Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[wareyin]

I made no claim that high ranking officials did what they did to protect Clinton. They might have done what they did to stop her from whining and bitching at them. In fact, that's what I really think.

Well, that certainly changes your theory about a conspiracy among high ranking officials from a conspiracy theory to...a conspiracy theory still.

 

[The Big Dog]

But later in the day, the Justice Department and the inspectors general said that the request was not a “criminal referral” but rather a “security referral,” meant to alert the F.B.I. about a potential mishandling of classified information. It was not clear how the discrepancy arose.

Well I wasn't *********** quoting that now was I, I was quoting the actual quote from the IG's spokesperson, Andrea Williams who said:

a counterintelligence referral indicating there is a compromise of classified national security information in former Sec. Clinton's emails. The emails exist on a at least one private server and thumb drive and that was the counterintelligence information concern we referred to the FBI," said spokesman Andrea Williams in an email.

We clear now?

 

[wareyin]

Well I wasn't *********** quoting that now was I, I was quoting the actual quote from the IG's spokesperson, Andrea Williams who said:

We clear now?

It is quite clear that you are adding certainty that the IGs are not. Read my edits to what you quoted, please.

 

[The Big Dog]

It is quite clear that you are adding certainty that the IGs are not. Read my edits to what you quoted, please.

It is quite clear I am directly quoting the IG's spokesperson Andrea Miller and your accusations against me completely false:

there is a compromise of classified national security information in former Sec. Clinton's emails.

Of course a Clinton fan seems to be quibbling about the meaning of the word "is" again. Gee, that sounds familiar....

 

[wareyin]

It is quite clear I am directly quoting the IG's spokesperson Andrea Miller and your accusations against me completely false:

there is a compromise of classified national security information in former Sec. Clinton's emails.

Of course a Clinton fan seems to be quibbling about the meaning of the word "is" again. Gee, that sounds familiar....

[emoji106][emoji106]

And I am quoting the IGs themselves. Yet again, who should I believe, 16.5 or the actual news articles?

 

[The Big Dog]

And I am quoting the IGs themselves. Yet again, who should I believe, 16.5 or the actual news articles?

The hilarious thing is that I am directly quoting Andrea Miller with a link to the exact quote I cited.

 

[wareyin]

The hilarious thing is that I am directly quoting Andrea Miller with a link to the exact quote I cited.

It is hilarious that one would think the spokesperson for the IGs is somehow more authoritative on what the IGs meant than the IGs themselves.

 

[The Big Dog]

Fixed that for you, with the highlighted. I'm sure you didn't mean to give the impression of fact, or certainty, with your unfortunately inaccurate statement. Pro-tip: When using quotation marks, it appears dishonest to drop key words or phrases from a sentence.

Your change was a blatant lie:

"The letter IC IG sent to FBI earlier this month was a counterintelligence referral indicating there is a compromise of classified national security information in former Sec. Clinton's emails. The emails exist on a at least one private server and thumb drive and that was the counterintelligence information concern we referred to the FBI," said spokesman Andrea Williams in an email.

Don't do that again, it is blatantly dishonest.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016...fied-info-in-hillary-clinton-s-email-20150724

It is hilarious that one would think the spokesperson for the IGs is somehow more authoritative on what the IGs meant than the IGs themselves.

Watch those goalposts move!

You know what Andrea Miller is authoritative on, Wareyn? What she said. So what started as a bald faced lie that from you that I has misquoted her is now a sad little fishing expedition where you desperate try and fail to find the word "potential."

protip: When using quotation marks, it appears dishonest to add key words or phrases from a sentence and then accuse another person of misquoting it.

 

[sunmaster14]

It is hilarious that one would think the spokesperson for the IGs is somehow more authoritative on what the IGs meant than the IGs themselves.

It is hilarious that you somehow think a written statement from the IG's official spokesperson (it was an email) is not more authoritative than a reporter's characterization of what the IG said, which wasn't even in quotation marks.

In any event, 16.5's quote had the word "indicating" in it. It would be unnecessarily redundant, superfluous, and repetitive to include the word "potential" as well.

 

[wareyin]

Here is your first post, in which you claim that the DoJ did not use the word potential:

In fact, the DoJ themselves called it a "criminal" referral when they were contacted by other media organizations, but soon thereafter began walking it back when Hillary's agents started screaming about it.

Now the DoJ calls it a "counterintelligence referral indicating there is a compromise of classified national security information in former Secretary Clinton's emails" and says that the FBI will make the determination whether it is criminal.

What a stunning Pyrrhic victory for "her partisans"!

And here is your obvious goalpost move to saying you meant Andrea Miller

Your change was a blatant lie:

"The letter IC IG sent to FBI earlier this month was a counterintelligence referral indicating there is a compromise of classified national security information in former Sec. Clinton's emails. The emails exist on a at least one private server and thumb drive and that was the counterintelligence information concern we referred to the FBI," said spokesman Andrea Williams in an email.

Don't do that again, it is blatantly dishonest.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016...fied-info-in-hillary-clinton-s-email-20150724

Watch those goalposts move!

You know what Andrea Miller is authoritative on, Wareyn? What she said. So what started as a bald faced lie that from you that I has misquoted her is now a sad little fishing expedition where you desperate try and fail to find the word "potential."

protip: When using quotation marks, it appears dishonest to add key words or phrases from a sentence and then accuse another person of misquoting it.

From your source, what the DoJ actually said:"The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral."

Now, when you claimed it was a statement by the DoJ, it appeared dishonest of you to have snipped the word "potential" from the quote. Changing it to a statement by the spokesperson for the IGs, which is not supported by the actual IG's words I have provided, does nothing to negate the appearance of dishonesty.

 

[wareyin]

It is hilarious that you somehow think a written statement from the IG's official spokesperson (it was an email) is not more authoritative than a reporter's characterization of what the IG said, which wasn't even in quotation marks.

In any event, 16.5's quote had the word "indicating" in it. It would be unnecessarily redundant, superfluous, and repetitive to include the word "potential" as well.

Reread the source I quoted. The IG's statements were in quotation marks.

 

[sunmaster14]

Neither the words "potential" nor "compromise" appear in that entire article.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Neither the words "potential" nor "compromise" appear in that entire article.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016...fied-info-in-hillary-clinton-s-email-20150724
A Justice Department official said Friday that "The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral." Earlier in the day, Justice referred to it as a "criminal referral" before revising the statement.

They appear in 16.5s article. In Quotes. He should have left it in. Agreed ?

 

[The Big Dog]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016...fied-info-in-hillary-clinton-s-email-20150724
A Justice Department official said Friday that "The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral." Earlier in the day, Justice referred to it as a "criminal referral" before revising the statement.

They appear in 16.5s article. In Quotes. He should have left it in. Agreed ?

You mean I should have left in a word in a sentence that I did not quote? 'k.

 

[wareyin]

Neither the words "potential" nor "compromise" appear in that entire article.

However this does appear:The inspectors general said late Friday that it was a “security referral” intended to alert authorities that “classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government’s possession.”

Please note that the words said by the inspectors general are in quotes, contrary to your claim. These words also include "may", signifying much less certainty than 16.5 is attempting to convey.

 

[wareyin]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016...fied-info-in-hillary-clinton-s-email-20150724
A Justice Department official said Friday that "The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral." Earlier in the day, Justice referred to it as a "criminal referral" before revising the statement.

They appear in 16.5s article. In Quotes. He should have left it in. Agreed ?

Agreed. After all, he did make a statement about what the DoJ said, then altered that statement while putting it it quotes to imply direct quotation.

 

[sunmaster14]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016...fied-info-in-hillary-clinton-s-email-20150724
A Justice Department official said Friday that "The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral." Earlier in the day, Justice referred to it as a "criminal referral" before revising the statement.

They appear in 16.5s article. In Quotes. He should have left it in. Agreed ?

No, 16.5 was clearly quoting the statement from the IG's spokesperson. I agree he did misattribute it to the DOJ. Regardless, the statements are substantially the same, as I have pointed out.

I'll add that both the IG and the DOJ are being unnecessarily cautious here. The IG for the Intelligence Community has separately stated quite clearly that classified information has been "compromised," by any legal definition of that term.

 

[sunmaster14]

However this does appear:The inspectors general said late Friday that it was a “security referral” intended to alert authorities that “classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government’s possession.”

Please note that the words said by the inspectors general are in quotes, contrary to your claim. These words also include "may", signifying much less certainty than 16.5 is attempting to convey.

You corrected 16.5's quote by inserting the word "potential." However, your corrected version of the quote was not a quote that has appeared in any article that has so far been cited here.

 

[wareyin]

You corrected 16.5's quote by inserting the word "potential." However, your corrected version of the quote was not a quote that has appeared in any article that has so far been cited here.

And 16.5's quote was not a statement by the DoJ that has appeared in any article that has so far been cited here. Knowing that the statements by the DoJ included "potential", I added it to 16.5's incorrect quote.

 

[sunmaster14]

And 16.5's quote was not a statement by the DoJ that has appeared in any article that has so far been cited here. Knowing that the statements by the DoJ included "potential", I added it to 16.5's incorrect quote.

But you didn't fix it. The correct fix was to point out that it was the IG spokesperson who made the statement, not the DOJ. In any case, 16.5's misattribution did not change the meaning. Clearly the IG has more information than the DOJ at this point because the IG has already investigated, and the DOJ has not.