Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
WildCat said:
I did, and it was exactly as I described, they used the phrase "target of the investigation". You're interpreting that as "subject of the investigation", which is your own spin and not at all what the FBI said or meant.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you read the article? Because in the very first paragraph, the FBI states who is the target of the investigation, and it's not Clinton.
F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server are seeking to determine who at the State Department passed highly classified information from secure networks to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, according to law enforcement and diplomatic officials and others briefed on the investigation.
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
It's been longer than 10 minutes, and this may not count as proof, but I still wouldn't bet that the scandal has plateaued yet.

Staffer who worked on Clinton's email pleads the 5th
Click to expand...

I think it's a slight movement upwards in the scandal level and thus my idea that the scandal had plateaued seems to have been wrong again.

But, while this might be only a slight bump upwards right now, there is the potential that this is the precursor of what could be a significant ramp up of the scandal.

The issue of backups and whether Clinton really had all the emails she says were destroyed actually destroyed irretrievably is an open question. I have suspected for awhile that the people involved in operating her system are going to be identified and made to explain what went on and there may be some uncomfortable details that surface there for Clinton.

It is possible that the whole threat about invoking the right to refuse to testify because it might incriminate him is just lawyerly excess. i.e. The guy just did routine IT stuff and his lawyer just wants to go to extremes to protect his client. But it is also possible that Clinton involved him in some quasi legal things that might have involved going through all parts of the system to wipe clean potentially incriminating or embarrassing or maybe just private information. It seems like Clinton might have gotten him a job in the State Department which is another little element of this story. Alas the Clinton haters will need to wait awhile I think to see how this plays out.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
It is possible that the whole threat about invoking the right to refuse to testify because it might incriminate him is just lawyerly excess. i.e. The guy just did routine IT stuff and his lawyer just wants to go to extremes to protect his client. But it is also possible that Clinton involved him in some quasi legal things that might have involved going through all parts of the system to wipe clean potentially incriminating or embarrassing or maybe just private information. It seems like Clinton might have gotten him a job in the State Department which is another little element of this story. Alas the Clinton haters will need to wait awhile I think to see how this plays out.
Click to expand...

It's possible, however the Clinton campaign did release this:

Pagliano's decision was disappointing to the Clinton campaign, which had hoped he would testify about his IT work for the former secretary of state.

Clinton "has made every effort to answer questions and be as helpful as possible, and has encouraged her aides, current and former, to do the same, including Bryan Pagliano," a campaign aide wrote in an email.
 
F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server are seeking to determine who at the State Department passed highly classified information from secure networks to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, according to law enforcement and diplomatic officials and others briefed on the investigation.
Click to expand...

Wait...what? I thought this didn't happen? Well it's a good thing for somebody, she wiped this with like a cloth or something!:dl:
 
Last edited:
Hillary Campaign admits that email scandal hurts 2016 bid

But I was told it was a faux controversy. What happened?

Truthfully, I think that Hillary's moronic "wipe the server" comment was the tipping point and someone outside the campaign finally told her to wake the hell up.

My list of the top three dumbest things said by Hillary:

1. "Vast right wing conspiracy."

2. "what difference does it make.

3. "What, with like with a cloth or something."
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Pagliano's decision was disappointing to the Clinton campaign, which had hoped he would testify about his IT work for the former secretary of state.

Clinton "has made every effort to answer questions and be as helpful as possible, and has encouraged her aides, current and former, to do the same, including Bryan Pagliano," a campaign aide wrote in an email.
Click to expand...

I have a bridge to sell you!:rolleyes:
 
davefoc said:
Is there more of a reason to not trust Clinton in this situation that any other politician? A normal cabinet secretary would probably have a private email address and I would expect that at least some public business is done through that address that the public will never have a clue about.

It is only the uniqueness of having a big pile of comingled emails that makes this situation unique, but Clinton could have accomplished what probably most cabinet officers do by just using her private email account if she wanted to hide something. There are risks with that so a cabinet officer might do it seldom enough that they would be unlikely to be caught and if they were they could just say that they made a mistake.
Click to expand...

No, there is no reason to trust any politician and give them the benefit of the doubt in this situation, which is why I find it hard to believe that some are doing so here.

I don't know the probability of another cabinet member having personal email and whether or not they would use it in the same way. Hillary is the one under scrutiny because she got "caught" doing it. She set this system up and we are finding out about it - bummer for her.

I don't trust any politicians in DC and none of them will receive my vote any time soon. As far as I'm concerned they should all be thrown out. I may criticize certain ones here but I don't give any of them much credit.
 
Dog Town said:
Wait...what? I thought this didn't happen? Well it's a good thing for somebody, she wiped this with like a cloth or something!:dl:
Click to expand...

Miss Clinton is not the target of the investigation. They are merely looking at who sent and received classified information to and from Miss Clinton's server.
 
wareyin said:
Really? Did Benghazi die? Heck, I still occasionally see stuff about Vince Foster's death.
Click to expand...

Benghazi only appeals to the far-right. I haven't heard the Vince Foster thing in years. This email business, though, is being followed by Democrats and Republicans, and is being reported in liberal mainstream outlets. I don't think anyone but the far right would be following it if she hadn't wiped the server and had admitted it was a mistake from the start.
 
Fudbucker said:
Benghazi only appeals to the far-right. I haven't heard the Vince Foster thing in years. This email business, though, is being followed by Democrats and Republicans, and is being reported in liberal mainstream outlets. I don't think anyone but the far right would be following it if she hadn't wiped the server and had admitted it was a mistake from the start.
Click to expand...

Benghazi has had what, 14 fruitless hearings, so far? It hasn't faded, yet. Sorry, but this thread alone makes it obvious that even some Democrats are gullible enough to think there's something there, here.
 
Fudbucker said:
False equivalence. Email practices 12 years ago are much different than today. In 2002, less than 40% of people had an internet connection at home, and dial-up connections were far more numerous than broadband.
Click to expand...
Oh, so Powell's SoS term was in the past, so that has no bearing on Clinton being SoS today? Gosh, you're totally correct. How could I have thought Clinton's term was history?


Oh, wait, email practices 12 years ago aren't that different from email practices 6 years ago, and this is just another pitiful attempt to pretend there's something there, here?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Who in this thread claimed it didn't happen (other than you, now) ? Quotes, please.
Click to expand...

Here's one! It was a reply to YOU!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10850030&postcount=2722
Considering that the only thing the Clinton bashers actually have is that 2 emails were forwarded to Clinton that contained "classified information" that had already been broadcast on CNN, it appears that 'classified' information doesn't have to be secret, unknown, or even sensitive.
Click to expand...

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess the above quote isn't referring to "highly classified information"!
Curious if YOU even read this whole thread?

Let the spin begin! Again, that is! GO!
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Benghazi has had what, 14 fruitless hearings, so far? It hasn't faded, yet. Sorry, but this thread alone makes it obvious that even some Democrats are gullible enough to think there's something there, here.
Click to expand...

I think you completely missed Fudbucker's point. If it hadn't been Benghazi it would have been some other issue that would have been grossly exploited by the Republicans in an effort to damage prominent Democratic candidates. This strategy obviously works or they wouldn't do it, but mostly the largely manufactured scandals are of no importance to the partisan Democratic voters and of importance to only a small subset of the non-aligned moderate voters.

This scandal is different because there is actual and significant malfeasance underlying it. That is not to say the malfeasance isn't exaggerated and exploited by the Republicans for their purposes, but in the case of the email scandal somebody really intentionally did something wrong. It is that fact that makes it so that it will affect a wider range of the electorate than the manufactured and exaggerated scandals that the Republicans usually find it necessary to rely on for attacking their political opponents.

My guess is that this scandal has a lot to do with why Clinton's standing in the Democrat polls has declined steadily of late. I don't think it's because all of a sudden the electorate has fallen in love with Bernie Sanders.
 
wareyin said:
Other than dishonestly adding "and from", you appear to have it correct.
Click to expand...

:) Really, you think the FBI is going to ignore emails sent by Clinton containing classified material because all they're looking for is information about who sent her emails with classified material.

This seems to be too silly an idea about what you meant so I assume it isn't what you meant, but the notion still made me smile.
 
wareyin said:
Benghazi has had what, 14 fruitless hearings, so far? It hasn't faded, yet. Sorry, but this thread alone makes it obvious that even some Democrats are gullible enough to think there's something there, here.
Click to expand...

The point is, nobody outside the far-right cares about Benghazi. Plenty of people are disturbed by Hillary's private server. I'm hardly "far right" and it bothers me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom