Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
mgidm86 said:
Exactly, I was going to mention the same thing (this stuff gives me a headache though). If they are administering the account remotely at all, that is a pretty weak link in the chain of security. Even if they do it all onsite...oh man what a stupid thing to do.

With or without the "bathroom servers", why did she go through all this trouble just to have her own setup? I mean why not use the government server that is available with no cost or maintenance involved? It's either really stupid, really devious, or both. There has been no explanation other than the "two devices" excuse.
Click to expand...

she did not want to be bothered by petty annoyances like FOIA and Congressional Subpoenas.

not kidding at all.
 
logger said:
Because it shows she doesn't give a crap about security.

Leftist need to stop trying to polish this turd, just flush it down.
Click to expand...

Shhh! Ixnay ethay oodgay adviceway.

Logger's just trying to discourage you lefties. Don't you worry. There's still plenty of time to burnish this turd until it gleams like gold. This is just a little dump in the yellow brick road for Toto Dorothy.
 
16.5 said:
she did not want to be bothered by petty annoyances like FOIA and Congressional Subpoenas.

not kidding at all.
Click to expand...

She came this >-< close to getting away with it too. Without the Benghazi select committee would any of this have ever come out? Sort of makes one wonder what she has actually gotten away with over the years. Obama too. I guess that's what happens when the media watchdog turns into a lapdog for the last 6.5 years.
 
sunmaster14 said:
She came this >-< close to getting away with it too. Without the Benghazi select committee would any of this have ever come out? Sort of makes one wonder what she has actually gotten away with over the years. Obama too. I guess that's what happens when the media watchdog turns into a lapdog for the last 6.5 years.
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
JohnnyG said:
That would be even worse. If PRN were only hosting the email accounts, they might not have access to the emails stored in the server. However, if they were managing the mail server on HC owned hardware, they would have to have been given administrator access. I think the intelligence community would frown on someone without clearance having administrator access to anything they send to the Secretary of State.
Click to expand...

Although she was no longer SoS at that point, her emails were still there, so I can see your point.

I suppose the intelligence community should have lobbied congress to require public officials to us govt servers instead of allowing them to use private email servers.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I suppose the intelligence community should have lobbied congress to require public officials to us govt servers instead of allowing them to use private email servers.
Click to expand...

It is not obvious that an public officials', official use of a private email sever is non-negligent.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Although she was no longer SoS at that point, her emails were still there, so I can see your point.

I suppose the intelligence community should have lobbied congress to require public officials to us govt servers instead of allowing them to use private email servers.
Click to expand...

A. They were supposed to use classified servers.

B. I don't think anyone ever thought that anyone would have the clintonesque attitude to skate so close to the line and not care when she constantly went over it.

Hey, the intelligence community ********** up, they trusted Hillary Clinton.

Let's hope the country learns from their mistake.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Although she was no longer SoS at that point, her emails were still there, so I can see your point.



I suppose the intelligence community should have lobbied congress to require public officials to us govt servers instead of allowing them to use private email servers.
Click to expand...


Not necessary. Title 18 of the U.S. Code, section 1924 (a) has it covered.

18USC1924a said:
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
Click to expand...
 
JohnnyG said:
Not necessary. Title 18 of the U.S. Code, section 1924 (a) has it covered.
Click to expand...

Didn't we cover that in this post:
JohnnyG said:
<snip>
Link
Click to expand...

Unless she violated a rule dealing with the handling of classified or sensitive but unclassified information, I don’t see how she violated any law or regulation," said Bass, who is now executive director of the Bauman Foundation.

I don't see any credible sources claiming she violated the law in regards to using her private email, or server. Despite the fact that she took an excessively long time to turn over copies of email.
 
“What, like, with a blue dress or something?”
- Hillary Clinton*, when asked whether she wiped her email server

* actual quote may vary slightly from advertisement
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Her first response is, as it was when she first addressed the existence of the private server back in March, to insist that she is in no legal jeopardy. "What I did was legally permitted, number one, first and foremost, okay?" Clinton said. Sure. No neutral observer has suggested that there is any illegality in what Clinton did.

Hmm. Interesting observation indeed.
Click to expand...

Hell, I've been saying that Hillary's strongest theme is that she has actually not been actually convicted of a major felony yet.

Vote for Hillary 2016, pathological liar but not actually a convicted felon! Heck of a powerful argument for the leader of your ticket!

lets hope that the counterintelligence referral to the FBI regarding the compromise of classified national security information in former Secretary Clinton's emails keeps her out of jail.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Hell, I've been saying that Hillary's strongest theme is that she has actually not been actually convicted of a major felony yet.

Vote for Hillary 2016, pathological liar but not actually a convicted felon! Heck of a powerful argument for the leader of your ticket!
Click to expand...

And what's the argument for yours? Feel free to start a new thread telling us who you support instead of who you witch hunt. Avid readers want to know!
 
16.5 said:
Vote for Hillary 2016, pathological liar but not actually a convicted felon! Heck of a powerful argument for the leader of your ticket!
Click to expand...
Avid readers will note the difference between an opinion from a biased source and a vetted decision from our legal system. I'm sure informed readers will be able to choose wisely.
 
DavidJames said:
Avid readers will note the difference between an opinion from a biased source and a vetted decision from our legal system. I'm sure informed readers will be able to choose wisely.
Click to expand...

"vetted decision" BWHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!

Oh man, oh dear.

Great stuff.

Hillary Clinton, The Legal System Agrees, Not an Actual Convicted Felon.

High praise indeed for an incompetent goofball who says she is "Ready" to be President of the United States.

When asked whether she had wiped her private server clean, "What, with like with a cloth or something? I don't know how it works at all."

BUT NOT AN ACTUAL CONVICTED FELON YET.
 
NoahFence said:
And what's the argument for yours? Feel free to start a new thread telling us who you support instead of who you witch hunt. Avid readers want to know!
Click to expand...

That's the sad problem for Republicans nowadays: They have nobody sane to support, so they are limited to these phony scandals in an attempt to tear down the other guy (gal in this case).
 
wareyin said:
That's the sad problem for Republicans nowadays: They have nobody sane to support, so they are limited to these phony scandals in an attempt to tear down the other guy (gal in this case).
Click to expand...

People keep claiming that this is a phony scandal, and yet, it just keeps getting worse.

Want an actual phony scandal? Bridgegate. This? No, this isn't phony. And it won't go away either, because Hillary clearly ****** up. She ****** up big time. Nothing she has done in this entire episode has been the right thing.
 
wareyin said:
That's the sad problem for Republicans nowadays: They have nobody sane to support, so they are limited to these phony scandals in an attempt to tear down the other guy (gal in this case).
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
People keep claiming that this is a phony scandal, and yet, it just keeps getting worse.

Want an actual phony scandal? Bridgegate. This? No, this isn't phony. And it won't go away either, because Hillary clearly ****** up. She ****** up big time. Nothing she has done in this entire episode has been the right thing.
Click to expand...
Notice what happened here? wareyin makes a point about Republicans and their candidates and the response ignores that and concentrates on the legitimacy of the scandals.

The only shot Republicans have at winning the Presidency is to get Americans to hate all the alternatives. I understand the tactic, but what's befuddling is it's used on a "skeptics" forum.
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
Notice what happened here? wareyin makes a point about Republicans and their candidates and the response ignores that and concentrates on the legitimacy of the scandals.
Click to expand...

You're chastising me for staying on topic with the thread? Yeah, sorry, not going to feel bad about that.

The only shot Republicans have at winning the Presidency is to get Americans to hate all the alternatives.
Click to expand...

And your only defense of Clinton is an attack on Republicans. You can't actually defend her actions here.

I understand the tactic, but what's befuddling is it's used on a "skeptics" forum.
Click to expand...

:id:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom