Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[plague311]

I'm not sure if I understand this correctly, but the whole "retroactively classifying" emails seems to go like this:

Some of Hillary's emails contained sensitive information that was classified at the time, but she didn't actually "mark" the emails themselves as classified, therefore, the emails are retroactively considered classified, though the information in them always was.

It's not like they're rubber stamping these as classified now and claiming, "See! It's classified It says so right there!", as some people seem to be claiming.

The thread is about Hillary Clinton and this email scandal. Perhaps there are other threads that discuss possible alternatives.

I'm going to go ahead and say that your understanding is a bit off. The information may have been sensitive at the time, but it was not considered classified. None of the emails she received were classified at the time, or so it has been said.

If I understand it correctly, it appears they are speaking about the information that was released to the public that should have been classified but wasn't.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm going to go ahead and say that your understanding is a bit off. The information may have been sensitive at the time, but it was not considered classified. None of the emails she received were classified at the time, or so it has been said.

If I understand it correctly, it appears they are speaking about the information that was released to the public that should have been classified but wasn't.

wrong, I have explained it half a dozen times.

at least four emails in question "were classified when they were sent and are classified now,"

 

[plague311]

wrong, I have explained it half a dozen times.

at least four emails in question "were classified when they were sent and are classified now,"

You explaining things doesn't mean you're doing it factually. I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but you haven't PROVEN anything. You've said things, congrats. If it's one thing I know, it's that people say things. Those that are wrong, generally say more.

 

[Mike!]

You explaining things doesn't mean you're doing it factually. I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but you haven't PROVEN anything. You've said things, congrats. If it's one thing I know, it's that people say things. Those that are wrong, generally say more.

He is quoting one of the IG's when he says that. Does that count for anything?

 

[Garrison]

So read the thread...

Checked the list of Republican presidential hopefuls...

Yeah Hilary Clinton is still a better choice.

 

[Leftus]

I'm not sure if I understand this correctly, but the whole "retroactively classifying" emails seems to go like this:

Some of Hillary's emails contained sensitive information that was classified at the time, but she didn't actually "mark" the emails themselves as classified, therefore, the emails are retroactively considered classified, though the information in them always was.

It's not like they're rubber stamping these as classified now and claiming, "See! It's classified It says so right there!", as some people seem to be claiming.

The thread is about Hillary Clinton and this email scandal. Perhaps there are other threads that discuss possible alternatives.

It's more likely the case that the system that handles the classification for emails only exists on the .gov servers. I hope it's more than selecting the "confidential" as the email option.

It strains credulity to think any head on an agency would manage to avoid receiving any confidential data by email over 6 years.

It's also less than amusing that the State Department limited the access of their own inspector general.

 

[sunmaster14]

From the beginning, I've thought it likely that Hillary's Praetorian Guard could keep a lid on this scandal, but I think she's teetering on a knife's edge right now. The latest news posted by 16.5 is literally a bombshell (using Joe Biden's literal definition of the word "literally"). I suspect that right now senior Democrats and Democratic donors are discussing whether Hillary is damaged goods. If they decide that she is, you will see Hillary's campaign go down faster than one of her husband's zaftig interns.

Hillary's foundation is incredibly weak. As with somebody like Kim Kardashian, who was famous just for being famous, Hillary was a lock for the Democratic nomination because she was considered a lock for the Democratic nomination. This latest revelation is literally blood in the water (hat tip to Joe Biden again) for any Democratic sharks with Presidential ambitions (speaking of which, "Hey Joe, where you goin' with that gun in your hand?").

Anyhoo, here's a damaging Politico article on the latest bit:

“None of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings, but some included [Intelligence Community]-derived classified information and should have been handled and transmitted via a secure network,” Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III said in a letter to congressional committee leaders Thursday.

McCullough said a limited sample of just 40 emails “revealed four contained classified IC information that should have been marked and handled at the SECRET level” — the middle of three broad tiers of classification. The claim became public as McCullough disclosed to Congress that he had advised the FBI of a potential “compromise” of classified information in the Clinton email episode —a referral that could lead to a criminal investigation.

It is interesting, though, how State is still trying to play defense for Hillary. Note how State tries to contradict the Intelligence Community's IG office:

McCullough spokeswoman Andrea Williams said Friday that was, in fact, not the case. “To be clear – the four emails mentioned…were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” she said.

However, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Friday his agency remained unconvinced that any of Clinton’s emails should have been considered classified when they were sent. “To our knowledge, none of them needed to be classified at the time,” Toner told reporters at a daily briefing.

Of course, if you read Mr. Toner's statement carefully, you see that there is considerable room in there for State to back off of its defense of Hillary and leave her hanging out to dry.

I suspect that Hillary's fate is completely in the hands of Obama and/or Kerry right now. It will be interesting to see if they sacrifice some political capital for her, or instead decide to offer the Democratic party sloppy seconds with Sloppy Joe.

 

[DavidJames]

Another minding trick. If you read the post carefully you'll see there is considerable room to avoid admitted he was wrong by blaming others for her lack of charges, should none be forthcoming

 

[The Big Dog]

You explaining things doesn't mean you're doing it factually. I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but you haven't PROVEN anything. You've said things, congrats. If it's one thing I know, it's that people say things. Those that are wrong, generally say more.

That is a direct quote from the intelligence agencies Inspector General's spokesperson.

So that just happened.

 

[plague311]

That is a direct quote from the intelligence agencies Inspector General's spokesperson.

So that just happened.

What else is a quote from someone that knows what the hell they're talking about? Here's a hint, it's in sunmasters post. Though, he loves to ignore stuff like that. I'll give you a few minutes to figure it out since you like to play games with everyone else.

Ah, who am I kidding? Anyone that reads this thread knows that as soon as you're faced with something you don't like you just ignore it, and post a bunch of word salad, garbage to bury it until no one remembers. So here, I'll leave this here:

“None of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings"

So, dur hur hur, that just happened.

He is quoting one of the IG's when he says that. Does that count for anything?

No, it really doesn't, since it appears that there are contradictions in what they say. Thoughts?

 

[Reheat]

No, it really doesn't, since it appears that there are contradictions in what they say. Thoughts?

I think the essence of what is happening is this... The IG has read the emails and obviously knows what is and is not classified or what SHOULD BE classified. Obviously, since she sent them over the cowboy server they could not be marked classified as only a computer over a secure network is capable of doing that with emails. Before computers, the printed material was rubber stamped at the classification level and even after computers papers were printed and then stamped with the classification level. Email on a secure system is capable of doing that on the electronic transmission.

So, it's a semantic argument and you can bet your sweet bitty the Administration is going to protect her to the maximum extent possible and she's technically not lying when she says she didn't send any classified material over her cowboy server.

For those arguing that's it's up to her to classify or not... THAT IS TOTAL BS! There are written guidelines that everyone who handles sensitive information is obligated to follow regardless of their position. The guideline honest people follow is "if in doubt, classify it".

It is the equivalent of "I didn't have sex with that woman." It is dishonest, it is wrong, and she should be prosecuted for it, but that likely won't happen if the Administration can prevent it...

ETA: It is obvious to anyone viewing this objectively that she was playing "fast and loose" with National Security issues and EVERYONE regardless of political persuasion should be disturbed about that. The Intel IG is not a neophyte and I'm certain he/she knows what they are talking about...

 

[wareyin]

I think the essence of what is happening is this... The IG has read the emails and obviously knows what is and is not classified or what SHOULD BE classified. Obviously, since she sent them over the cowboy server they could not be marked classified as only a computer over a secure network is capable of doing that with emails. Before computers, the printed material was rubber stamped at the classification level and even after computers papers were printed and then stamped with the classification level. Email on a secure system is capable of doing that on the electronic transmission.

So, it's a semantic argument and you can bet your sweet bitty the Administration is going to protect her to the maximum extent possible and she's technically not lying when she says she didn't send any classified material over her cowboy server.

For those arguing that's it's up to her to classify or not... THAT IS TOTAL BS! There are written guidelines that everyone who handles sensitive information is obligated to follow regardless of their position. The guideline honest people follow is "if in doubt, classify it".

It is the equivalent of "I didn't have sex with that woman." It is dishonest, it is wrong, and she should be prosecuted for it, but that likely won't happen if the Administration can prevent it...

ETA: It is obvious to anyone viewing this objectively that she was playing "fast and loose" with National Security issues and EVERYONE regardless of political persuasion should be disturbed about that. The Intel IG is not a neophyte and I'm certain he/she knows what they are talking about...

Regarding the hilight, from sunmaster14's link:
“Classification decisions are matters of judgment, not calculation,” said Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists. “It is entirely possible for two senior officials to disagree about the need for classifying a particular item of information.”

 

[wareyin]

And it was mishandled by State, not by HRC.

Ummm, they were Hillary's emails that Hillary sent while she was in charge of State.

C'mon...

Also from sunmaster14's link, my bolding:
"McCullough said in the letter that he found that one of State’s public releases of emails in recent months under the Freedom of Information Act resulted in disclosure of classified information."

and

"McCullough’s letter does not allege specifically that Clinton sent classified information from her private account."

So, not mishandled by HRC but by the State Dept's recent release, and also no claims by the IG that Clinton sent classified info.

 

[Reheat]

Also from sunmaster14's link, my bolding:
"McCullough said in the letter that he found that one of State’s public releases of emails in recent months under the Freedom of Information Act resulted in disclosure of classified information."

and

"McCullough’s letter does not allege specifically that Clinton sent classified information from her private account."

So, not mishandled by HRC but by the State Dept's recent release, and also no claims by the IG that Clinton sent classified info.

You couldn't be more WRONG! So the State Department's release of one or more of Hillery's email STORED ON HER PRIVATE SERVER was a felony committed by someone at the State Department, not Hillary. Yea, sure.

"McCullough’s letter does not allege specifically that Clinton sent classified information from her private account. While it is possible she only received it, the inspector general said the State Department believes “there are potentially hundreds of classified emails within the approximately 30,000 provided by former Secretary Clinton.”

So, I guess the distinction you're making here is the word SEND, not received and stored. Apparently you don't quite understand it makes no difference. She still committed a felony. And you and others here want her to be POTUS.

Again, this is the equivalent of "I didn't have sex with that woman".

Pathetic

 

[The Big Dog]

You couldn't be more WRONG! So the State Department's released one or more of Hillery's email STORED ON HER PRIVATE SERVER was a felony committed by someone at the State Department, not Hillery. Yea, sure.

So, I guess the distinction you're making here is the word SEND, not received and stored. Apparently you don't quite understand it makes no difference. She still committed a felony. And you and others here want her to be POTUS.

Pathetic

The stunning part is that the Hillary defenders don"t appear to realize that the data was deemed classified from an intelligence agency when it was sent to State and it was State that sent the data to Hillary's private server without the appropriate designations. That is Hillary's incompetence.

"Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, said "there was a disagreement between various agencies" as to whether the four emails in question should have been classified when they were sent."

Another lie. there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a disagreement that the data was classified. More importantly, even IF there was a disagreement, under no possible circumstances should Hillary and the State Department have unilaterally decided it was not classified and sent it to Hillary's private server!

This is a blatant admission that Hillary lied when she said that she did not send or receive classified data from her private server.

 

[wareyin]

You couldn't be more WRONG! So the State Department's release of one or more of Hillery's email STORED ON HER PRIVATE SERVER was a felony committed by someone at the State Department, not Hillary. Yea, sure.



So, I guess the distinction you're making here is the word SEND, not received and stored. Apparently you don't quite understand it makes no difference. She still committed a felony. And you and others here want her to be POTUS.

Again, this is the equivalent of "I didn't have sex with that woman".

Pathetic

You may want to reread the article. You and 16.5 seem to have missed the bolded part of what I quoted.

 

[The Big Dog]

You may want to reread the article. You and 16.5 seem to have missed the bolded part of what I quoted.

That is because you have repeatedly failed to realize that the IG's are complaining about TWO major problems.

1. RELEASING classified information as part of the FOIA process and

2. Improper distribution of classified information that was deemed classified at the time it was sent and then was improperly distributed to Hillary through her private server.

Here is how you tell the difference: category 2 documents have not been released under FOIA.

This has been explained repeatedly.

 

[NoahFence]

You may want to reread the article. You and 16.5 seem to have missed the bolded part of what I quoted.

They don't miss it - they dismiss it.

 

[wareyin]

That is because you have repeatedly failed to realize that the IG's are complaining about TWO major problems.

1. RELEASING classified information as part of the FOIA process and

2. Improper distribution of classified information that was deemed classified at the time it was sent and then was improperly distributed to Hillary through her private server.

Here is how you tell the difference: category 2 documents have not been released under FOIA.

This has been explained repeatedly.

I am glad to see that you have changed your prior stance from

Um, you are completely wrong that the request for a criminal investigation involves handling of documents after June 30. That claim is utterly ludicrous...

You now seem to understand that the release of classified information happened on June 30, and was not done by Clinton. I am doubly glad.

It now appears that your sole peg to hang this conspiracy theory on is that someone sent some information (over which there was a disagreement of classification) to Clinton. Yowza, alert the presses, the Secretary of State was sent information that may or may not have been classified.

 

[The Big Dog]

You now seem to understand that the release of classified information happened on June 30, and was not done by Clinton. I am doubly glad.

It now appears that your sole peg to hang this conspiracy theory on is that someone sent some information (over which there was a disagreement of classification) to Clinton. Yowza, alert the presses, the Secretary of State was sent information that may or may not have been classified.

It was classified, it was classified when it was sent by the intelligence agencies and received by State and sent to Hillary's cowboy server. The release of the classified information was made when it was sent to Hillary's server.

The only one claiming there was a dispute about it is Hillary, which shows she knew it was classified. I personally believe she is simply lying about any dispute, because she does not realize that actually makes her look worse!

Conspiracy theory? LOLZ! You think the IGs' referrals to the FBI is a conspiracy theory?