Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Shalamar]

Hell, even her BFF James Carville inadvertently admitted over the weekend on ABC's This Week that Hillary Clinton probably used a private email address and server in order to avoid Congressional oversight or scrutiny.

"I suspect she didn’t want Louie Gohmert rifling through her emails," Carville said.

But being a world class slimebag is not a crime, and probably won't disqualify her from running for the Presidency.

And whereas in most professions being a slimebag would be a considerable drawback, in in democratic elections they are a positive boon.

In most professions, having a room temperature IQ and an irrational fear of science textbooks would be a considerable drawback. In republican elections they are a positive boon.

 

[The Big Dog]

Exactly. This has just become another Benghazi HDS thread. The method of "debate" is exactly the same. If I want to read such "logic" I'll read the 911 forum.

One thing is exactly the same, the bitter complaining about the thread itself.... although that theory from a few days ago that the AP was out to get Hillary was as farfetched if not more so than a bunch of stuff in the CT section....

 

[davefoc]

One thing is exactly the same, the bitter complaining about the thread itself.... although that theory from a few days ago that the AP was out to get Hillary was as farfetched if not more so than a bunch of stuff in the CT section....

I think you might be suggesting that national news services don't go after scandal stories if a Democrat is involved. This is a standard right wing talking point. The fact that it exists is evidence of how group and confirmation bias can completely cloud the thinking of dedicated partisans. There is overwhelming evidence it isn't true, but that doesn't stop partisans from believing it.

The thing that the right wing doesn't get here is that AP may genuinely have on average a left leaning staff of journalists but that the self interest bias is a huge driver of human behavior and if AP can develop a story around a Clinton scandal they're going to do it. Writing stories that people read is how they make their money and Clinton scandals could be the source of large financial rewards to the journalists that ferret them out. And then there is the band of right wing researchers constantly churning through the lives of high level Democrats looking for anything that can be the source of attack stories. So I think you can sleep easy tonight knowing that there are at least hundreds of Americans working tirelessly to figure some way to smear Clinton and a lot of them aren't too concerned about whether the stuff is true or not because some of them aim their product at credulous true believers.

 

[The Big Dog]

I think you might be suggesting that national news services don't go after scandal stories if a Democrat is involved....

No, I wasn't suggesting or even thinking that at all.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

She has already claimed that she send no classified documents from email, so I hardly see how the security of her server is relevant. Especially considering how craptacular the we know the state dept network is (for example)

The main 'thrust' of this thread is very much that she broke policy or laws. Because there is ZERO evidence that there are leaked emails or anything that caused a security problem, at least as far as I am aware. It's all about "show me your emails" because we want to dig through them and find something bad.

I'll believe her claim when I see proof about as much as I'll believe she broke laws when I see sufficient proof. My concern is and has been her case should be treated the same way that any situation such as this is to be handled. I understand you're arguing the idea that Hillary did nothing wrong and that some (read to you perhaps as "most of") the justifications for searching her emails are politically motivated, but as I've consistently pointed out, this seems to me to be a general policy problem as opposed to a Hillary problem. I blame her for exploiting the loop hole rather than creating it, and the problem lies in the risk factor that current policy enables. If it's found she didn't do anything wrong, then it is what it is, but I think policy needs to change for the better regardless

 

[davefoc]

I'll believe her claim when I see proof about as much as I'll believe she broke laws when I see sufficient proof. My concern is and has been her case should be treated the same way that any situation such as this is to be handled. I understand you're arguing the idea that Hillary did nothing wrong and that some (read to you perhaps as "most of") the justifications for searching her emails are politically motivated, but as I've consistently pointed out, this seems to me to be a general policy problem as opposed to a Hillary problem. I blame her for exploiting the loop hole rather than creating it, and the problem lies in the risk factor that current policy enables. If it's found she didn't do anything wrong, then it is what it is, but I think policy needs to change for the better regardless

I've come to a view that this is about right. It is beginning to look like there might not have even been a technical violation here and that if there was it was a technical violation of something that was poorly enforced.

I think it is likely that her claim that she did this so that she didn't need to carry two phones is a lie, but it is a lie that she seems to have been skillful enough to make unfalsifiable. I think the emails she really didn't want the Republicans going through were her politically related ones and the delete button seems to have pretty much ended any possibility of that happening. It looks like there might not even be enough stuff to hang on Clinton here to be used to pressure her to release more details about the server and more details about the deletion process.

The Republicans, of course, are thrilled because they get to have another round of Benghaziasms over this. But they would probably be happier if there was a little more substance to this and if the scandal didn't point back at some of the Republican leadership for using private phones and potentially not handling information that was required to be archived by law properly.

 

[The Big Dog]

It looks like there might not even be enough stuff to hang on Clinton here to be used to pressure her to release more details about the server and more details about the deletion process.

I'd ask you what you base this on, but I get the feeling we will both be wasting our time.

The only question is whether the House is going to subpoena her server.

The smart money says: YES.

 

[davefoc]

I'd ask you what you base this on, but I get the feeling we will both be wasting our time.

1. The best shot that Clinton committed a prosecutable crime was if she signed the separation agreement. She obviously did not comply with the terms of the separation agreement and that would have been at the least messy for Clinton. Alas she didn't sign the agreement so no crime in not complying with it.

2. The next best shot was to find Clinton in violation of procedures with regard to her exit that were not in compliance with the rules and that were routinely enforced for Secretaries. Alas, it might be too bad, but it sounds like not signing separation agreements was not unusual for at least secretaries of state.

3. After this there was the possibility that Clinton's use of her own email server was against the rules or the law. It doesn't look like anybody has come up with the specific law or rule that would have made it illegal. I agree there were a lot of reasons why it was a bad practice for her to use her own server but I haven't seen where it was illegal and I think by now somebody would have pointed out the specific law that Clinton was in violation of.

4. It is conceivable that Clinton used her email for classified communications. I think it's likely she didn't but if she did, I think the barn door is closed on that as far as retrieving the evidence from her server. It also seems like with all the poking around somebody might have noticed some Clinton emails containing classified communications.

The only question is whether the House is going to subpoena her server.

The smart money says: YES.

Congress might issue a subpoena for her server but I'm not sure they could get it enforced. A claim that she might have done this or that with her emails might not serve as a legal basis for the subpoena. But Clinton might not fight the subpoena. She claims to have turned over every work related email and she claims to have deleted a bunch of non-work related stuff. At this point I doubt very much if there is anything incriminating on that computer and she might just let the Republicans have at it for awhile trying to find something embarrassing on the computer when there isn't anything either because it was erased or it wasn't there in the first place.

 

[The Big Dog]

Congress might issue a subpoena for her server but I'm not sure they could get it enforced. A claim that she might have done this or that with her emails might not serve as a legal basis for the subpoena. But Clinton might not fight the subpoena. She claims to have turned over every work related email and she claims to have deleted a bunch of non-work related stuff. At this point I doubt very much if there is anything incriminating on that computer and she might just let the Republicans have at it for awhile trying to find something embarrassing on the computer when there isn't anything either because it was erased or it wasn't there in the first place.

Legal basis for the subpoena? Here it is:

On the matter of issuing a subpoena to Hillary, how do you vote? AYE! nay.

The ayes have it.

It would seem, of course, that evidence that the mails were deleted would be more than enough, but Congress has to give it the old college try.

I get the Hillary is 45 crowd don't give a damn that their gal seems to be a snake, but there are plenty folks in the Democratic party who would be quite delighted to see Hillary and Bubba's back.

 

[Praktik]

Shouldn't the NSA just be able to provide all the personal emails she deleted anyway?

 

[plague311]

Legal basis for the subpoena? Here it is:

On the matter of issuing a subpoena to Hillary, how do you vote? AYE! nay.

The ayes have it.

And you know this would happen....how? Also, I am pretty sure there has to be some legal standing, as previously mentioned, to acquire the server. Like it or not, the server is private property and contains more information than just stuff related to Hillary. Bill has a ton of stuff from his philanthropies and other business ventures on that server as well. You've pointed it out yourself in previous sources. They have to come up with legal grounds that looking for those emails is reason enough to violate the private property of Bill.

It would seem, of course, that evidence that the mails were deleted would be more than enough, but Congress has to give it the old college try.

They HAVE to? Or what? The world ends? What happens if they don't give it the old college try? Given your knowledge of IT, what do you mean by "evidence the mails were deleted"? You've insisted that if they were deleted off of Hillary's server that they're forever and undeniably gone for all of eternity. No matter how many times that's been pointed out to be completely ludicrous. What are they going to find on the server?

I get the Hillary is 45 crowd don't give a damn that their gal seems to be a snake, but there are plenty folks in the Democratic party who would be quite delighted to see Hillary and Bubba's back.

I mean, what can we say? Every time we talk about how Republicans have a snake that you have no issues with, all you do is shout "TU QUOQUE! TU QUOQUE!" For the record, that is addressing the argument and not the arguer, as that has been your argument for that majority of this thread.

It sucks that it played out this way, and that Hillary has the appearance of being "a snake" in your mind. I mean, TheL8Elvis pointed out blatantly that most people just don't give a damn, and I agree. This is just another publicity stunt, but the Republicans have snakes in the main stream every day. Insulting homosexuals, disgracing the poor, degrading minorities. It happens all the time. It is what it is.

 

[The Big Dog]

And you know this would happen....how? Also, I am pretty sure there has to be some legal standing, as previously mentioned, to acquire the server. Like it or not, the server is private property and contains more information than just stuff related to Hillary. Bill has a ton of stuff from his philanthropies and other business ventures on that server as well. You've pointed it out yourself in previous sources. They have to come up with legal grounds that looking for those emails is reason enough to violate the private property of Bill.

the legal grounds are: I exclusively used my own private server to run government business, and i destroyed a bunch of emails that i think are private.

Ok, here is a subpoena from congress, let me know when is a good time to come over there and get that. Now? Would now work for you?

They HAVE to? Or what? The world ends? What happens if they don't give it the old college try? Given your knowledge of IT, what do you mean by "evidence the mails were deleted"? You've insisted that if they were deleted off of Hillary's server that they're forever and undeniably gone for all of eternity. No matter how many times that's been pointed out to be completely ludicrous. What are they going to find on the server?

Mmmm! I love the smell of straw in the morning.

I mean, what can we say? Every time we talk about how Republicans have a snake that you have no issues with, all you do is shout "TU QUOQUE! TU QUOQUE!" For the record, that is addressing the argument and not the arguer, as that has been your argument for that majority of this thread.....this is just another publicity stunt, but the Republicans have snakes in the main stream every day. Insulting homosexuals, disgracing the poor, degrading minorities. It happens all the time. It is what it is.

LOLZ! Did you intend this as a joke? Because, for the record, I laughed.

 

[The Big Dog]

Some of the security deficit for Clinton’s BlackBerry can be attributed to predictable differences between an enterprise security system managed by a staff of IT professionals and a cowboy/homebrew system like Clinton’s, administered by an individual or a small staff, people familiar with BlackBerry enterprise security told POLITICO.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Some of the security deficit for Clinton’s BlackBerry can be attributed to predictable differences between an enterprise security system managed by a staff of IT professionals and a cowboy/homebrew system like Clinton’s, administered by an individual or a small staff, people familiar with BlackBerry enterprise security told POLITICO.

The security of BlackBerry systems, for instance, is dependent on roughly 600 “IT policies” — essentially security measures that can be switched on or off, according to a person with detailed knowledge about BlackBerry’s federal operations. The more switches that are turned on, the more secure the device or network of devices will be.

ROTFLMAO

 

[plague311]

the legal grounds are: I exclusively used my own private server to run government business, and i destroyed a bunch of emails that i think are private.

Which is cherry picking at best since, you left out the part, "As every other Secretary of State has done, and it doesn't break a single law or policy." Right? You haven't stated a law that was broken. If I'm missing something then by all means correct me.

Ok, here is a subpoena from congress, let me know when is a good time to come over there and get that. Now? Would now work for you?

Irrelevant nonsense.

Mmmm! I love the smell of straw in the morning.

dodge noted

LOLZ! Did you intend this as a joke? Because, for the record, I laughed.

Nope, shall we take a tally of how many times you've said, "tu quoque" as a reply to a comment in your first few posts in this thread? You used it as an argument so frequently that there was another thread started in regards to that specifically.

I am glad I made you laugh though, this side of the conversation has been doing that since page 1.

 

[plague311]

Per the standard "evidence" that you've listed previously in this thread:

was likely much less secure

hackers could pull

hackers could pull (again)

it could take them forever

These systems are typically bought by organizations but can also be bought — at great expense — by individuals or families with major security concerns.

(I wonder if Hillary could afford one?)

On par with the series of "could have's", "maybe's" and unknown information. What it doesn't show is any evidence, even in the slightest bit, that anything she did was a security risk. They have a third party person relaying everything that could have, maybe, possibly allowed to happen. Good read, doesn't mean anything, but good read.

 

[The Big Dog]

Which is cherry picking at best since, you left out the part, "As every other Secretary of State has done, and it doesn't break a single law or policy." Right? You haven't stated a law that was broken. If I'm missing something then by all means correct me.

You were serious about that? Every other SoS had a cowboy server that they alone controlled and then destroyed a bunch of documents? Damn, that seems serious!

Irrelevant nonsense? try, made up nonsense, by you. I've been talking about grabbing Hill's server for a week.

Nope, shall we take a tally of how many times you've said, "tu quoque" as a reply to a thread in your first few posts in this thread? You used it as an argument so frequently that there was another thread started in regards to that specifically.

I am glad I made you laugh though, this side of the conversation has been doing that since page 1.

Yeah, you seem like you are having fun.

I like when you complained about me calling people out on fallacies and then went on a fallacy orgy!

Look under your chair, fallacy, for gays! Fallacy for the poor! Fallacies for everyone!!!!

Tell me that you didn't do that on purpose.

 

[plague311]

You were serious about that? Every other SoS had a cowboy server that they alone controlled and then destroyed a bunch of documents? Damn, that seems serious!

Irrelevant nonsense? try, made up nonsense, by you. I've been talking about grabbing Hill's server for a week.

I am willing to bet if you say "cowboy server" a bit more it will make it look so much worse than just a personal email account, which was my point.

Let's break it down here as well. How many SoS's have used email since email has really been practical? 4. Four SoS's have been around since email and 2 of them said they never really used it. They just straight up don't have any emails available to review. However, they have also said nothing about their actual communications and where the records of those are, not that you've even cared to mention that.

Then there's Powell, who used a personal email account (I know, it wasn't on a "YEEEHAWWW" homebrew server!), but it's the same concept. He could delete emails at will, and did. Literally, none to be found. Despite it NOT being a "yeehaw" homebrew server, there is still not a damn email around. Funny, that. So despite the ssccccaaaarrrryyyy names we are calling Hillary's "OMGZ YEEHAW HOMEBREWZ SERVERZ", it really doesn't matter. Personal or commercial email address, Hillary, at the least, had emails to turn over. Before you say "Tu Quoque", understand that it's a valid comparison. Two people, same position, same opportunity, different results.

Yeah, you seem like you are having fun.

Are you kidding me? I'm having a blast. This whole thread has been a good time.

I like when you complained about me calling people out on fallacies and then went on a fallacy orgy!

Really? Which are those? I guess we can blow up my "every SoS" comment into some fallacy I'm sure. Other than that, I don't see any.

Look under your chair, fallacy, for gays! Fallacy for the poor! Fallacies for everyone!!!!

You list gays and the poor...interesting choice of people you select, not telling at all.

Tell me that you didn't do that on purpose.

I can tell you whatever you want, but you'd just handwave it away.

 

[Tony Stark]

I hope Republicans keep talking about this for as long as they can. I will find their extreme desperation very entertaining.

16.5, just wondering if you still think that she is toast and that you would be surprised if she even ran?

 

[The Big Dog]

This is just another publicity stunt, but the Republicans have snakes in the main stream every day. Insulting homosexuals, disgracing the poor, degrading minorities. It happens all the time. It is what it is.

You list gays and the poor...interesting choice of people you select, not telling at all.

Jeepers! Where ever did I get that idea! You just posted those ridiculous fallacies a couple of hours ago, and you would have gotten away with it but for my crafty short term memory.

You think a "private email account" is the same as admin access to a private server?

That is freaking adorable.