Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As we know, the counterintelligence referral to the FBI showed that there was a compromise of classified national security information in former Secretary Clinton's emails.

Up until yesterday, the identity of the IC agencies that generated the top secret data was unknown.

Yesterday the IC Inspector General Identified the two agencies whose data was compromised as the CIA and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

That pretty well destroys any claim that the data was not properly marked Top Secret when it was sent to the State Department. Someone sent that top secret info on Hillary's server, and Hillary turned it over to her lawyer.

What a cluster ****.
 
JohnnyG said:
Straw men are indeed convenient.

[1] Do you think that taking state department documents home after leaving office is legal?

[2]Do you think that giving classified material to someone without security clearance is legal?

[3]Do you think destroying what could be the only copies of state department documents without their consent is legal?

[4]If you answer yes to any of those questions, then you must think HC broke the law. If not, please explain why Sandy Berger was convicted.
Click to expand...

1 - probably legal. Is there a law against keeping emails that you created while you were working at the state department? If it is illegal I bet is violated all the time.

2 - Not clear that she did that yet. Apparently some materials on her server have been classified after she put them on the server. That doesn't look good but we'll have to see how this shakes out. Giving her lawyer stuff that was potentially some kind of classified material was really stupid if that is what she did and I suspect clearly illegal.

3 - I think this is overblown. Everybody has the right to private communications and she turned over the vast majority of state department documents she had. If she missed a few I'd call that a ticky tack foul unless it was some kind of smoking gun about something like Benghazi, but since that is a made up scandal there isn't a smoking gun to be found for that.

4 - Perhaps a good analogy. But there is a long way to go before it is proven that Clinton did something exactly similar.
 
davefoc said:
1 - probably legal. Is there a law against keeping emails that you created while you were working at the state department? If it is illegal I bet is violated all the time.
.
Click to expand...
Apolgies for singling your post out... (i agree with your response to 2 thru 4)
again with this there are probably 2 considerations:

- is taking those emails home illegal? Probably not by letter of the law. It would however violate most office policies and protocol.

- the illegality will depend on classified information that was under personal possession. And whether it was considered classified at the time the emails were stored. But for those that were not initally classified it falls back to protocol is the way im reading.

DavidJames said:
We disagree on this, significantly. Asking for due process and pointing out similarities with previous administrations is no way the same as saying she deserves jail time. At least not in this country.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with due process, but lots of time time wasted attacking easy targets and not addressing the substantive questions of the scandal. Why do you think I'm not calling for her arrest? Perhaps it's possible to feel she is unqualified for the seat based on the severity level of the information involved in what she had stored without it necessarily being a breach of the law? Sure doesn't seem as though participants are making much of a distinction in those positions.


DavidJames said:
I'm pretty sure she won't get your vote regardless though will she :).
Click to expand...
Who knows. Too early for me to make that call. We're 14 months from election nights.... lots can change.

DavidJames said:
I would prefer not to be in a position to vote for her, but if any of those clowns currently running to oppose her actually do, then yeah, I'll vote for her. My decision will be based on a ton of factors, mostly policy based, and this situation is far down the on my list.
Click to expand...
If you're fine with the associated trade offs.... it's your call. I'm not in the business of telling people who to vote for. I'll just opt to disagree
 
Last edited:
JohnnyG said:
Straw men are indeed convenient.
Click to expand...
quote them please.
JohnnyG said:
Do you think that taking state department documents home after leaving office is legal?

Do you think that giving classified material to someone without security clearance is legal?

Do you think destroying what could be the only copies of state department documents without their consent is legal?

If you answer yes to any of those questions, then you must think HC broke the law. If not, please explain why Sandy Berger was convicted.
Click to expand...
Neither my nor your opinion mean jack ****. I recognize that which is why I'm waiting for due process. You say she's guilty, own it, man up, start the ball rolling.
 
davefoc said:
1 - probably legal. Is there a law against keeping emails that you created while you were working at the state department? If it is illegal I bet is violated all the time.

2 - Not clear that she did that yet. Apparently some materials on her server have been classified after she put them on the server. That doesn't look good but we'll have to see how this shakes out. Giving her lawyer stuff that was potentially some kind of classified material was really stupid if that is what she did and I suspect clearly illegal.

3 - I think this is overblown. Everybody has the right to private communications and she turned over the vast majority of state department documents she had. If she missed a few I'd call that a ticky tack foul unless it was some kind of smoking gun about something like Benghazi, but since that is a made up scandal there isn't a smoking gun to be found for that.

4 - Perhaps a good analogy. But there is a long way to go before it is proven that Clinton did something exactly similar.
Click to expand...

1. It is a bit more complicated in this case. She did not just take copies of the email with her, she did not leave copies with state. It is analogous to taking the original of a document.

2. I'm not sure what you think isn't clear yet. Do you think her lawyer could have security clearance?

3. At issue is not that the vast majority that were turned over, but which ones were not and why. It comes down to how the selection process was done. If it was done by state or some impartial third party I would be OK with it, but having her own team select them should raise the suspicion of any skeptic.

4. What remains to be proven? They both took classified information outside of government control.
 
Email from Campaign HQ
Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with Rule 4 of the Membership Agreement.

Here are the basics: Like other Secretaries of State who served before her, Hillary used a personal email address, and the rules of the State Department permitted it. She's already acknowledged that, in hindsight, it would have been better just to use separate work and personal email accounts. No one disputes that.

The State Department's request: Last year, as part of a review of its records, the State Department asked the last four former Secretaries of State to provide any work-related emails they had. Hillary was the only former Secretary of State to provide any materials -- more than 30,000 emails. In fact, she handed over too many -- the Department said it will be returning over 1,200 messages to her because, in their and the National Archives' judgment, these messages were completely personal in nature.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-server-defense-2015-8
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this so-called criminal activity is so not impressive. If this is all the GOP has, Clinton's in good shape.

And in case any of the right wingers have a short memory, Clinton no doubt learned from her predecessors: Bush White House email controversy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Email from Campaign HQ


I'm sorry, but this so-called criminal activity is so not impressive. If this is all the GOP has, Clinton's in good shape.

And in case any of the right wingers have a short memory, Clinton no doubt learned from her predecessors: Bush White House email controversy
Click to expand...

Time to first lie, 5th word. That is a *********** record even for a congenital liar like Hillary.

I notice she says that she did not "send" any classified info. She doesn't say she was sent it, after her aides stripped of the Top Secret markings the CIA and GSA put on it. She also must have handed her lawyer the thumb drive instead of emailing it.

Blatant ******** propaganda from her Campaign. So much for "skeptical."
 
Its been quite amusing watching 16.5 drag you libs kicking and screaming through this whole process. You were told over and over the Clintons were corrupt from the first time they came on the national stage.
 
logger said:
Its been quite amusing watching 16.5 drag you libs kicking and screaming through this whole process. You were told over and over the Clintons were corrupt from the first time they came on the national stage.
Click to expand...
Thanks for joining this thread, I'm sure 16.5 appreciates his peers participating.
 
DavidJames said:
Roll your eyes all you like. my answer was my opinion isn't germane. You may not like the answer, but that was my response.
Click to expand...

While it is a response, to call it an "answer" is rather generous.

But I do agree, your opinion isn't germane.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Email from Campaign HQ


I'm sorry, but this so-called criminal activity is so not impressive. If this is all the GOP has, Clinton's in good shape.
Click to expand...

Of all the sources you could have referenced, you picked the one that is as biased as Fox News on the subject?

Nixon wasn't a crook either. He said so himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom