Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

evidence required for hilited claim
 
Continuing from of your responses, not necessarily just directed at you:

davefoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Although, her claim that the state department should have had a copy of every email she sent to people at thier state.gov email address is not without merit.

davefoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://mediamatters.org/research/20...ry-clintons-email-and-r/204913#noneclassified

FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret"

Government Officials: None Of The Emails Were Marked As "Classified" When They Were Sent. The Washington Post reported that when the ICIG first "found information that should have been designated as classified" in four emails from Clinton's server -- two of which he now says contain "top secret" information -- government officials acknowledged that the emails were not marked as classified when they were sent (emphasis added):​


These were emails she gave to her lawyer on USB - so that is how "she provided classified documents"

davefoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the server she used - it was always going to be her deciding what she "archived" and what she didn't. There is not a third party that comes in and decides that stuff.

davefoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

I also think there is much we don't know.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Don't let facts get in the way of thinking arguments are dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/research/20...ry-clintons-email-and-r/204913#noneclassified

FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret"

Government Officials: None Of The Emails Were Marked As "Classified" When They Were Sent. The Washington Post reported that when the ICIG first "found information that should have been designated as classified" in four emails from Clinton's server -- two of which he now says contain "top secret" information -- government officials acknowledged that the emails were not marked as classified when they were sent (emphasis added):​
 
davefoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

2. I do believe there were classified emails on the thumb drive she gave her lawyer - I can't image she would not give him a full set - however, I don't think she was aware there were classified emails in there. That said, I don't know which is worse, her knowingly giving classified documents to someone without clearance, or her not being aware that the documents are indeed classified. She looks bad in either case.

3. I totally agree she should have kept her State, foundation, and private emails separate. As a lawyer she really should have known this.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Don't let facts get in the way of thinking arguments are dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/research/20...ry-clintons-email-and-r/204913#noneclassified

FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret"

Government Officials: None Of The Emails Were Marked As "Classified" When They Were Sent. The Washington Post reported that when the ICIG first "found information that should have been designated as classified" in four emails from Clinton's server -- two of which he now says contain "top secret" information -- government officials acknowledged that the emails were not marked as classified when they were sent (emphasis added):​
Click to expand...

Citing to media matters is a joke, c'mon.

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

Clinton’s emails “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the intelligence community’s inspector general,
The fact that someone in the State Department might have stripped off the classification does not make them unclassified.

Media matters is spewing disingenuous spin.
 
16.5 said:
Citing to media matters is a joke, c'mon..

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

I guess you missed it the first time:

TheL8Elvis said:
evidence required for hilited claim
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
Clinton’s emails “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the intelligence community’s inspector general,
The fact that someone in the State Department might have stripped off the classification does not make them unclassified.

Media matters is spewing disingenuous spin.
Click to expand...

Might have stripped off the classification.... are you rescinign your claimi that "it was marked “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN” when it arrived at the State Department." ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...0bf598-31f8-11e5-97ae-30a30cca95d7_story.html

In the memo, McCullough acknowledged that his office had been informed late last month by the State Department “that there are potentially hundreds of classified e-mails within the approximately 30,000 provided by former Secretary Clinton.”

None of those reviewed by his office “had classification or dissemination markings, but some included” intelligence-community information “and should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network,” McCullough wrote.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I guess you missed it the first time:


Might have stripped off the classification.... are you rescinign your claimi that "it was marked “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN” when it arrived at the State Department." ?
Click to expand...

Obviously not:

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

"The fact that someone in the State Department might have stripped off the classification does not make them unclassified."

It had no markings when it was SENT TO HILLARY at her private server, it had the markings when it was sent to the State Department.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Don't let facts get in the way of thinking arguments are dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/research/20...ry-clintons-email-and-r/204913#noneclassified

FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret"

Government Officials: None Of The Emails Were Marked As "Classified" When They Were Sent. The Washington Post reported that when the ICIG first "found information that should have been designated as classified" in four emails from Clinton's server -- two of which he now says contain "top secret" information -- government officials acknowledged that the emails were not marked as classified when they were sent (emphasis added):​
Click to expand...

As told to me by multiple people who have gone through security training: the fact that classified material isn't marked classified isn't an excuse to use lax protocols.

Information that is LATER deemed classified could be excusable, but that's not what happened in every case.
 
16.5 said:
Obviously not:

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

"The fact that someone in the State Department might have stripped off the classification does not make them unclassified."

It had no markings when it was SENT TO HILLARY at her private server, it had the markings when it was sent to the State Department.
Click to expand...

And your evidence for that is .... where ?
 
16.5 said:
Obviously not:

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

"The fact that someone in the State Department might have stripped off the classification does not make them unclassified."

It had no markings when it was SENT TO HILLARY at her private server, it had the markings when it was sent to the State Department.
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
“were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the intelligence community’s inspector general,
Click to expand...

I hilited the missing word.

So you have no evidence that they were marked “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN” when it arrived at the State Department.

Thanks for acknowledging it.
 
Newtons Bit said:
As told to me by multiple people who have gone through security training: the fact that classified material isn't marked classified isn't an excuse to use lax protocols.

Information that is LATER deemed classified could be excusable, but that's not what happened in every case.
Click to expand...

I agree, simply not having the email marked as classified does not make it not classified material.

But what is the scenario in this case ?

Scenario:
Someone sent HRC email that was not marked as classified, but should have been.

HRC did nothing with the email. Didn't forward it to anyone else, etc.

Years later she turns it over, and someone notices it should have been classified.

ZOMG ! Totally disqualified from being president, amiright ?

Perhaps she should have known that the email should have been marked as classified, perhaps not. But please, lets not pretend that politicians are sitting in security class paying attention to security classifications. That's what they have aides for. So yeah, someone probably ********** up, and HRC is paying for it now.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Continuing from of your responses, not necessarily just directed at you:

Although, her claim that the state department should have had a copy of every email she sent to people at thier state.gov email address is not without merit.
Click to expand...

While not completely without merit, that claim is not much to stand on. First, there are certainly people she emailed that are not members of the state department. Second, some of the people at the state department were using her email server and not state.gov. Third, instead of searching her mailbox history you would have to tediously search every mailbox in the system.

TheL8Elvis said:
http://mediamatters.org/research/20...ry-clintons-email-and-r/204913#noneclassified

FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret"

Government Officials: None Of The Emails Were Marked As "Classified" When They Were Sent. The Washington Post reported that when the ICIG first "found information that should have been designated as classified" in four emails from Clinton's server -- two of which he now says contain "top secret" information -- government officials acknowledged that the emails were not marked as classified when they were sent (emphasis added):​


These were emails she gave to her lawyer on USB - so that is how "she provided classified documents"
Click to expand...
It strains credulity to think that our Secretary of State does not know that NSA signal intelligence information is classified, even if the email is not marked as such. Plus, who removed the markings? I highly doubt they left the intelligence community without proper markings.

TheL8Elvis said:
Regardless of the server she used - it was always going to be her deciding what she "archived" and what she didn't. There is not a third party that comes in and decides that stuff.
Click to expand...

Um, no. She does not get to decide what is archived and what isn't. It should ALL be archived. If she was dumb enough to mix personal, foundation, and state dept emails, they should all be archived in case they are needed for legal discovery.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Don't let facts get in the way of thinking arguments are dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/research/20...ry-clintons-email-and-r/204913#noneclassified

FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret"

Government Officials: None Of The Emails Were Marked As "Classified" When They Were Sent. The Washington Post reported that when the ICIG first "found information that should have been designated as classified" in four emails from Clinton's server -- two of which he now says contain "top secret" information -- government officials acknowledged that the emails were not marked as classified when they were sent (emphasis added):​
Click to expand...

I believe Media Matters about like I believe what I could read on InforWars.:rolleyes:
 
JohnnyG said:
While not completely without merit, that claim is not much to stand on. First, there are certainly people she emailed that are not members of the state department.1 Second, some of the people at the state department were using her email server and not state.gov.2 Third, instead of searching her mailbox history you would have to tediously search every mailbox in the system.3
Click to expand...

1 and 2 are issues. 3 is not, despite the fact for the fact that the govt is woefully behind in technology. Software automates tedium nicely.

I am still waiting for the "smoking gun" pile of emails she didn't turn over. There is so much innuendo that she is hiding things, and didn't turn over emails, but I have yet to see someone come up with an email she sent that wasn't turned over. I

JohnnyG said:
It strains credulity to think that our Secretary of State does not know that NSA signal intelligence information is classified, even if the email is not marked as such. Plus, who removed the markings? I highly doubt they left the intelligence community without proper markings.
Click to expand...

Argument from incredulity is still a fallacy. I think I covered the rest in my response to Newtons Bit.

JohnnyG said:
Um, no. She does not get to decide what is archived and what isn't. It should ALL be archived. If she was dumb enough to mix personal, foundation, and state dept emails, they should all be archived in case they are needed for legal discovery.
Click to expand...

We covered this earlier in the thread, and yes, she does get to decide what is relevant and archived, as dumb as it sounds. That's how badly the system works. You are supposed to PRINT your emails that you deem work related and save them in printed form.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom