Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re Rule 4: Hmm, I'm pretty sure an email sent to everyone on Clinton's mass email campaign list wasn't copyrighted and that it was meant for public consumption, but whatever.

Sorry about that.
 
Leftus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course it was biased, so is almost every single thing about this entire contrived brouhaha.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Of course it was biased, so is almost every single thing about this entire contrived brouhaha.
Click to expand...

Two separate IGs, people who aren't necessarily drive by political goals, investigate the issues and find enough problems to call in the FBI who then secure the server and a thumb drive is somehow contrived?

This is also without going into the fact that she gave classified information to someone, specifically her lawyer, who doesn't have the security clearance to have them.
 
The stuff from National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency was marked “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN” when it arrived at the State Department.

Remember the Intelligence Community Inspector General said the data was classified when it was sent by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

and Hillary claims that the top secret data was not marked as top secret.
 
16.5 said:
He's both someone without a security clearance and a handy foil for Noah to use when the facts are piling up against Hillary in order to try to derail the thread.
Click to expand...
I suggest you report him for derailing the thread. I'm sure the idea that someone is trying to derail a thread by referencing a person who's the subject of the thread will amuse them.

Not to mention giving avid readers a hardy belly laugh.
 
DavidJames said:
I suggest you report him for derailing the thread. I'm sure the idea that someone is trying to derail a thread by referencing a person who's the subject of the thread will amuse them.

Not to mention giving avid readers a hardy belly laugh.
Click to expand...

You probably mean "hearty." Or not:

 
16.5 said:
The stuff from National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency was marked “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN” when it arrived at the State Department.

Remember the Intelligence Community Inspector General said the data was classified when it was sent by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

and Hillary claims that the top secret data was not marked as top secret.
Click to expand...

Of course it was. I have handled plenty of these photographs and I've NEVER seen one that wasn't classified. Further, I can not conceive of one that wouldn't be.

The argument that they weren't classified at the time, but were classified later is one of the most stupid asinine arguments I've ever heard. Even dumb asses in Government positions know those satellite photos are classified.

That argument won't sell to anyone who knows anything at all about National Security and classifications. The IG has said one or more were Top Secret (SCI). Do any of you cheerleaders even know what that means?

I'll give you a hint.. Most nuclear related operational material is Top Secret. This stuff on her server was above that level of classification. How in the hell anyone could consider her qualified to be POTUS is totally beyond my comprehension. And speaking of dumb asses...is there anything dumber than that?
 
JohnnyG said:
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.
Click to expand...

1a. I took the timely turn over of emails to the State Department as a separate issue. But I agree with you, Clinton does not look good on this. She apparently broke at least the spirit of the rules by not providing copies of her State Department emails to be archived until she was forced to do it.
2. Is it known that she provided classified documents to her lawyer? If so I was wrong and that has the potential to be somewhat bad to extremely bad for Clinton. I equivocated on how bad because there are different levels of classification and there is the issue of when what she supplied to her lawyer became classified.
3. I sort of agree with you I think, it looked bad but was probably not illegal. One of the reasons that this private email server scheme was stupid is exactly because of this issue. She needed to keep State Department emails, her foundation emails and private emails separate. If she didn't do that, reasonably enough, people were going to judge any ad hoc sort and deletion plan as suspicious and if you don't like Clinton it's pretty easy to judge it as criminal.
4. I kind of agree with the sentiment of your post but not the exact details. There is a lot of information that is not public yet. A reasonable criticism of Clinton is that her email server scheme unnecessarily put at risk sensitive documents. It seems unlikely that Clinton would not have communicated any sensitive information in her emails so I'm not a fan of the there-aren't-any-documents-that-were-classified-at-the-time-she-emailed-them defense. Still the extent to which she has a problem on this issue is not yet clear, I think.
 
Reheat said:
Of course it was. I have handled plenty of these photographs and I've NEVER seen one that wasn't classified. Further, I can not conceive of one that wouldn't be.

The argument that they weren't classified at the time, but were classified later is one of the most stupid asinine arguments I've ever heard. Even dumb asses in Government positions know those satellite photos are classified.

That argument won't sell to anyone who knows anything at all about National Security and classifications. The IG has said one or more were Top Secret (SCI). Do any of you cheerleaders even know what that means?

I'll give you a hint.. Most nuclear related operational material is Top Secret. This stuff on her server was above that level of classification. How in the hell anyone could consider her qualified to be POTUS is totally beyond my comprehension. And speaking of dumb asses...is there anything dumber than that?
Click to expand...

I hadn't read this post before I made the post above. Is the claim that somebody sent Clinton top secret information on her private server email account? If that happened the person sending the stuff would be in a lot more trouble than Clinton. Or is the claim that Clinton actually grabbed top secret information that was sent to her and emailed it is using her private email server? If this is true then any discussion about the nuances of what went on here are moot. Clinton is in very serious trouble and although I doubt she'll go to jail for it, I'd say her presidential run is over and she likely will face criminal charges.
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
You'd think someone who's spent as much time in the 9/11 forum wouldn't rely on the argument from incredulity fallacy. But I guess politics does strange things, for example.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll provide some examples. :rolleyes:

DavidJames said:
But yeah, keep calling peopleIt does wonders for your argument.
Click to expand...

Yea, the truth hurts, doesn't it?

Speaking of the 9/11 Forum, Hillery supporters (in view of this email scandal) are actually worse than truthers by denying reality... It's even being described as contrived. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom