Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
LOLZ!

You want to post something from the Clinton camp or computer experts that contradict that analysis? anything?

Ok.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
This one of the many ways we differ. Once all the facts are in I'll weigh in. Actually, I suspect that may be at the root of all our differences.
 
DavidJames said:
This one of the many ways we differ. Once all the facts are in I'll weigh in. Actually, I suspect that may be at the root of all our differences.
Click to expand...

But you just did weigh in. You accused me of being a partisan who believes anything I read.

I mean you just personally attacked me, yet when challenged had literally nothing to back that up.

Just making sure that we are clear about that.

/oops, a "hyper" partisan. Because that is something we do around here, I guess
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Jonathan Mayer, a computer scientist at Stanford University, said historical records provided some evidence that the server could have been located in the Clinton home near Chappaqua, New York. Later, either the server was physically moved or the data was rerouted.
Advertisement

Mayer said it was impossible to tell from tests on the historical server whether it was well secured against hacker attack – a critical question given the sensitivity of Clinton’s role and the aggressiveness of the cyber threat from countries such as China

"“It’s possible the server was well secured,” he said. “I’m not in a position to say, short of having access to the server itself.”

Ok. lol
Click to expand...

You've been appealing to "computer experts" that have said it was a nightmare, it was horrible, the server could have been breached at any time. Thank you for finally acknowledging what I have been saying this entire time, that nobody knows what the security on her server was like so those computer experts are full of ****. You linked to them, admittedly, 4 times saying crap that they couldn't possibly know. He also states that the security on the server is top notch, and it's in no way, shape or form a "homebrew or cowboy" server.

I am so happy that we can now agree that your computer experts were claiming things they couldn't have possibly known. Now we can drop those comments from your evidence pool.
 
plague311 said:
You've been appealing to "computer experts" that have said it was a nightmare, it was horrible, the server could have been breached at any time. Thank you for finally acknowledging what I have been saying this entire time, that nobody knows what the security on her server was like so those computer experts are full of ****. You linked to them, admittedly, 4 times saying crap that they couldn't possibly know. He also states that the security on the server is top notch, and it's in no way, shape or form a "homebrew or cowboy" server.

I am so happy that we can now agree that your computer experts were claiming things they couldn't have possibly known. Now we can drop those comments from your evidence pool.
Click to expand...

Oh man... You just cherry picked quotes... Got decimated when the actual full quotes were posted... Your expert is full of ****.

The public face of Hillary's cowboy server is garbage. The public approach to the garbage server shows that it is *********** vulnerable.

I understand that this will not stop you from protesting that we are being mean to mute Hillary.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Oh man... You just cherry picked quotes... Got decimated when the actual full quotes were posted... Your expert is full of ****.

The public face of Hillary's cowboy server is garbage. The public approach to the garbage server shows that it is *********** vulnerable.

I understand that this will not stop you from protesting that we are being mean to mute Hillary.
Click to expand...

I've never complained that you're being mean, speaking of strawmen. I've implied that you're making accusations without solid evidence. Don't let that stop you from strawmanning arguments though.

So the guy from Stanford University is full of it, but your experts are absolutely right because they're....your experts, I'm assuming.

ETA: It spoke to the condition of the server that is known and current. I didn't cherry pick anything, and your refutation destroyed your premise. Again, you've been making claims from these experts as to the state of the server that they don't know for sure. I took the time to point out that your sources were full of "could ifs" and "maybes".
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
I've never complained that you're being mean, speaking of strawmen. I've implied that you're making accusations without solid evidence. Don't let that stop you from strawmanning arguments though.

So the guy from Stanford University is full of it, but your experts are absolutely right because they're....your experts, I'm assuming.

ETA: It spoke to the condition of the server that is known and current. I didn't cherry pick anything, and your refutation destroyed your premise. Again, you've been making claims from these experts as to the state of the server that they don't know for sure. I took the time to point out that your sources were full of "could ifs" and "maybes".
Click to expand...

No, he is full of it because the non cherry picked quotes show that he admitted it was impossible to say that it was safe, the very purpose for which you cited that article.

The articles I cited said the server was dangerously insecure.

Keep on white knighting Hillary.
 
Obama throws Hillary under the bus

Obama claimed that he first learned about Hillary's email through the press.

Apparently realizing that his emails with her were out in the wild, he clarified that he first learned that she exclusively used her cowboy server only through the press.

He should be pissed that Hillary totally blew off the concept of governmental transparacy while she was positioning herself for Hillary 2016.
 
I hear that Hillary is "preparing" to"speak publicly" about her cowboy server.

I am not sure why she needs to "prepare" to tell the truth, unless of course she is not going to do it.

Anyone doubt she is meeting with a gaggle of writers, lawyers and pr flacks to test various stories to spin on the public?

I hope she doesn't do it in Boston, they have had enough snow jobs for one year.
 
16.5 said:
Obama claimed that he first learned about Hillary's email through the press.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp He learned about one of his administration scandals through the press again? What is this, the 8th time? His Secretary of State was using a .com email address for 4 years. Did he never send her an email? Or did he never pick up on the fact that government email addresses end in .gov?

Apparently realizing that his emails with her were out in the wild, he clarified that he first learned that she exclusively used her cowboy server only through the press.

He should be pissed that Hillary totally blew off the concept of governmental transparacy while she was positioning herself for Hillary 2016.
Click to expand...

Well, to be honest, he's probably lying. He was no doubt happy that Hillary could keep incriminating emails safely away from prying FOIA requests, especially those concerning the "reset" with Russia, the cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the "kinetic action" in Libya. Not to mention that other unmentionable failure.
 
Darat said:
I've read the thread and my confusion has increased as I've made my way through it!

Can some please tell me in simple language: What exactly is she meant to have done that is illegal?
Click to expand...

Withholding public records from the public.

By keeping her emails on a private server and not turning them over, she denied access to those records via FOIA. When those requests came in for documents the public were allowed to have access, the State department had to respond that those documents did not exist despite their existence and the requirement for Clinton to make them available.

Even after her email account was known, the FOIA request by Gawker media was denied due to the public records being unreachable.
 
On this "homebrew" server discussion, although I agree that it was a terrible idea from the standpoint of security, I think it is a distraction from the main issue. Just to elaborate a little on the security situation, the key point isn't that it's hard to secure an email server just as well as the ones that the government controls. I doubt it is that hard at all. Rather, it is important that government security people are made aware of any security breaches involving government officials, so that they can coordinate a security response. Having government officials in charge of their own servers mades that virtually impossible.

Regardless, the main issue isn't security. The main issue is that Hillary clearly did this so that she would be able to delete emails that she later thought to be politically inconvenient. This is a luxury that nobody who works in government, nor in the financial industry by the way (as I know all too well), is supposed to have, under laws that have been in existence for many years (predating her tenure as Secretary of State in the case of government employees). If you want to have a conversation that is permanently off the record, you have to do it in person or by phone. That is the world we live in, and Hillary decided that she would make an exception for herself. In my view, she clearly broke the law, although it's not clear that there are any criminal penalties which apply. As with many regulations, the penalty for running afoul of it may be that the government gets to order you to stop running afoul of it. Still, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be profound political consequences to breaking the law.
 
16.5 said:
No, he is full of it because the non cherry picked quotes show that he admitted it was impossible to say that it was safe, the very purpose for which you cited that article.

The articles I cited said the server was dangerously insecure.

Keep on white knighting Hillary.
Click to expand...

No, the articles you cited said it could have been insecure.

None of the experts you quoted actually evaluated the security of the server when it was online. So they know as much as you know about the security of her setup - that is to say, nothing.

You would think if security was such a concern for the US govt., they would have made a rule against using private email. :confused:
 
TheL8Elvis said:
No, the articles you cited said it could have been insecure.
Click to expand...

wrong. 1. bad certificates 2. spoofed names 3. "From a technical perspective, a cabinet member using a homemade solution means adding an array of technologies and middlemen through whom the United States government can effectively be severely compromised,"

None of the experts you quoted actually evaluated the security of the server when it was online. So they know as much as you know about the security of her setup - that is to say, nothing.
Click to expand...

wrong, see above

You would think if security was such a concern for the US govt., they would have made a rule against using private email. :confused:
Click to expand...

It was, although I assume that no one counted on the Hillary setting up her own cowboy server next to her powder room or something, and then hanging on to every single one of her emails for two years because reasons.
 
16.5 said:
wrong. 1. bad certificates 2. spoofed names 3. "From a technical perspective, a cabinet member using a homemade solution means adding an array of technologies and middlemen through whom the United States government can effectively be severely compromised,"
Click to expand...
Seriously? You're hanging your HDS hat on that? Neither 1 nor 2 indicate a genuine security risk and #3 is an opinion.

Wow, your "evidence" in this thread is starting to make the Benghazi thread look like the slam dunk case for AGW.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
wrong. 1. bad certificates 2. spoofed names 3. "From a technical perspective, a cabinet member using a homemade solution means adding an array of technologies and middlemen through whom the United States government can effectively be severely compromised,"



wrong, see above



It was, although I assume that no one counted on the Hillary setting up her own cowboy server next to her powder room or something, and then hanging on to every single one of her emails for two years because reasons.
Click to expand...



I'm sure the security at https://www.state.gov/ is better, right ?




It's clear you do not actually have the technical understanding of the security implications to have a reasoned discussion, but are simply parroting things you read on sites like gawker.

You would be better served dropping the FUD about the server, and stick with trying to demonstrate a law broken (which you still haven't done)

ETA: before someone points it out - i know it's not the same issue - just making a point
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
This one of the many ways we differ. Once all the facts are in I'll weigh in. Actually, I suspect that may be at the root of all our differences.
Click to expand...

DavidJames said:
Seriously? You're hanging your HDS hat on that? Neither 1 nor 2 indicate a genuine security risk and #3 is an opinion.

Wow, your "evidence" in this thread is starting to make the Benghazi thread look like the slam dunk case for AGW.
Click to expand...

The facts are all in, huh? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom