Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Ziggurat]

Were classified data type safes in place to handle any physical media? What kind of physical security was in place to protect the servers?

Almost certainly not, given that her lawyer didn't properly secure the classified data he was in possession of after this whole scandal blew up and it was confirmed that there was indeed classified information in those emails. And, of course, he didn't have proper security clearances either.

 

[The Big Dog]

Almost certainly not, given that her lawyer didn't properly secure the classified data he was in possession of after this whole scandal blew up and it was confirmed that there was indeed classified information in those emails. And, of course, he didn't have proper security clearances either.

He claims that he was given top secret security clearance so he could help Hillary prepare for her testimony before the Intelligence Committee investigating the benghazi attacks. So that means he and Hillary get to do what ever he wants.

Hee haw!

 

[Ziggurat]

Hee haw!

 

[DavidJames]

Almost certainly not, given that her lawyer didn't properly secure the classified data he was in possession of after this whole scandal blew up and it was confirmed that there was indeed classified information in those emails. And, of course, he didn't have proper security clearances either.

He claims that he was given top secret security clearance so he could help Hillary prepare for her testimony before the Intelligence Committee investigating the benghazi attacks. So that means he and Hillary get to do what ever he wants.

Avid readers will note that even Internet Lawyers and Vigilante's disagree over the facts, but not the guilt

Hee haw!

This has been a great day for me to gain insight into the loyal opposition. That comment, however, doesn't add any insight not already well known.

 

[The Big Dog]

Avid readers will note that even Internet Lawyers and Vigilante's disagree over the facts, but not the guilt
This has been a great day for me to gain insight into the loyal opposition. That comment, however, doesn't add any insight not already well known.

what an odd post. Readers with actual reading comprehension that I pointed out what Hillary's shyster "claimed," I certainly did not disagree with the statement that the shyster had not secured the proper clearance.

And yet our correspondent states he has gained "insight" into "the loyal opposition" which I suppose is mocking reference to Ziggaruat and I.

so yeah....

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What knowledge do you have which supports that assertion? If you plan on going down the path of something like, it stands to reason a private server is less secure then government server, don't bother. I'm looking for objective analysis using first hand data. Despite what you're read here, to the best of my knowledge that doesn't exist. There have been a ton of second hand "guessing", by reasonable sources, but that's it.

It really just has to do with bad decision-making; regardless of whether it was nefariously willful, accidental, or otherwise. Ultimately I'm of the opinion that if someone wanted the classified data badly enough and had the tools for it, they'd go as far to breach the official systems to do so anyway. Clinton's decision on the home server was just dumb for not showing common sense and not wanting to stick with a standard in her area of work.

Edit - Personally, it doesn't seem to make sense how she handled the server and subsequent actions. There is no doubt her attitude during the entire time is consistent with many over the years. That doesn't make it right (or wrong), it just adds some context. Context which become irrelevant if crimes or failure to follow proper protocol (official, not Internet Lawyers crap) is determined. If no such things are determined, then it's perfectly reasonable to use that context to assess judgement. But I don't expect that. Those afflicted with HDS have her guilty and want her in jail now and will not accept anything less, regardless of facts.

I think we partially agree. I'm mostly a "Hillary didn't follow protocol and exposed content to unnecessary risk, and skirted the line on records keeping that looks bad given her former stature" person. '
Criminality is "TBD" and may or may not come up. I'm neutral to it for now

 

[davefoc]

...

...I'm mostly a "Hillary didn't follow protocol and exposed content to unnecessary risk, and skirted the line on records keeping that looks bad given her former stature" person. '
Criminality is "TBD" and may or may not come up. I'm neutral to it for now

This seems exactly right to me. I think it was a very curious lapse that makes me wonder what was going on in her world that would lead to such bad decision making.

Perhaps she's just not smart. Perhaps she's surrounded by sycophants that are insufficiently willing to challenge her ideas. Perhaps she's surrounded by scammers desperately trying to make her feel like they're doing something special for her, who have an inadequate view of the overall picture. Perhaps she's so wrapped up in fear of Republican scandal mongering that she will go to any length to prevent them from getting their hands on her writings and what she judges as her private communications even if they were done as part of her SoS duties. Perhaps she is so isolated from any computer issues that she had no appreciation of the possibility of hacking. Perhaps she was so isolated from security issues that she was unaware of the normal precautions involving classified or potentially classified information. I don't know.

For those of us who have handled classified material, it is amazing what has gone on here. Email didn't exist when I was a young engineer with a Secret Clearance, but handling of classified material was a no BS serious proposition. Did nobody give her some instruction on this when she took over as SoS?

One question in all this was what was going on in the Obama administration that allowed this? It is at least conceivable to me that nobody noticed. Maybe they got an email from her private server and didn't notice her underlying address or maybe they just assumed that she had multiple addresses and she just happened to use her private server for the email addressed to them. Some place there should have been somebody that noticed she wasn't archiving any emails, but as I understand it she was in charge of the process of archiving and she either did nothing about it for everybody or selectively managed to get whoever was in charge to do nothing about the fact that she wasn't archiving emails.

I truly don't know what went on here, but it is hard to see explanations that don't involve corruption or incompetence.

But for the record I'm probably going to vote for her.

 

[Ziggurat]

Perhaps she's just not smart. Perhaps she's surrounded by sycophants that are insufficiently willing to challenge her ideas. Perhaps she's surrounded by scammers desperately trying to make her feel like they're doing something special for her, who have an inadequate view of the overall picture. Perhaps she's so wrapped up in fear of Republican scandal mongering that she will go to any length to prevent them from getting their hands on her writings and what she judges as her private communications even if they were done as part of her SoS duties. Perhaps she is so isolated from any computer issues that she had no appreciation of the possibility of hacking. Perhaps she was so isolated from security issues that she was unaware of the normal precautions involving classified or potentially classified information. I don't know.

If you're trying to list all the possibilities, you should include the possibility that she planned to engage in behavior that she would want hidden.

I truly don't know what went on here, but it is hard to see explanations that don't involve corruption or incompetence.

But for the record I'm probably going to vote for her.

... because why would corruption or incompetence matter in a president?

 

[davefoc]

...

... because why would corruption or incompetence matter in a president?

Exactly, I voted for Bush and look how great that turned out.

I should have included the possibility that she was attempting to engage in something really nefarious and hide it. Thank you. It doesn't seem like a strong possibility to me, because she would have had to begin the implementation of the plan immediately as she took office. I also think that most of the various stories of Clinton corruption and malfeasance weren't true (the pardons were a probable exception) so I don't think Hillary Clinton was likely to engage in something that I didn't think she'd done before as SoS. Although, I think the possibility of corruption associated with her foundation is an open question and as I noted above I think there is a good chance that she broke the promise to the Obama administration and did work for her foundation while she was SoS. And if that was true, that is way up on the list of things that Clinton would like to keep hidden.

 

[Ziggurat]

Exactly, I voted for Bush and look how great that turned out.

So why would you want to repeat that?

I should have included the possibility that she was attempting to engage in something really nefarious and hide it. Thank you. It doesn't seem like a strong possibility to me, because she would have had to begin the implementation of the plan immediately as she took office.

Why is that strange? The position is one of obvious influence. The mechanism to exploit that influence (the Clinton Foundation) was well-established. The opportunity for corruption, should she choose to engage in it, would have been quite apparent to her from the start.

Although, I think the possibility of corruption associated with her foundation is an open question and as I noted above I think there is a good chance that she broke the promise to the Obama administration and did work for her foundation while she was SoS. And if that was true, that is way up on the list of things that Clinton would like to keep hidden.

And we know that the Clinton Foundation did in fact accept foreign donations while Hillary was Sec. of State, including from parties with business before the state department who both donated to the Clinton Foundation and received favorable treatment from State (see Uranium One). And they violated a promise to disclose those donations. So the idea that there was actual corruption that she intended from the start to hide really doesn't strike me as far fetched.

 

[mgidm86]

Other then the fact that burglary is illegal so when someone commits a burglary they are subject to charges regardless of when they are caught. In this case what HRC has done has not yet been deemed a crime.

But yeah, exactly the same, if the facts don't matter.

Whether or not a law was broken makes no difference.

davefoc said:

Somebody asked me why I was pissed at Clinton. I suppose if she really is as stupid as this makes her look it isn't fair to be pissed at her. She isn't responsible for this mess because she just isn't that smart.

One does not need to be angry with the burglar simply because what she did was illegal. One may feel sorry for her for needing to resort to burglary and they may choose not to be angry. Being stupid is not a reason to exonerate someone.

One does not need a law to be broken to be angry with them.

Here is a better comparison, hopefully this is more clear: In the case of Hillary, if she was attempting to be conniving and sneaky and was stupid enough to get caught doing it, I sure as heck don't feel sorry for her just because she is stupid, and neither should davefoc.

 

[DavidJames]

Here is a better comparison, hopefully this is more clear: In the case of Hillary, if she was attempting to be conniving and sneaky and was stupid enough to get caught doing it, I sure as heck don't feel sorry for her just because she is stupid, and neither should davefoc.

first that's not a comparison, it's a supposition. Second, if that actually happened, I'd agree with you. Finally, I see no value in making up scanarios which support my bias.

Edit - Of course you can be angry with anyone you like for any reason you like. In this case for many here, if it wasn't this it would be something else. So color me unimpressed with such anger.

 

[davefoc]

...


Why is that strange? The position is one of obvious influence. The mechanism to exploit that influence (the Clinton Foundation) was well-established. The opportunity for corruption, should she choose to engage in it, would have been quite apparent to her from the start.

...

I think you were right, I probably did underestimate the possibility that Clinton intended to cover up nefarious dealings with the use of a personal email server from the start.

Still, it is hard to imagine if that was her intent how she could have done such an amazingly crappy job at it. Why would somebody mix private potentially illegal business negotiations with legal, subject to discovery SoS emails?

It seems like in a lot of scenarios here Clinton needs to be corrupt and not very bright or at least very poorly informed on issues it seems like she would have at least some understanding of. But it is hard to reconcile how Clinton is so incompetent at the same time she has obtained such success as a campaign manager for her husband who was elected governor of Arkansas and president of the US and as a candidate for the US senate.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think you were right, I probably did underestimate the possibility that Clinton intended to cover up nefarious dealings with the use of a personal email server from the start.

Still, it is hard to imagine if that was her intent how she could have done such an amazingly crappy job at it. Why would somebody mix private potentially illegal business negotiations with legal, subject to discovery SoS emails?

It seems like in a lot of scenarios here Clinton needs to be corrupt and not very bright or at least very poorly informed on issues it seems like she would have at least some understanding of. But it is hard to reconcile how Clinton is so incompetent at the same time she has obtained such success as a campaign manager for her husband who was elected governor of Arkansas and president of the US and as a candidate for the US senate.

I can think of no scenarios where she isn't incompetent, at least on matters of security. So we kind of have to take that as a given. I don't know a lot about her management of Bill's campaign, but it's not exactly unheard of for people with great talent in one area to fail miserably at something different. As for her own senate race, she beat a complete nobody in the primary, and the general election was largely determined by the fact that New York tilts heavily democrat. She won 55% to 43% against the Republican candidate, but Gore carried the state 60% to Bush's 35%. So not particularly impressive.

 

[wareyin]

I can think of no scenarios where she isn't incompetent, at least on matters of security. So we kind of have to take that as a given.

Talk about assuming your conclusion!

I don't know a lot about her management of Bill's campaign, but it's not exactly unheard of for people with great talent in one area to fail miserably at something different. As for her own senate race, she beat a complete nobody in the primary, and the general election was largely determined by the fact that New York tilts heavily democrat. She won 55% to 43% against the Republican candidate, but Gore carried the state 60% to Bush's 35%. So not particularly impressive.

You admit to not knowing a lot about key aspects of Clinton's political career, which really ought to give you pause about any scenarios you are capable of imagining. Of course, it's not exactly unheard of for people with talent in one area to fail miserably at something different.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hillary's Mouthpiece regurgitates nonsense

After Hillary's bizarre attempt to laugh off the growing email scandal thudded like her reputation, her campaign said it had to work with allies to get "the message out."

The Campaign had barely hit send on that when along come very thirsty HUD Secretary Julian Castro and dutifully mouths the Clinton line:

"I believe that Secretary Clinton has said, has acknowledged that that was not the best way to handle her emails back then ... and has turned over all of the information and the emails and documents and now the server," Castro said. "Folks need to understand that she did not handle classified information that was classified at that the time. It may have become classified later, but it was not classified that way at the time."
Hey Julian? Do some research, hell read the thread for cripes sake, Hillary's Campaign tricked you into lying: everything hilited above is wrong.

Guess kissing the cankle is the price for the VP slot, huh Julian?

 

[The Big Dog]

Emails show Huma Abedin had FOUR JOBS/Paychecks

Recently produced emails show that Hillary's BFF Huma Abedin had FOUR jobs while working at the State Department:

1. job at State Department
2. job at Teneo
3. job at Clinton Family Foundation
4. personal lackey for Hillary with pay.

These all came together in a nice little package when Huma hosted a small party in Dublin for ALL her employers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...099eee-4b32-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html

i wonder if Hillary and Huma's discussions on the cowboy server about this small get together ended up in the "personal pile"!

Oh yeah, Hillary was doing work for the Foundation, but we will read more about that anon.

 

[Ziggurat]

Talk about assuming your conclusion!

I have done nothing of the sort. Instead, I have searched for possible explanations, and none include competence regarding security. Nor has anyone here (including you) offered any explanation for her actions which include competence regarding security.

You admit to not knowing a lot about key aspects of Clinton's political career, which really ought to give you pause about any scenarios you are capable of imagining.

That doesn't actually make any sense. I need not know anything at all about her previous career. The known facts of the current situation suffice to draw certain conclusions independent of any previous history.

Of course, it's not exactly unheard of for people with talent in one area to fail miserably at something different.

It sounds like you're now agreeing with me that Hillary failed in her handling of the email.

 

[wareyin]

I have done nothing of the sort. Instead, I have searched for possible explanations, and none include competence regarding security. Nor has anyone here (including you) offered any explanation for her actions which include competence regarding security.

You assume incompetence, admit you cannot imagine a scenario where she is competent, and that means one should take it as a given that she is incompetent. That is assuming your conclusion. If one does not assume incompetence, there is no need to prove competence.

That doesn't actually make any sense. I need not know anything at all about her previous career. The known facts of the current situation suffice to draw certain conclusions independent of any previous history.

You may be fine with drawing conclusions about people based on ignorance of those people, but some of us would not be.

It sounds like you're now agreeing with me that Hillary failed in her handling of the email.

That seems a stretch to read into what I wrote.

 

[Ziggurat]

You assume incompetence, admit you cannot imagine a scenario where she is competent

The easiest way to counter my argument would be to present such a scenario, but you didn't. Because you can't. Because there is no such scenario. All the possibilities require incompetence.

You may be fine with drawing conclusions about people based on ignorance of those people, but some of us would not be.

But it's not based on ignorance. It's based on knowledge. I don't need to know how Jenny McCarthy did in highschool biology class to know that she's clueless about science, because she has demonstrated that incompetence through other actions. Similarly, Hillary has demonstrated incompetence on security issues. Hell, she claims such ignorance herself, as part of her defense. It's ridiculous for you to assert the contrary with neither evidence nor logic to support your position.