Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reheat said:
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...
Click to expand...
So you are claiming that the relevant authorities don't agree with you, but that's because there's a conspiracy to protect Clinton? That seems to be common in this thread. I guess participating in the 9/11 threads doesn't mean one can recognize a conspiracy theory, does it?
 
wareyin said:
So you are claiming that the relevant authorities don't agree with you, but that's because there's a conspiracy to protect Clinton? That seems to be common in this thread. I guess participating in the 9/11 threads doesn't mean one can recognize a conspiracy theory, does it?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
I guess when you aren't able to provide a response, an emoticon will do. How about this for that :rolleyes:.

What Reheat is doing is parroting what other have said.

"It's a crime"
"Where are the charges"
"There aren't any because x, y & z are protecting her.
"Ah, so it's a conspiracy"
"wah wah wah, strawman, excuses, paragraphs of dancing around what a conspiracy is"
 
DavidJames said:
I guess when you aren't able to provide a response, an emoticon will do. How about this for that :rolleyes:.

What Reheat is doing is parroting what other have said.

"It's a crime"
"Where are the charges"
"There aren't any because x, y & z are protecting her.
"Ah, so it's a conspiracy"
"wah wah wah, strawman, excuses, paragraphs of dancing around what a conspiracy is"
Click to expand...

By your definition, all of partisan politics is a conspiracy and should be relegated to the CT subforum.
 
wareyin said:
I realize document markings are not what count. However, your post, as well as the Washington Post, place responsibility on the author of emails.
Click to expand...

Your framing is unnecessarily exclusive; it isn't a matter of whether and email "author" or "receiver" has sole responsible for an email. Everyone with authorized access to classified material has responsibilities.

In general, yes, the sender of an email is responsible for indicating the presence of classified materials. That does not absolve the receiver of protecting emails accounts which could receive classified materials. If I email you improperly marked classified materials and you use your last name as your classified password and your account gets hacked, we've both committed infractions.
 
sunmaster14 said:
By your definition, all of partisan politics is a conspiracy and should be relegated to the CT subforum.
Click to expand...

Correction - What she is being investigated for IS NOT partisan politics by any stretch of ones partisan politics. This investigation is for the potential violation of multiple Federal Laws.
 
Abject, congenital liar Hillary Clinton:

"Because if I had not asked for my emails all to be made public, none of this would have been in the public arena. But I want people to know what we did, I’m proud of the four years I was Secretary of State. So I know this is all just going to work itself out as we g o forward."

What spectacular arrogance/delusion.

The documents are being produced not because cowboy webmaster Hillary Clinton "asked" that her documents be turned over, but rather because various courts ORDERED that they be produced in response to dozens of outstanding FOIA requests.

Further, the Intelligence Community's concern about classification is because under her watch: 1. State mishandled classified data from the Intelligence Community; 2. the classified data was sent to her private homebrew server; 3. Hillary handed the classified data to her law firm rather than the State Department to determine what would be responsive.

This was, of course caused by her paranoid insistence that she use her own private network.
 
Last edited:
I notice that tone deaf "jokester" Hillary Clinton joined The Snapchat, which she "loves" because those messages "disappear all by themselves."

the sound you just heard was tens of thousands of democrats face palming.

"The combination of messy facts, messy campaign operation and an awkward candidate reading terrible lines or worse jokes from a prompter is very scary," admitted one unaligned senior Democratic operative.
 
Reheat said:
Correction - What she is being investigated for IS NOT partisan politics by any stretch of ones partisan politics. This investigation is for the potential violation of multiple Federal Laws.
Click to expand...

Which you claim her obvious guilt of will be swept under the rug by the government. And this isn't a conspiracy theory because why, again?
 
Beeyon said:
Your framing is unnecessarily exclusive; it isn't a matter of whether and email "author" or "receiver" has sole responsible for an email. Everyone with authorized access to classified material has responsibilities.

In general, yes, the sender of an email is responsible for indicating the presence of classified materials. That does not absolve the receiver of protecting emails accounts which could receive classified materials. If I email you improperly marked classified materials and you use your last name as your classified password and your account gets hacked, we've both committed infractions.
Click to expand...

Did Clinton use her last name as her classified password and have her account get hacked?
 
jhunter1163 said:
Clinton's server was, arguably, more secure than State's system. State's e-mail system is known to have been hacked on at least two occasions. There's no evidence that Clinton's server was ever compromised in any way.
Click to expand...

Actually, we do know that because classified information contained in emails on the server was compromised both as part of the recent FOIA production, and released to a private law firm, plus the investigation has just begun.

Those previous hacks did not result in the release of any classified data (IIRC), equally as important, we may never know if Hillary was hacked, which is much worse, of course.

Hillary made a dumb decision out of arrogance, no need to make any excuses for her.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Clinton's server was, arguably, more secure than State's system. State's e-mail system is known to have been hacked on at least two occasions. There's no evidence that Clinton's server was ever compromised in any way.
Click to expand...

Of course there's no evidence her server was hacked, because nobody has checked whether her server was hacked. And how much security do you actually expect on a system set up literally in a bathroom closet?

Plus, of course, the hack was only into the unclassified network. The classified network was not penetrated. But there were classified emails on Hillary's system.
 
wareyin said:
Did Clinton use her last name as her classified password and have her account get hacked?
Click to expand...
I am confident she did not use her last name as a password. The point was to illustrate that both sender and receiver have responsibilities, a point which previously you appeared to be denying.

As I said before, whether or not Clinton did anything actionable will hinge on whether or not she was negligent in her use of a personal email account. None of us have the information to even suggest the result of that accounting. It will depend on the internal standards of State, the security of Clinton's server, the measures that Clinton took to limit others sending her classified information, and the disposition of the investigators to name a few factors.

One other point worth making; evidence of other individuals following the same procedures is not evidence of non-negligence if it didn't happen at the same time. Context is a part of the determination, and what was reasonable in 2006 may not still be reasonable in 2012.
 
Ziggurat said:
Of course there's no evidence her server was hacked, because nobody has checked whether her server was hacked. And how much security do you actually expect on a system set up literally in a bathroom closet?

Plus, of course, the hack was only into the unclassified network. The classified network was not penetrated. But there were classified emails on Hillary's system.
Click to expand...

We are told that classified material circulated the State Dept emails unmarked. How do we know the hackers didn't access classified material?
 
jhunter1163 said:
Clinton's server was, arguably, more secure than State's system. State's e-mail system is known to have been hacked on at least two occasions.
Click to expand...

This is an inane argument. Lack of evidence of hacking is not evidence of resistance to hacking. And security is defined by resistance to penetration, not by having a low profile (an unknown, weak target is not "secure").
 
Can't find a link to verify this, but the latest news on the radio was, out of 1500 emails checked to date, 306 contained classified information of some kind.
If this is so, that's one out of five emails with classified information therein, not a promising ratio for the Clinton spin machine to put a positive swirl to, by any means.
 
wareyin said:
We are told that classified material circulated the State Dept emails unmarked. How do we know the hackers didn't access classified material?
Click to expand...

We don't. They very well could have. Precisely this possibility is why classified material isn't supposed to leave the classified network. And we know that Hillary violated this rule.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom