Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[wareyin]

Just because the issue was found in June and raised in July doesn't mean it happened in those months. In fact, it happened years earlier.



The referrals to the FBI predate that incident. They key to knowing that is the phrase "second memo." It means there was a first. The fact they found other violations only serves to expand, not refocus, any investigation.

Simply wrong. The key to knowing that is the phrase "at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information", preceded by the phrase "A first batch of 3,000 pages was made public on June 30." You see, Clinton did not make her emails public, the State Department did, on June 30.

Again, and let's just call this #4b, what would you expect them to say were she the target? It's a simple question and one you keep avoiding. I've pointed out a number of examples where people were told they weren't a target and actually were.

Your question relies on the assumption Clinton is guilty to provide evidence of Clinton being guilty. I see no reason to play with such circular logic.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Simply wrong. The key to knowing that is the phrase "at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information", preceded by the phrase "A first batch of 3,000 pages was made public on June 30." You see, Clinton did not make her emails public, the State Department did, on June 30.

Unfortunately the loop closes on Clinton who decided to use her own system in the first place. Hence the problem.
The leak of the classified emails might be the result of email screening not being thorough in the process of making them public... however, shifting the discussion as to whether or not the State Department as a collective erre'd in publicizing that content apparently misses the initial problem that involves the risks associated with using a non-standard system for communications. Unfortunately she's not the only idiot when it comes to complying with communications and standards within a department... but it's still usually bad thing particularly in the eyes of businesses with similar set ups. Do you agree with this as far as standards go?

I think it's anonymous internet bluster, rather than browbeating.

Is there any written documentation that can outline the information Reheat posted? And that can be found online by a layperson?
Problem with the above is that conspiracy theorists love that line (with good reason).... The CT section is rife with this stuff

 

[Monza]

So when Hillary became Secretary of State and set up her server and separate e-mail, did she notify those in the State Department how they should communicate with her? That is, I expect in the normal course of her work she would routinely send and receive classified information. Since she has said that none of this happened on her private server, does it mean that she had a proper State Department e-mail? If so, why not just use that all the time and not have a separate private server? Many people communicate with others in business and are able to separate the sending of business e-mails to the business address and non-business e-mails to a personal address. But there are work-related e-mails on her private server, though none containing classified information. So how was this segregation of classified work e-mails from non-classified work e-mails managed?

 

[sunmaster14]

So when Hillary became Secretary of State and set up her server and separate e-mail, did she notify those in the State Department how they should communicate with her? That is, I expect in the normal course of her work she would routinely send and receive classified information. Since she has said that none of this happened on her private server, does it mean that she had a proper State Department e-mail? If so, why not just use that all the time and not have a separate private server? Many people communicate with others in business and are able to separate the sending of business e-mails to the business address and non-business e-mails to a personal address. But there are work-related e-mails on her private server, though none containing classified information. So how was this segregation of classified work e-mails from non-classified work e-mails managed?

Hillary did not have an official government e-mail account. Which distinguishes her tenure from that of her three previous predecessors, but I suppose does give her something in common with the all-time greats, many of whom would subsequently become President (e.g. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe).

 

[RandFan]

No big deal here!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/16/number-of-hillary-clintons-emails-flagged-for-clas/

The Times only proof here is an "official" so no big deal. Libs continue with your heads in the sand or up something else.

I don't know if Clinton will be indicted. Perhaps she will. Perhaps this will cause her the election. I don't like her so it would be no skin off of my teeth.

I'm not sure how I can have my head in the sand when I acknowledge her wrong doing and have no qualms with any consequences she may suffer.

The question on my mind is if this isn't just a giant tempest in a thimble. Probably.

 

[The Big Dog]

Clinton gets ready to throw the Intelligence Community Under the Bus

State Department flags 305 more Clinton e-mails for review.

A State Department official told a federal judge Monday that 305 more of former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton's e-mail messages have been flagged for further review by intelligence agencies, to see whether they contain classified material that should not be released to the public.

The remarkable thing is not that the State Department under Hillary completely ********** up the handling of Classified Intelligence because Hillary wanted to run the show off her own private server, but rather that Hillary's crew is blaming the Intelligence Community.

Hillary's sleazy lizard of a spokesman had this to say:

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton's campaign, said the additional intelligence community review was "not surprising given the sheer volume of intelligence community lawyers now involved in the review of these emails."

"We expect there will continue to be competing assessments among the various agencies about what should and shouldn't be redacted," he said in an e-mail. "It remains our hope that this process not get hampered by bureaucratic considerations and that her emails be released as quickly and transparently possible."

Who ya crapping, Nick? The problem is Hillary's paranoia not the Intelligence Community's lawyers.

 

[wareyin]

Unfortunately the loop closes on Clinton who decided to use her own system in the first place. Hence the problem.
The leak of the classified emails might be the result of email screening not being thorough in the process of making them public... however, shifting the discussion as to whether or not the State Department as a collective erre'd in publicizing that content apparently misses the initial problem that involves the risks associated with using a non-standard system for communications. Unfortunately she's not the only idiot when it comes to complying with communications and standards within a department... but it's still usually bad thing particularly in the eyes of businesses with similar set ups. Do you agree with this as far as standards go?

I agree that she's not the only person to have operated like this. George W Bush, Jeb Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell all spring to mind as examples.

Is there any written documentation that can outline the information Reheat posted? And that can be found online by a layperson?
Problem with the above is that conspiracy theorists love that line (with good reason).... The CT section is rife with this stuff

See, people like Reheat post these claims of being intimately familiar with handling top secret information, but their claims of how to handle top secret information are contradicted by news articles citing "experts". For instance, from the Washington Post:

Experts say it is the responsibility of an e-mail's author to handle classified material correctly, including by using proper markings to indicate its presence.

contrasted with:

Someone sends a classified email either marked or unmarked as classified to an unclassified computer and the receiver of that email does nothing but read it. The receiver of that email is storing classified email on unclassified media and BOTH parties have committed a security breach. Get it? In addition, the receiver of that email in this case was the MFWIC of that department, which constitutes added responsibility to take further action.

 

[wareyin]

State Department flags 305 more Clinton e-mails for review.

A State Department official told a federal judge Monday that 305 more of former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton's e-mail messages have been flagged for further review by intelligence agencies, to see whether they contain classified material that should not be released to the public.

The remarkable thing is not that the State Department under Hillary completely ********** up the handling of Classified Intelligence because Hillary wanted to run the show off her own private server, but rather that Hillary's crew is blaming the Intelligence Community.

Hillary's sleazy lizard of a spokesman had this to say:



Who ya crapping, Nick? The problem is Hillary's paranoia not the Intelligence Community's lawyers.

That's odd, when the first batch of emails was released, two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” It was no big deal then, but we're supposed to be upset about that practice continuing? Why?

 

[Reheat]

See, people like Reheat post these claims of being intimately familiar with handling top secret information, but their claims of how to handle top secret information are contradicted by news articles citing "experts". For instance, from the Washington Post: contrasted with:

You're WRONG! The Washington Post article is also correct. It just doesn't address the receiver of something classified that isn't marked. How can they mark it when it's going to a home brewed server?

You just really need to stop because it's obvious that you don't have a clue how to interpret this stuff. It should be embarrassing and will be eventually if the proper action is eventually taken.

That's odd, when the first batch of emails was released, two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” It was no big deal then, but we're supposed to be upset about that practice continuing? Why?

Upgraded? This is a joke you're trying to perpetuate. They were NOT MARKED in the beginning due to mishandling my the sender. That is NOT UPGRADED and that is NOT RETROACTIVE. They were obviously classified from the very beginning.

What you're doing is called political spin, pure and simple. The same thing Hillery's and her minions are doing in a feeble attempt to divert the attention of potential voters from this scandal. It won't work and it is not going away...

 

[wareyin]

You're WRONG! The Washington Post article is also correct. It just doesn't address the receiver of something classified that isn't marked. How can they mark it when it's going to a home brewed server?

You just really need to stop because it's obvious that you don't have a clue how to interpret this stuff. It should be embarrassing and will be eventually if the proper action is eventually taken.

Did you read the linked article? It does not support your claims.

Upgraded? This is a joke you're trying to perpetuate. They were NOT MARKED in the beginning due to mishandling my the sender. That is NOT UPGRADED and that is NOT RETROACTIVE. They were obviously classified from the very beginning.

What you're doing is called political spin, pure and simple. The same thing Hillery's and her minions are doing in a feeble attempt to divert the attention of potential voters from this scandal. It won't work and it is not going away...

What I'm doing is quoting and linking to actual news articles. You are free to claim all the expertise in the world, but when you are being contradicted by the news articles, I'm going to doubt you and agree with them. Political spin is all this non-scandal is, I agree it won't work, and since Republicans can't field a viable candidate of their own so must rely on faux scandals, they won't let it go away.

 

[logger]

No one has their heads in the sand on this side. Nothing will come of this and you will pretend not to have been involved, right? I look forward to that.

We're up to 305 classified emails and dems going into panic mode.

You mean the liberal and fake conservative side?

 

[logger]

Upgraded? This is a joke you're trying to perpetuate. They were NOT MARKED in the beginning due to mishandling my the sender. That is NOT UPGRADED and that is NOT RETROACTIVE. They were obviously classified from the very beginning.

Isn't madam secretary also charged with deciding what is classified and what isn't? Shouldn't she have corrected folks sending material to her?

 

[Reheat]

Isn't madam secretary also charged with deciding what is classified and what isn't. Shouldn't she have corrected folks sending material to her?

She's obviously too stupid to know. The sender has the original primary obligation to classify or not, but anyone who has access to the material also has an obligation to notify the originator and then take the appropriate action for storage or else both the sender and the receiver have committed a security breach.

This whole problem was caused by that home brewed server she was using. If not for that we likely wouldn't be having this conversation...

What Clinton doesn't want you to know:

—Federal rules put the onus on government officials like the secretary of State to protect classified material, even when it's not marked as such.

—Government officials have been convicted of mishandling unmarked classified material.

—Any chain of events or excuses that led to the disclosure of these documents begins with Clinton's decision to go rogue with government email.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016...on-deflection-deception-and-untruths-20150813

More....

What, then, does all this mean for Hillary Clinton? There is no doubt that she, or someone on her State Department staff, violated federal law by putting TOP SECRET//SI information on an unclassified system. That it was Hillary’s private, offsite server makes the case even worse from a security viewpoint. Claims that they “didn’t know” such information was highly classified do not hold water and are irrelevant. It strains belief that anybody with clearances didn’t recognize that NSA information, which is loaded with classification markings, was signals intelligence, or SIGINT. It’s possible that the classified information found in Clinton’s email trove wasn’t marked as such. But if that classification notice was omitted, it wasn’t the U.S. intelligence community that took such markings away. Moreover, anybody holding security clearances has already assumed the responsibility for handling it properly.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/12/the-spy-satellite-secrets-in-hillary-s-emails.html

 

[The Big Dog]

See, people like Reheat post these claims of being intimately familiar with handling top secret information, but their claims of how to handle top secret information are contradicted by news articles citing "experts". For instance, from the Washington Post:
contrasted with:

Reheat needs no defense, but I will say that he is without a doubt one of the most highly qualified posters on this web site and he and a handful of others made this site the single most effective place on the internet to contradict 911 conspiracy theories based on his technical expertise including handling classified data.

If wapo said one thing about classified data, and Reheat said something else there is not a god damn critical thinker on this website who would disagree with Reheat.

on technical issues....

 

[Reheat]

If wapo said one thing about classified data, and Reheat said something else

Thanks for the compliment. He's spinning BS. What I said DOES NOT disagree with what Hillery's campaign said as referenced in the Washington Post article. They simply didn't go as far as I did regarding the rules for handling classified material and it constitutes pure political spin attempting to divert attention from her culpability.

Of course the originator of the classified material has a responsibility to mark it classified at the appropriate level. The receiver also has responsibility too, particularly the head of the Department. If she didn't recognize NSA signal intelligence related material she is doubly stupid. I'm really tired of repeating this over and over again and again just to have idiots try to spin it referencing Hillery's campaign spin yet pretend it's Washington Post's original material.

 

[Beeyon]

Did you read the linked article? It does not support your claims.
What I'm doing is quoting and linking to actual news articles. You are free to claim all the expertise in the world, but when you are being contradicted by the news articles, I'm going to doubt you and agree with them.

Check post #2254. I'm pretty sure government documents trump newspaper publications. Document markings are not "what count" when it comes to infractions of classified material handling policy.

 

[wareyin]

Check post #2254. I'm pretty sure government documents trump newspaper publications. Document markings are not "what count" when it comes to infractions of classified material handling policy.

I realize document markings are not what count. However, your post, as well as the Washington Post, place responsibility on the author of emails. Reheat places equal or greater responsibility on the recipient of said emails.

 

[Reheat]

I realize document markings are not what count. However, your post, as well as the Washington Post, place responsibility on the author of emails. Reheat places equal or greater responsibility on the recipient of said emails.

That is NOT what I said, so just stop your BS. I have repeatedly said BOTH the sender and the receiver have committed a security breach. The word equal is not there. In this case the receiver DOES bear greater responsibility than normal because she was the HEAD of the Department. She was obviously incompetent exactly like those who can not read interpret the relevant law.

 

[wareyin]

That is NOT what I said, so just stop your BS. I have repeatedly said BOTH the sender and the receiver have committed a security breach. The word equal is not there. In this case the receiver DOES bear greater responsibility than normal because she was the HEAD of the Department. She was obviously incompetent exactly like those who can not read interpret the relevant law.

So you didn't say that an email recipient bears greater responsibility than the sender, but Clinton as recipient bears greater responsibility than the email sender? Gotcha! All this bluster is as impressive as anonymous internet bluster gets. Let me know when the relevant authorities agree with you, will you?

 

[Reheat]

So you didn't say that an email recipient bears greater responsibility than the sender, but Clinton as recipient bears greater responsibility than the email sender? Gotcha! All this bluster is as impressive as anonymous internet bluster gets. Let me know when the relevant authorities agree with you, will you?

Are you really that dense or do your political leanings just blind you? Just stop repeating what I write. Just stop it....

I did not say what you just wrote and by this juncture I think you are aware of that. I'm not going to repeat it again just to have you misquote me again.

It's sufficient by now that others can see what you're doing, so I'll leave it at that.

What the relevant authorities do in this case is NOT an indicator of anything at all other than, like you, they will make a politically motivated decisions, not one in accordance of the applicable laws. I suspect they are more likely to continue to try to sweep this under the rug and give her special treatment just like she's getting now...