. Apparently, you didn't as the so called "specialists" are unnamed.
 
Last edited:
Hillary says today (voice quote, it's her voice) "I did not send or receive materials marked classified".

True or false?
 
 
logger said:
Has anyone here said they hate anyone?
Click to expand...

No, and I didn't say they did. The relentless vitriol and accusations of crimes is hatred, in my opinion. Not the loyal opposition but a cabal.

This always comes up from the left, if you disagree with a person passionately, it somehow devolves into hate.
Click to expand...


See above. And you got us, we're all on a email mailing list to be sure we all say the same thing :rolleyes:

The Clintons have had a long political career of corruption...
Click to expand...


So why aren't they in jail? If any prosecutor thought they had a good case, they would become superstars if they got a conviction.
 
 
RandFan said:
True. At the time she sent and received them they were not classified.
Click to expand...

They were not marked classified. The wording has an extremely precise meaning which doesn't overlap with what you said.

I find it very likely that the current phrasing is entirely truthful.
 
Beeyon said:
They were not marked classified. The wording has an extremely precise meaning which doesn't overlap with what you said.

I find it very likely that the current phrasing is entirely truthful.
Click to expand...
I think you are not exactly up to speed on the entire affair. The documents were retroactively "marked", "designated", whatever and AIU, the term "marked" only means designated. If you have evidence that something can be "classified" but not marked "classified" (I'd be interested to see that.

FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System, And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton's Server Use

If you want to be up to date on the controversy then the problem for Clinton isn't whether she sent or recieved classified email. We know that is not true. The questions become, A.) once the documents were retroactively made (marked) classified after the fact, did Clinton keep them on her server contrary to policy and B.) did she do so knowingly?

To understand the current state of affairs you can read this article that makes the argument that while Clinton did not send or receive classified information she illegally allowed the emails to remain on her server and that it's not reasonable to assert that she did not know better.
 
More of the same. We already know one of the emails was signal intelligence from the NSA and one was based on Intel Satellite photography. Those are classified...PERIOD and anyone with a brain who is qualified to handle classified material should know that.

We can argue all day about whether they were marked with a classification level or not. I haven't seen them and neither has anyone else here. That is irrelevant and is being convoluted to indicate they were later classified by a simple rubber classification stamp or by a secure email system. The IG specifically stated they were classified when sent and they are classified now. That does not constitute retroactive classification as we are being lead to believe by Media Matters and the Clinton campaign. That is pure political claptrap and is being used to confuse the whole issue.

The statement that they originated on unclassified State Dept Servers is from Clinton's campaign. The statement regarding a turf war is pure BS as the type of information we've been told contained in these is without question classified.

I am really getting tired of arguing minutia and dealing with people on a Forum that doesn't matter anyway and who for the most part don't know what they're talking about.
 
Reheat said:
I am really getting tired of arguing minutia and dealing with people on a Forum that doesn't matter anyway and who for the most part don't know what they're talking about.
Click to expand...
I'm getting tired of your brow beating, arguing by assertions and assuming that YOU know what the hell you are talking about.

Those are classified...PERIOD and anyone with a brain who is qualified to handle classified material should know that.
Click to expand...
Appeal to some vague authority and appeal to ridicule. How about something not fallacious?
 
RandFan said:
The documents were retroactively "marked", "designated", whatever and AIU, the term "marked" only means designated. If you have evidence that something can be "classified" but not marked "classified" (I'd be interested to see that.
Click to expand...

Sure thing.

SF-312:
As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 13526, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security
Click to expand...
GSA.gov Standard Forms Database

So you see, information itself is what is "classified". Document markings merely indicate that a particular document contains classified information. Say you write a document which is related to national security. That document is already "classified" or otherwise solely by virtue of its contents. Think that sounds absurd? Take a look at this section of EO 13526:

Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information, Section 1.7(e):
Compilations of items of information that are individually unclassified may be classified if the compiled information reveals an additional association or relationship that: (1) meets the standards for classification under this order; and (2) is not otherwise revealed in the individual items of information.
Click to expand...

So a pile of completely unclassified documents can be classified by virtue of being piled together! How crazy is that? If you work in a classified area, you could inadvertently create and distribute a classified compilation through an entirely innocent email chain with an external colleague. And depending on the severity of the release, you could lose your job or be incarcerated.
 
Last edited:
Beeyon said:
Sure thing.

SF-312:

GSA.gov Standard Forms Database

So you see, information itself is what is "classified". Document markings merely indicate that a particular document contains classified information. Say you write a document which is related to national security. That document is already "classified" or otherwise solely by virtue of its contents. Think that sounds absurd? Take a look at this section of EO 13526:

Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information, Section 1.7(e):

So a pile of completely unclassified documents can be classified by virtue of being piled together! How crazy is that? If you work in a classified area, you could inadvertently create and distribute a classified compilation through an entirely innocent email chain with an external colleague. And depending on the severity of the release, you could lose your job or be incarcerated.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I will concede the point.
 
RandFan said:
I'm getting tired of your brow beating, arguing by assertions and assuming that YOU know what the hell you are talking about.
Click to expand...

I do know what I'm talking about whether you like it or not...

RandFan said:
Appeal to some vague authority and appeal to ridicule. How about something not fallacious?
Click to expand...

I am not some vague authority. People who argue while not knowing the law deserve plenty of ridicule.

Evidence: Post # 2256
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Thank you. I will concede the point.
Click to expand...

No problem. :)

By the way, I went back and looked at the Reuters article you linked and it actually notes much of the same about EO13526. The author is right that they more or less burn this stuff into your brain when you get a clearance and work in that national security atmosphere. It was oppressive enough for me to get out as soon as I had the chance.

Edit:

That said, I still think anyone suggesting that "I did not send or receive materials marked classified" is false is probably unhinged. This is an easy to verify statement, and given the particular precision of the wording it's almost certainly true.
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
I do know what I'm talking about whether you like it or not...

I am not some vague authority. People who argue while not knowing the law deserve plenty of ridicule.

Evidence: Post # 2256
Click to expand...
Get off your high horse. It's transparent that you are just trying to brow beat and not have a discussion. And when someone is honest and does not simply disappear when shown wrong but steps up to the plate to admit it, usually it's good form to acknowledge it not use it as a means to appeal to ridicule in a fallacious manner (it's called ad hominem) Look it up.

The fact does not demonstrate that Clinton knowingly violated the law or even if she did if it is actionable given ALL of the evidence. Apparently not, as the referral was NOT CRIMINAL. FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton Herself

Are you willing to concede this point or is your ivory tower too tall to admit to facts?
 
Last edited:
Beeyon said:
No problem. :)

By the way, I went back and looked at the Reuters article you linked and it actually notes much of the same about EO13526. The author is right that they more or less burn this stuff into your brain when you get a clearance and work in that national security atmosphere. It was oppressive enough for me to get out as soon as I had the chance.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I try to read and provide information from both sides of an argument. Besides, I seriously do not like Clinton. If I thought she had done something particularly egregious I'd be perfectly happy to see her indicted and prosecuted.
 
Beeyon said:
That said, I still think anyone suggesting that "I did not send or receive materials marked classified" is false is probably unhinged. This is an easy to verify statement, and given the particular precision of the wording it's almost certainly true.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup: Hey, she had a great teacher for obfuscation. "It depends on what the meaning of "is", is."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom