Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheL8Elvis said:
Thanks - since HRC was preparing a public statement containing that information, there is no way possible that information was expected to be held in confidence.
Click to expand...

How many facepalms can there be?

You have constantly and consistently misread the order so many times I can hardly believe it (for example you have bizarrely quoted a section from the part regarding EXCEPTIONS to automatic declassification on several occasions)

You are arguing from incredulity, the information was marked classified and the fact that you cannot fathom why the draft language from the British PM for a joint statement was classified is as laughable as it is desperate.

It doesn't matter, of course, it was "classified" and she knew it and Hillary got it on her unclassified email.

Tell Tony Blair that you object to it being classified because it makes Hillary look terrible.

He will care just as much as I do.
 
16.5 said:
How many facepalms can there be?

You have constantly and consistently misread the order so many times I can hardly believe it (for example you have bizarrely quoted a section from the part regarding EXCEPTIONS to automatic declassification on several occasions)
Click to expand...

I've quoted the exact sections you referenced.

16.5 said:
You are arguing from incredulity, the information was marked classified and the fact that you cannot fathom why the draft language from the British PM for a joint statement was classified is as laughable as it is desperate.
Click to expand...

And you are arguing as an internet lawyer from an opinion piece.

16.5 said:
It doesn't matter, of course, it was "classified" and she knew it and Hillary got it on her unclassified email.
Click to expand...

Then she will clearly be put in prison. I'll be waiting....
 
16.5 said:
How many facepalms can there be?

You have constantly and consistently misread the order so many times I can hardly believe it (for example you have bizarrely quoted a section from the part regarding EXCEPTIONS to automatic declassification on several occasions)

You are arguing from incredulity, the information was marked classified and the fact that you cannot fathom why the draft language from the British PM for a joint statement was classified is as laughable as it is desperate.

It doesn't matter, of course, it was "classified" and she knew it and Hillary got it on her unclassified email.

Tell Tony Blair that you object to it being classified because it makes Hillary look terrible.

He will care just as much as I do.
Click to expand...

It's just a draft, dude. The government doesn't care about keeping draft language from other governments a secret.

Except when, you know, they do.
 
davefoc said:
The presumed fact that Clinton received information that was classifiable on her machine does not seem to be a major problem for her. Like you suggest, she can make a reasonable argument that the fault lies with the people that sent her the information. Although I still think that setting up an email server for the SoS is problematic with regard to that because one would expect people to send the SoS sensitive information on her email server and as such Clinton should not have relied on a private server set up by unvetted people that wasn't specifically physically secured with unknown procedures for back up and protection of any physical media.

However, I think the main issue for Clinton here is that she received information that was obviously sensitive and possibly subject to being classified and she doesn't seem to have done anything about it. I hope that memos can be found where she makes it clear that people should not be using her email to send her sensitive information or evidence can be found that she reported the existence of sensitive material on her server. I suspect that neither of those things happened because that would constitute an affirmative defense of Clinton. What would be left of this scandal if that had been done would be some miscellaneous malfeasance that partisans would ignore and moderates might accept as the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

That's kind of where I am on this too. In fact, I think Clinton may have anticipated some of this, but figured that it was worth it in order to destroy those 30,000 "personal" emails we'll never get to see. There was probably some embarrassing stuff on there. I don't think she was passing secrets to Putin or selling out the country, but maybe there was something that might have contradicted her testimony about Benghazi, or something that makes her look really naive (Obama, I think you should "draw a red line in the sand" about Syria's chemical weapon use).

I think she thought this would be another non-scandal, and laughed and shrugged it off. Now she's admitted she screwed up. She should have done that from the start, but hindsight is 20-20.

If it turns out that nothing classified was sent or received on her server (at the time she sent or received it), she'll get past this, but her reputation has taken a serious hit. If the scandal has peaked, it won't make me not vote for her.
 
^
She could have been working the Clinton Crime Family Foundation. Negotiating and selling influence is secretive work.
 
logger said:
^
She could have been working the Clinton Crime Family Foundation. Negotiating and selling influence is secretive work.
Click to expand...

I haven't reached a point yet where I think Hillary would endanger the country for personal gain. The Clintons have always been shady, but Bill was a good president, and I don't think Hillary has it in her to sell us out for donations to her foundation.
 
Fudbucker said:
...

If it turns out that nothing classified was sent or received on her server (at the time she sent or received it), she'll get past this, but her reputation has taken a serious hit. If the scandal has peaked, it won't make me not vote for her.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you wrote including the part I quoted above.

I think scandal probably has plateaued. I assume there will be the steady drip drip of embarrassing emails and classified materials that didn't belong on her personal server. But the effect of the scandal on the electorate probably won't change from what it is now if the new revelations remain just more of the same.

The good news for Clinton is that she is still the favorite to win the primary and she still will probably beat every one of the possible Republican candidates.

The bad news for Clinton is that if this ramps up legally and she becomes a person of interest or even a suspect. One way that could happen is if they start investigating the guy who set the server up and what access he had to classified material and what precautions were taken with the backups and how many places the email data was transferred to.

Something like that will be very damaging to her campaign. And there remains the possibility that she has been wounded enough even without legal problems that she will lose a swing state that she otherwise would have won and this scandal is the reason she loses the election.

On the subject of embarrassing emails: Some of the emails released seemed entirely private to me. One has Lanny Watkins sucking up to Clinton for a job recommendation. Why in the world was that released? I don't think willy nilly release of people's private emails is remotely a good thing. Was this part of some game that Clinton was playing? Was this a screwup by the State Department? Clinton is now looking bad because stuff is going on that it seems she could have prevented.
 
wareyin said:
Don't you guys ever get tired of being wrong?
Click to expand...
I see you don't understand the difference between the "subject" of an investigation and a "target" of the investigation.

I gave an example earlier of the FBI saying former Illinois Governor George Ryan was not a "target" of the investigation, a while later he was charged, tried, convicted, and sent to prison as a result of that investigation.

You're reading things into the statement that simply isn't there.
 
WildCat said:
I see you don't understand the difference between the "subject" of an investigation and a "target" of the investigation.

I gave an example earlier of the FBI saying former Illinois Governor George Ryan was not a "target" of the investigation, a while later he was charged, tried, convicted, and sent to prison as a result of that investigation.

You're reading things into the statement that simply isn't there.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the linked article, did you? It appears to me that those who are hoping/claiming that Clinton is being investigated are reading things into the statement that simply aren't there. You guys can keep grasping at straws, if you like.
 
wareyin said:
You didn't read the linked article, did you? It appears to me that those who are hoping/claiming that Clinton is being investigated are reading things into the statement that simply aren't there. You guys can keep grasping at straws, if you like.
Click to expand...
What I've found is many Republicans/Conservatives in this forum consider their "logic and reason" supercedes actual experts and or those actually doing the jobs. It's pretty impressive, we have nuclear proliferation experts, constitutional scholars, hostage negotiation experts, climate scientists, etc.
 
One stunning thing about the emails is just how pervasive Sid Blumenthal's influence was.

Obama sent Rahm Emmanuel to tell Hillary that she could not hire him, so she just back doors Obama and Blumenthal becomes a roving ambassador without portfolio.

Screw you Obama.
 
plague311 said:
From your source:
Click to expand...
Government officials who have seen some of the correspondence say the conversations are generally benign.
Click to expand...

A longer quote from the same article:
The sensitivity of the redacted information in Clinton’s e-mails is not publicly known. Government officials who have seen some of the correspondence say the conversations are generally benign. Some discuss classified programs or topics that have become well-known through public reporting, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe classified information.

One e-mail Clinton wrote in October 2009 was addressed to former senator George J. Mitchell (D-Maine), who was a special envoy for peace in the Middle East. The entire message, as released by the State Department, is blacked out and tagged with a designation noting that the information was classified. The only part now public is Clinton’s opening: “George . . . .”


Another note went from Clinton to Melanne Verveer, who was ambassador for global women’s issues, on Dec. 9, 2010. It was entirely withheld from release. The subject line reads, “Re: latest . . .,” with the rest redacted, making it impossible to discern the topic of the exchange.
Click to expand...

My main point was that I was wrong when I said the scandal had plateaued. No matter how you read this, this constitutes a significant but small bump upwards in the scandal.

Legally, what is alleged here is probably about the same crime whether Clinton used her private server or a government account. But, as a practical matter, it makes the use of her private server seem particularly ill conceived.

On a different subject, do emails from Sid Blumenthal constitute material required to be archived? When a friend sends the SoS his opinion on something is that material required to be archived? And even if one judges that it should be archived, that does not necessarily mean that it should be made public immediately. I am a bit troubled about what has gone on here. Can a SoS expect to get candid opinions if people realize that their emails are going to be made public within a few years of the time they are sent. What drove Clinton to ask that all these emails be released to the public? Was it fear that the Republicans would leak them anyway and she calculated that she would be better off if she was the one making them public?
 
plague311 said:
From your source:
Click to expand...

Additionally:

But it also highlights concerns raised by Clinton and her supporters that identifying classified material can be a confusing process, and well-meaning public officials reviewing the same material could come to different conclusions as to its classification level.

And, for the hundredth time ... this exact same issue would exist whether she used her private email server, hillary@hotmail.com, or clintonh@state.gov

What this issue should really be about is the arcane and backwards policies and processes surrounding classification in the US Govt., not where someone was getting their email.
 
davefoc said:
On a different subject, do emails from Sid Blumenthal constitute material required to be archived? When a friend sends the SoS his opinion on something is that material required to be archived? And even if one judges that it should be archived, that does not necessarily mean that it should be made public immediately. I am a bit troubled about what has gone on here. Can a SoS expect to get candid opinions if people realize that their emails are going to be made public within a few years of the time they are sent.
Click to expand...

She shouldn't have been seeking his opinion about this stuff to begin with.

What drove Clinton to ask that all these emails be released to the public? Was it fear that the Republicans would leak them anyway and she calculated that she would be better off if she was the one making them public?
Click to expand...

Probably, though "leaked" is the wrong word, since a lot of this stuff would have been made public via FIOA requests, and not just from Republicans.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Additionally But it also highlights concerns raised by Clinton and her supporters that identifying classified material can be a confusing process, and well-meaning public officials reviewing the same material could come to different conclusions as to its classification level.
Click to expand...

Of course, her supporters are going to continue to attempt to confuse the issue to mitigate her culpability in mishandling classified information. No surprise at all.

TheL8Elvis said:
And, for the hundredth time ... this exact same issue would exist whether she used her private email server, hillary@hotmail.com, or clintonh@state.gov
Click to expand...

This seems to be important to you. Why? The punishment for violating the laws involved with handleing classified material would be the same. Perhaps a Govt. server would be more secure, but we don't know those details yet.

TheL8Elvis said:
What this issue should really be about is the arcane and backwards policies and processes surrounding classification in the US Govt., not where someone was getting their email.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? How much classified material have you handled and at what level? It's quite obvious to me that you don't know squat about the subject.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom