Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Sherkeu]

I'm sorry, did someone say she was worried about .gov security?

Yes. In this thread it was given more than once as a possible reason.

You can delete emails in any account, no matter who hosts it or where it's located. It appears that you're not overly familiar with how email servers work.

So, after she left office it would be just as easy for her to delete a .gov email kept on a government server as one in her own home? Please explain.

Why? Every Security of State before her used personal email. If I get trained in by someone I generally mimic their ways of doing things until I figure out a better way. Also, again, having your own email server is fairly common.

It is my understanding that tighter email policies were in play and applied to all persons in the department. Her department. It looks to me that she didnt follow her own department policy for which others had been reprimanded or even fired.

Like most skeptics, I am not a fan of Republicans...but that doesn't mean I cannot be equally suspect of Democrats if reason presents itself.

 

[plague311]

Yes. In this thread it was given more than once as a possible reason.

I've kept up on this thread from day 1, I guess I just don't remember that being said or even implied. I would highly doubt that security was the reasoning behind her having a personal email server though. I would be more inclined to say it was just easier for her and the server was probably setup for multiple other uses, as I described earlier.

So, after she left office it would be just as easy for her to delete a .gov email kept on a government server as one in her own home? Please explain.

I might be "begging the question" but why would she need to delete emails after she left office? Why wouldn't she just delete them before she left office? When she communicated with government officials one their .gov email accounts, whether she deleted them on her end or not, they would still be archived. That's been part of my point this whole time. Even if she uses her personal email account, as soon as the email is sent to someone that uses the government system (any part of it) the email would be saved via the recipients email account. Email threads will show the initial email and the response to that email. In any case, any scandalous email would have a recipient on the other end that would have a copy. Deleting the senders copy, or the recipients copy doesn't mean much.

It is my understanding that tighter email policies were in play and applied to all persons in the department. Her department. It looks to me that she didnt follow her own department policy for which others had been reprimanded or even fired.

I'm unaware of any firings due to it, but that's irrelevant for now. If she required her department (I know according to 16.5 that her aid, and I believe one other person used a .clintonemail address) then all of her communications to them, again, would be archived via the government servers.

Like most skeptics, I am not a fan of Republicans...but that doesn't mean I cannot be equally suspect of Democrats if reason presents itself.

As Johnny Karate has stated, and I completely agree, be as skeptical as you'd like. Just because I don't see the harm that the right does in this case doesn't mean I'm not skeptical about this entire thing too. The issues I have with it are:

1) How did no one even think of this in the past, what? 4 investigations? If she's sending email from the address one would have to conclude that it was known about.

2) The Investigations into Benghazi have covered almost everything they can get their hands on. What are they under the impression is contained in these emails that is going to justify the stupid amount of money spent on repeatedly investigating this nonsense? This might be a bit conspiracy theorish, but it could be they knew about this all along and just wanted to 'expose' it closer to election time to try and paint Hillary in a bad light.

3) In order for there to be some hidden grand conspiracy about Benghazi it would take more than Hillary's private email to orchestrate it that would have easily been uncovered in the previous investigations. The right is just flip flopping between who's responsible and who isn't, or at least who they're blaming. It started with Obama, but then he was reelected and now it's on Hillary.

4) Lastly, what piece of **** investigations have been done previous to this one that haven't uncovered something as mundane as a personal email address? What were the other investigations doing?

 

[johnny karate]

I get your point, it is a fallacy for the reasons I already discussed, as I keep explaining over and over.

We get it, distraction is a well understood tactic. It happens all the time in threads like this. Most people know it is utterly fallacious.

Hillary Clinton used a cowboy/homebrewed server.

Response: Jeb Bush!

Really? Ok. Investigate Jeb Bush too! Distraction ended.

See?

Oh I have no illusions about distracting you from your latest chew toy.

I just feel that in the spirit of truth and skepticism that this forum represents, the motivations behind ginned-up outrages like this one should be exposed.

And I'll keep doing so whether you like it or not.

 

[The Big Dog]

interesting piece on concerns about the security of Clinton's cowboy/homebrew system

State Department technology experts expressed security concerns that then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was using a private email service rather than the government’s fortified and monitored system, but those fears fell on deaf ears, a current employee on the department’s cybersecurity team told Al Jazeera America on Tuesday.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh I have no illusions about distracting you from your latest chew toy.

I just feel that in the spirit of truth and skepticism that this forum represents, the motivations behind ginned-up outrages like this one should be exposed.

And I'll keep doing so whether you like it or not.

Oh by all means! I mean, if people actually addressed the substance of the issues instead of raising fallacious arguments, name calling/labelling and hand waving issues that are on the front page of virtually every newspaper in the US as "ginned-up outrages" in the "spirit of truth and skepticism" I might have to do some work!

 

[plague311]

interesting piece on concerns about the security of Clinton's cowboy/homebrew system

State Department technology experts expressed security concerns that then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was using a private email service rather than the government’s fortified and monitored system, but those fears fell on deaf ears, a current employee on the department’s cybersecurity team told Al Jazeera America on Tuesday.

But cybersecurity experts were equally galled by the myriad ways the emails of the nation’s top diplomat could have been compromised

the State Department’s email system is presumably secured

Hillary Clinton was using that she set up herself likely is not,

It’s possible she had some kind of special protection in place,

she did have multiple other ways of communicating in a classified manner, including assistants printing documents for her, secure phone calls and secure video conferences.”

then people could be intercepting the mail she’s sending and receiving, possibly even changing its content.”

Sherkeu, I did find evidence of what you were saying. My apologies:

suggested Clinton may have used private email because she was advised the state.gov email service wasn’t secure enough. In 2010, during the second year of her tenure, thousands of state.gov emails were posted online as part of the WikiLeaks revelations. He noted that no Clintonemail.com messages were among them.

Clinton’s successor, John Kerry, “is the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a state.gov email account,” she added.

It was an interesting read. Again, not saying anything that you want it to say.

 

[plague311]

Oh by all means! I mean, if people actually addressed the substance of the issues instead of raising fallacious arguments, name calling/labelling and hand waving issues that are on the front page of virtually every newspaper in the US as "ginned-up outrages" in the "spirit of truth and skepticism" I might have to do some work!

You've hand waved away multiple arguments and the core of your argument is quickly deteriorating with every source you post. Is this not troublesome to you? Kim Kardashian, or whatever her name was, had her ass (literally, her ass) posted on the front page of most newspapers in the US after she "broke the internet" too. The media is fickle.

 

[The Big Dog]

You've hand waved away multiple arguments and the core of your argument is quickly deteriorating with every source you post. Is this not troublesome to you? Kim Kardashian, or whatever her name was, had her ass (literally, her ass) posted on the front page of most newspapers in the US after she "broke the internet" too. The media is fickle.

The unanimous consensus from every expert (including the State department itself) that has looked at the publicly available information about her system was that it was insecure, poorly protected, and exposed to hacks that could expose the information therein. No one outside of Team Hillary has had the first chance to review the actual data yet.

yet you seem pretty sure she was not hacked? Huh.

By the way, Kim K was naked on the front page of your paper? I'll be damned. That could be the single most ridiculous analogy ever.

Uh oh! I said "could."

 

[Minoosh]

I have been off the board for a while but am trying to catch up on this thread. Does Hillary's intent matter in this case at all? If she deliberately engineered a workaround to government-server backups solely to build personal power and avoid accountability, she is IMO acting in bad faith, even if there was no strictly illegal activity. If her workaround did not substantively alter accessibility of public records, I don't see a big issue here.

However, if she is known for secrecy and control issues, it does put this revelation in a very unflattering light.

It's complicated in that sometimes State deals in state secrets, and her non-USA emails are kind of off the grid, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Hillary *might* have been hacked but .gov definitely has been, with results damaging to our international interests.

Clinton is a lawyer, and has probably read all the laws, and has possibly tailored her email activity to avoid outright lawbreaking. That potential subterfuge does seem evasive, but there might be legitimate reasons to keep some communications off .gov servers. This example may be farfetched, but just as an example: Suppose she is communicating with Iran's foreign minister, for valid reasons (regarding mutual interest - for example, neutralizing ISIS). This would not play well domestically in either the U.S. or Iran, but then again it might be useful in forming limited coalitions (for which there are recent precedents). If she's just tripping on power and secrecy, that's no good. But if the intent is to have limited contact, off the .gov and .ir grid, there may be some defense for such actions.

 

[plague311]

The unanimous consensus from every expert (including the State department itself) that has looked at the publicly available information about her system was that it was insecure, poorly protected, and exposed to hacks that could expose the information therein. No one outside of Team Hillary has had the first chance to review the actual data yet.

So we're back where we started? You are insisting that something nefarious happened without any actual evidence that anything nefarious has happened. Why didn't we just save 6 pages worth and say that at the beginning?

I don't know why you're saying that they have looked at "the publicly available information about her system" and so on. I haven't seen a single spec on the system yet, and I've been looking. I have no information on what software she used, if she used a physical or software firewall, DDoS protection, or absolutely any details on the mechanics of the system. I've read every single link you've posted here and none of them have any information available about the system.

yet you seem pretty sure she was not hacked? Huh.

I am skeptical that her server was hacked as there is absolutely no evidence that it was. Do you have anything to the contrary?

By the way, Kim K was naked on the front page of your paper? I'll be damned. That could be the single most ridiculous analogy ever.

Of my paper? No. Then again, this hasn't made the front page of my local paper either. So I guess this anecdotal tale is of little to no importance. I will admit to it being a bit of a hyperbole, not much, but a little bit.

Uh oh! I said "could."

Yes, you did, but at least you're starting to recognize it. In a world where, literally, anything "could" happen I feel it's pointless to continuously point out the possibilities. Is there much good in talking about what could happen?

 

[sunmaster14]

Ok, to those that are complaining about record keeping. Do any of you understand that when she says she contacted Government employees on their .gov emails that there are copies of that information? Is that much at least clear? So at best, at the VERY best we're missing the emails that she sent to those outside of our government. Those in other governments that may have been related, and we don't know for sure that those emails weren't turned over in the 55K that she gave to the investigation committee.

How about the emails she sent to the private email accounts of government officials? We know that other high level administration officials had such private accounts. In fact, some of Hillary's defenders here have said that it was old news.

We know she didn't break any laws, as that has been explained ad nauseum in this thread. The FOIA requests would have been seen too if there was relevant information BECAUSE servers record both coming and going emails. Not just one or the other. If any of this is confusing or needs to be explained further, please let me know.

She most likely did break broke the law, as I have already explained in detail. Anybody who understands the meaning of the word "appropriate" would agree, but apparently that word is something of a mystery around here - especially in respect of record-keeping, or debate etiquette, for that matter.

 

[sunmaster14]

I have been off the board for a while but am trying to catch up on this thread. Does Hillary's intent matter in this case at all? If she deliberately engineered a workaround to government-server backups solely to build personal power and avoid accountability, she is IMO acting in bad faith, even if there was no strictly illegal activity. If her workaround did not substantively alter accessibility of public records, I don't see a big issue here.

However, if she is known for secrecy and control issues, it does put this revelation in a very unflattering light.

It's complicated in that sometimes State deals in state secrets, and her non-USA emails are kind of off the grid, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Hillary *might* have been hacked but .gov definitely has been, with results damaging to our international interests.

Clinton is a lawyer, and has probably read all the laws, and has possibly tailored her email activity to avoid outright lawbreaking. That potential subterfuge does seem evasive, but there might be legitimate reasons to keep some communications off .gov servers. This example may be farfetched, but just as an example: Suppose she is communicating with Iran's foreign minister, for valid reasons (regarding mutual interest - for example, neutralizing ISIS). This would not play well domestically in either the U.S. or Iran, but then again it might be useful in forming limited coalitions (for which there are recent precedents). If she's just tripping on power and secrecy, that's no good. But if the intent is to have limited contact, off the .gov and .ir grid, there may be some defense for such actions.

Sorry, but none of that makes any sense at all. The only reason to keep something off .gov servers is to allow her to shield communications which don't deserve a shield from FOIA requests and subpoenas. If the communications are reasonably classified as top secret, then they can be withheld or redacted. But she wanted the option to delete or withhold communications which may simply be politically inconvenient. Now, it is true that people do this all the time in the form of talking on the phone. Everybody knows that that's what you do when you want to communicate but you don't want a permanent record. Email is no longer an option for either government employees or people who work in the financial industry, unless of course you're willing to break the law.

 

[plague311]

How about the emails she sent to the private email accounts of government officials? We know that other high level administration officials had such private accounts. In fact, some of Hillary's defenders here have said that it was old news.

Do we know if she sent any? Do you have any evidence to backup your current concern? More conjecture?

She most likely did break broke the law, as I have already explained in detail. Anybody who understands the meaning of the word "appropriate" would agree, but apparently that word is something of a mystery around here - especially in respect of record-keeping, or debate etiquette, for that matter.

Sorry, I'm not sure I can see through your, extremely ironically, thinly veiled insult. I understand the meaning of the word appropriate but I must be so much more incompetent than you that I can't figure out how you're applying it here.

ETA: I would appreciate more of a response than a series of "what-ifs". I think we've seen all of the "well it COULD happen" situations.

 

[Matthew Cline]

1) How did no one even think of this in the past, what? 4 investigations? If she's sending email from the address one would have to conclude that it was known about.

2) The Investigations into Benghazi have covered almost everything they can get their hands on.

I, personally, don't care about the Clinton/Benghazi issue. But, as a matter of principle, I don't like the idea that a government official can maintain exclusive control over their work emails, even after leaving the office. I especially don't like the idea that when the government issues requests about those emails, a former government official can have her own attorneys decide what to hand over, rather than handing over everything to the government so they can archive it and have their lawyers decide what to hand over to the original request makers. Even if Hillary personally hasn't broken any laws or done anything wrong, those loopholes need to be fixed fast, before anyone else takes advantage of them.

 

[johnny karate]

She most likely did break broke the law, as I have already explained in detail. Anybody who understands the meaning of the word "appropriate" would agree, but apparently that word is something of a mystery around here - especially in respect of record-keeping, or debate etiquette, for that matter.

Do you seriously think that the definition of a word in the text of a law comes down to just some common sense interpretation?

 

[The Big Dog]

Sherkeu, I did find evidence of what you were saying. My apologies:





It was an interesting read. Again, not saying anything that you want it to say.

By the way, we have already seen one of the finest examples of a tu quoque fallacy in this thread, and I wanted to draw special attention to the post quoted above as another spectacular example of a fallacious argument. You have to look at the original post, but I think when you see it, you will think it is the bomb!

Which fallacious argument is it?

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you seriously think that the definition of a word in the text of a law comes down to just some common sense interpretation?

Lol, of course it does.

 

[OmegaWolf]

You can delete emails in any account, no matter who hosts it or where it's located. It appears that you're not overly familiar with how email servers work. To clarify on that, when you "delete" an email on your own server it doesn't go to the recycle bin, where you delete it and then it is gone forever. Never to be retrieved or viewed again.

I just had to chime in here. The above statement is false and smacks of inexperience with email servers. Microsoft Exchange server, just as an example, can be configured (and most often is in enterprise settings) to retain and backup deleted messages, even hard-deleted messages that bypass the "deleted messages" folder. This is how administrators are able to restore messages for users that inadvertently hard-delete messages. Our system retains these for 90 days.

Just to clarify this further (and correctly), let's say your account receives an email at 11:00 p.m., the server runs it backup at midnight. The backup is archived, and the next morning you delete the message. Do you think it magically disappears from the off-site, archived backup, too? In this example, the deleted message is archived even if the server is NOT configured to retain deleted messages because it was backed up before it was ever deleted.

I'm confident that .gov servers do retain and archive all deleted items -- that's part of the importance of using them. Obviously the concern with Clinton managing her own server is that she has complete control over what is retained and what is and is not backed up and archived. And if her staffers were also issued accounts on the same server, then both sides of the email conversation are controlled and no record of it will exist elsewhere.

 

[logger]

So we're back where we started? You are insisting that something nefarious happened without any actual evidence that anything nefarious has happened.

He's being a skeptic. Its natural dontcha think when one is dealing with one of the most corrupt families in politics.

I am skeptical that her server was hacked as there is absolutely no evidence that it was. Do you have anything to the contrary?

lol
You're not skeptical about her actions at all, you're carrying her water as most here do.

Of my paper? No. Then again, this hasn't made the front page of my local paper either. So I guess this anecdotal tale is of little to no importance. I will admit to it being a bit of a hyperbole, not much, but a little bit.

Try Fox News, they are much better at investigative reporting, unlike the lap dog press who are also carrying the Clintons water.

Yes, you did, but at least you're starting to recognize it. In a world where, literally, anything "could" happen I feel it's pointless to continuously point out the possibilities. Is there much good in talking about what could happen?

Only skeptics do that, its much easier to suck up what liberal media feeds you?

 

[logger]

I'm confident that .gov servers do retain and archive all deleted items -- that's part of the importance of using them. Obviously the concern with Clinton managing her own server is that she has complete control over what is retained and what is and is not backed up and archived. And if her staffers were also issued accounts on the same server, then both sides of the email conversation are controlled and no record of it will exist elsewhere.

Agreed

Oh but Plague thinks she did it because, well, it was just easier to use her own server. lol