Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Ziggurat]

That's a false dichotomy. It's amazing you even presented it.

Of course it's a false dichotomy. That's my whole point, genius.

That's a strawman.

Really? Then why have you defended Hillary at every turn? Why have you consistently attacked all her critics, usually with irrelevant ad hominems?

You can tell me it's a straw man all you want to, but you have yet to show me otherwise.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, that could be. I don't know either how the day-to-day activities of the State Department work. I would think that the Secretary of State may have need to communicate with Station Chiefs throughout the world and others in Washington while she traveled. In this day and age so much business communication is performed via e-mail. According to Hillary she sent an average of 20-30 business-related e-mails on her personal server per day throughout her tenure as Secretary of State, but none of those discussed classified information.

It could be that all classified info was communicated to her verbally or by hard copy. Though it seems odd that not once in four years did anyone want to send a file attachment to her.

As a (very) loose basis of comparison, my brother worked for the FBI in a Foreign Counter Intelligence group pre- and post- 9/11. He was not allowed to have anything on his personal e-mail, could not use his bureau car for any personal business, and had to use an encrypted cell phone for business. It may be very different from the State Department, but the FBI drilled into their employees the importance of the fact that their job dealt with sensitive information.

That's a very good question. Anyone sending an e-mail to her should have recognized the e-mail address was different from others in the State Department. I'm assuming that her personal address was something like <hillary@clintonemail.com> whereas if she had a business e-mail it would have been <hillary@statedepartment.gov> or something like that.

She kept her email address secret from even top executives in the Obama administration.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel HAD TO ASK her staff for it and they had to ask Hillary for permission to give it to him.

 

[plague311]

So the category of things you can do which aren't actually crimes but are still very bad to do... that category simply doesn't exist?

Yeah, it does exist, just not around here. It's just convenient that when it's pointed out that both sides do this\have done this very thing, then it's "TU QUOQUE OMFGZ!!!", as was discussed ad nausuem in this very thread. If Hillary does it then...well just look at Newton Bit's post. It's all, "Well if you're a Clinton then blah blah blah, Clinton's bad, wtf". Even you went off on this whole "surrounding yourself with criminals" nonsense.

That's not to mention the ridiculous hair splitting. "Oh, previous SoS's didn't use their own servers" gets spouted, but no one seems to care that a previous SOS used a PUBLIC email system (gmail was it?), and all of those admins were able to see all of his email, confidential or not. Yet again, the same rules need not apply to Hillary, or Shillary, or whatever stupid name is out there now. Our resident Hillary follower, 16.5, was quick to say "well then they should be in prison too", yet did you see any threads by him when Bush did it? No, cause he, and you, couldn't give a **** Bush did it. Only in retrospect was it given any acknowledgement at all.

That's not what skepticism means.

No ******, Break it down for me please.

And if you can't recognize that running your own unsecured email server that people are sending you classified information on as Secretary of State is a very bad thing to do, then indeed, you cannot think properly.

I can recognize it was stupid, but that doesn't mean it was criminal. Politicians from both sides of the aisle do dumb stuff all the time, sometimes it is criminal. It would just be nice to see the outrage machine applied evenly sometimes. Even since Bush's and previous people who did this same thing was pointed out, 16.5 or his ilk, haven't even kind of pushed for them to face charges. He hasn't started a thread, he hasn't collected information on the scandal, he hasn't even brought it up. Again, convenient as all hell.

She kept her email address secret from even top executives in the Obama administration.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel HAD TO ASK her staff for it and they had to ask Hillary for permission to give it to him.

Evidence? I trust little to nothing of what you say. This wafts of a lack of truth.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So the category of things you can do which aren't actually crimes but are still very bad to do... that category simply doesn't exist?

That's not what skepticism means.

And if you can't recognize that running your own unsecured email server that people are sending you classified information on as Secretary of State is a very bad thing to do, then indeed, you cannot think properly.

Evidence her email sever was unsecured ?

I already posted this link, where it explained the sender in question specifically labeled one of the 2 emails in question by the IG as sensitive but unclassified.

So yes, the person who sent the email to the Abadin (who sent it to HRC) misjudged whether it contained classified material. I don't think that means HRC is disqualified from being president, or that she necessarily did anything "bad".

 

[The Big Dog]

Yeah, it does exist, just not around here. It's just convenient that when it's pointed out that both sides do this\have done this very thing, then it's "TU QUOQUE OMFGZ!!!"

LOLZ, when someone writes that you know what follows is going to be a plethora of tu quoque fallacies!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Evidence? I trust little to nothing of what you say. This wafts of a lack of truth.

Sure, right here:
http://www.sj-r.com/article/20150701/NEWS/150709973

WASHINGTON -- Senior Obama administration officials, including the White House chief of staff, knew as early as 2009 that Hillary Rodham Clinton was using a private email address for her government correspondence, according to some 3,000 pages of correspondence released by the State Department late Tuesday night

Oh ... wait. That's like totally the opposite of what 16.5 claimed.

Never mind, my bad

 

[Ziggurat]

That's not to mention the ridiculous hair splitting. "Oh, previous SoS's didn't use their own servers" gets spouted, but no one seems to care that a previous SOS used a PUBLIC email system (gmail was it?), and all of those admins were able to see all of his email, confidential or not.

It's not ridiculous hair splitting. The reason the difference matters is that if you're using both systems, you can easily use the government system for classified and sensitive emails, and a non-government system for non-sensitive emails. As soon as it became known that she exclusively used her private system, it became obvious that there was a high probability that she had sent sensitive information on this private system. Hillary tried to deny this, but this denial (unsurprisingly) turned out to be a lie.

If you have any reason to believe that any previous SOS's sent sensitive information through a non-government email, then please, by all means, share with the class. Otherwise, the only point of the false comparison is to try to excuse what Hillary has done.

Yet again, the same rules need not apply to Hillary, or Shillary, or whatever stupid name is out there now.

The people demanding different rules for Hillary are the ones trying to excuse this absolutely unprecedented breach of security protocols.

I can recognize it was stupid

Can you? Can you really? Do you actually grasp the monumental, epic scale of the error? Do you really understand how this could compromise US national security, and get Americans killed? Do you understand the depths of dishonesty that Hillary has sunk to in order to hide what she has done?

Politicians from both sides of the aisle do dumb stuff all the time

Rarely with such national security implications.

It would just be nice to see the outrage machine applied evenly sometimes.

You've picked the wrong case to try to push this complaint on.

Even since Bush's and previous people who did this same thing was pointed out

Except, as pointed out above, they didn't.

Evidence? I trust little to nothing of what you say. This wafts of a lack of truth.

And yet, it's true.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016...-s-email-address-was-a-hot-commodity-20150630
"Then a September 5 thread notes that Clinton and Obama's then chief of staff Rahm Emanuel were slated to speak and that she had asked him to email her. Mills emailed Clinton asking, "do you want him to have your email?" Clinton replied: "Yes.""

If things which are true strike you as being not true, then perhaps you fail to understand the situation in general. This should give you pause, but I suspect it will not.

 

[plague311]

It's not ridiculous hair splitting. The reason the difference matters is that if you're using both systems, you can easily use the government system for classified and sensitive emails, and a non-government system for non-sensitive emails. As soon as it became known that she exclusively used her private system, it became obvious that there was a high probability that she had sent sensitive information on this private system. Hillary tried to deny this, but this denial (unsurprisingly) turned out to be a lie.

If you have any reason to believe that any previous SOS's sent sensitive information through a non-government email, then please, by all means, share with the class. Otherwise, the only point of the false comparison is to try to excuse what Hillary has done.

Your claim there buttercup, do you have evidence that the previous SoS's were using one system for secured documents and one for the other? You're the one making THAT claim. I'm not proving your point for you. I don't recall seeing the previous SoS say he was using multiple systems. Maybe you did.

Can you? Can you really? Do you actually grasp the monumental, epic scale of the error? Do you really understand how this could compromise US national security, and get Americans killed? Do you understand the depths of dishonesty that Hillary has sunk to in order to hide what she has done?

I understand that anything "could" happen. I also understand that to this point nothing HAS happened, no Americans have been killed, and the rest is just you trying to paint her as bad as possible and can be dismissed.

And yet, it's true.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016...-s-email-address-was-a-hot-commodity-20150630
"Then a September 5 thread notes that Clinton and Obama's then chief of staff Rahm Emanuel were slated to speak and that she had asked him to email her. Mills emailed Clinton asking, "do you want him to have your email?" Clinton replied: "Yes.""

If things which are true strike you as being not true, then perhaps you fail to understand the situation in general. This should give you pause, but I suspect it will not.

Lying should give you pause, but it hasn't to this point. Your quote doesn't imply it was secret, just that this one individual didn't have it. Just because you don't know my home address, doesn't mean I'm keeping it secret. That distinction probably won't matter to you, it hasn't previously anyway.

 

[Ziggurat]

Evidence her email sever was unsecured ?

You really should be demanding evidence from Hillary that her email server was secured. But of course, you won't, because you don't actually care.

 

[plague311]

You really should be demanding evidence from Hillary that her email server was secured. But of course, you won't, because you don't actually care.

You made a claim, we demand evidence from the person making a claim. Handwave noted though

 

[wareyin]

I don't understand this whole attitude that as long as Hillary herself didn't actually commit a crime, then everything is OK.

No, that's a lie, I do understand it: it's blind partisan loyalty. I just don't sympathize with it.

I wonder if you realize that the only people outraged, outraged, I say, are far right conservatives? That the entire rest of the political spectrum doesn't share your outrage doesn't make everyone else the blind partisans.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You really should be demanding evidence from Hillary that her email server was secured. But of course, you won't, because you don't actually care.

Instead of admitting you have no evidence regarding her server being insecure, you choose to attack me instead.

 

[Ziggurat]

You made a claim, we demand evidence from the person making a claim. Handwave noted though

First, way to miss the meaning of my post. The demand for Hillary to prove her system was secure should have been made the moment it became clear she was using a private system for her emails, and it should have become quite insistent once it was discovered that she used it for classified information. So regardless of what you think about me, this is still a burden Hillary should be facing.

The fact that she isn't facing any such demand from you indicates that you don't actually care about security.

Now, as for my positive claim that it was insecure, well, I'm sure that's been touched on before in this thread, but here's a few examples:
http://www.computerworld.com/articl...email-system-was-insecure-for-two-months.html
"The private email system used by Hillary Clinton when she was U.S. Secretary of State didn't encrypt messages during the first two months of use, an Internet security company said Wednesday."
http://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/
"A more specific threat to Clinton’s private email relates to its domain name... Anyone who hacked Network Solutions would be able to quietly hijack the Clintonemail.com domain, intercepting, redirecting, and even spoofing email from Clinton’s account."
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/hackers-reveal-hillarys-private-sever-was-very-inscure/
"Another problem was that clintonemail.com was run on outdated versions of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS). It would be child’s play for a hacker to look up security vulnerabilities present in the old versions and take advantage of them. The outdated IIS was particularly problematic, sources tell Rosen, since the version Clinton was using had several avenues of attack for hackers to use."

 

[Ziggurat]

I wonder if you realize that the only people outraged, outraged, I say, are far right conservatives? That the entire rest of the political spectrum doesn't share your outrage doesn't make everyone else the blind partisans.

Plenty of non-conservatives recognize this as a major screwup on her part. That you don't recognize this is really just a sign of your own blindness.

 

[wareyin]

Plenty of non-conservatives recognize this as a major screwup on her part. That you don't recognize this is really just a sign of your own blindness.

Just keep telling yourself that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

First, way to miss the meaning of my post. The demand for Hillary to prove her system was secure should have been made the moment it became clear she was using a private system for her emails, and it should have become quite insistent once it was discovered that she used it for classified information. So regardless of what you think about me, this is still a burden Hillary should be facing.

The fact that she isn't facing any such demand from you indicates that you don't actually care about security.

Now, as for my positive claim that it was insecure, well, I'm sure that's been touched on before in this thread, but here's a few examples:
http://www.computerworld.com/articl...email-system-was-insecure-for-two-months.html
"The private email system used by Hillary Clinton when she was U.S. Secretary of State didn't encrypt messages during the first two months of use, an Internet security company said Wednesday."

FUD and Untrue, already debunked in this thread.

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/
"A more specific threat to Clinton’s private email relates to its domain name... Anyone who hacked Network Solutions would be able to quietly hijack the Clintonemail.com domain, intercepting, redirecting, and even spoofing email from Clinton’s account."

That has nothing to do with her mail server, you know that, right ?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/hackers-reveal-hillarys-private-sever-was-very-inscure/
"Another problem was that clintonemail.com was run on outdated versions of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS). It would be child’s play for a hacker to look up security vulnerabilities present in the old versions and take advantage of them. The outdated IIS was particularly problematic, sources tell Rosen, since the version Clinton was using had several avenues of attack for hackers to use."

Using server version header to claim vulnerabilities exist in a system is ridiculous.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sure, right here:
http://www.sj-r.com/article/20150701/NEWS/150709973

WASHINGTON -- Senior Obama administration officials, including the White House chief of staff, knew as early as 2009 that Hillary Rodham Clinton was using a private email address for her government correspondence, according to some 3,000 pages of correspondence released by the State Department late Tuesday night

Oh ... wait. That's like totally the opposite of what 16.5 claimed.

Never mind, my bad

the next line was "The chief of staff, current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, requested Clinton's email address on Sept. 5, 2009, according to one email."

Which is exactly what I said, and yet you think that article shows the opposite.

That is amazing.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

the next line was "The chief of staff, current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, requested Clinton's email address on Sept. 5, 2009, according to one email."

Which is exactly what I said, and yet you think that article shows the opposite.

That is amazing.

Yes, exactly what you said.

She kept her email address secret from even top executives in the Obama administration.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel HAD TO ASK her staff for it and they had to ask Hillary for permission to give it to him.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, exactly what you said.

"White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel HAD TO ASK her staff for it and they had to ask Hillary for permission to give it to him."
Just don't think I have ever seen such pathetic reading comprehension in my entire life.

I mean, talk about cherry picking, oh dear.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

"White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel HAD TO ASK her staff for it and they had to ask Hillary for permission to give it to him."
Just don't think I have ever seen such pathetic reading comprehension in my entire life.

I mean, talk about cherry picking, oh dear.

Yes, I picked the 50% of your post that was not true. Oh dear indeed.