Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheL8Elvis said:
davefoc, it's your claim that they could have just retrieved all of HRCs emails if she was using the state departments mail servers.

...
Click to expand...
That is also Clinton's claim when she put forth the excuse that most of her emails would have been available since most of her emails were sent to people's official State Department emails.

As to Plague311's homage to his IT expertise:
Is there a separate procedure in the government for formally archiving emails? Can emails still be retrieved if the formal archiving procedure has not been completed? That seems like a pretty simple question, that I thought somebody with his IT expertise could understand. I don't know what other words to use that he might understand.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Headline:

http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/hillary-clinton-hacked-emails-sale/

Exposed! Libya Security Briefs, Algeria Hostage Info & More — Hacker Threatens To Sell Hillary Clinton’s ENTIRE UNRELEASED Private Emails For $500K


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5004455f2fd1ed2058.jpg[/qimg]

But OK :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

An online "celebrity" gossip magazine claims to exclusively have someone selling Clinton's emails. For the price of a commercial or two, and nobody, not Trump, not the GOP, nobody is buying them? Other than some in this thread, I mean? Hmmm, not one mainstream media mention of this? Seems legit! Clearly it's evidence that Clinton's emails were hacked. :rolleyes:
 
wareyin said:
An online "celebrity" gossip magazine claims to exclusively have someone selling Clinton's emails. For the price of a commercial or two, and nobody, not Trump, not the GOP, nobody is buying them? Other than some in this thread, I mean? Hmmm, not one mainstream media mention of this? Seems legit! Clearly it's evidence that Clinton's emails were hacked. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

1. As Ziggurat has mentioned a few times, we don't know if they were hacked or not.
2. Sid Blumenthal's emails are known to have been hacked and he seems to have been using an email server controlled by the Clintons, clintonmail.com. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...in-registered-the-day-of-her-senate-hearings/)
3. The fact is that there is a claim that they were hacked. It doesn't mean that they were hacked, but it is possible, especially given that a Clinton email server had already been hacked.

All the above is moot to some degree. Ziggurat used a technical term for this kind of argument. That isn't too surprising, Ziggurat is a smart guy and he knows stuff like that. But most of us when we are not making blatantly partisan arguments, are well aware of the principal. When somebody breaks into a house and steals stuff he isn't absolved of guilt when the house burns down the next day because the owners of the stuff he stole would have lost their stuff anyway.
 
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis said:
Headline:

http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/hillary-clinton-hacked-emails-sale/

Exposed! Libya Security Briefs, Algeria Hostage Info & More — Hacker Threatens To Sell Hillary Clinton’s ENTIRE UNRELEASED Private Emails For $500K


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5004455f2fd1ed2058.jpg[/qimg]

But OK :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wait, did you just try to make a point that there is a substantive difference between:

Hillary Clinton Hacked Emails for sale. and Hacker Threatens To Sell Hillary Clinton’s ENTIRE UNRELEASED Private Emails For $500K


Oh dear! That is spectacular!

By the way? the URL ends "hillary-clinton-hacked-emails-sale." even way more special?

If on firefox (like me) open a couple of tabs and see what it says in the tab:

Mine says: Hillary Clinton Hacked Emails for sale.

Cool use of roll eyes, tho.

Fantastic!
 
wareyin said:
An online "celebrity" gossip magazine claims to exclusively have someone selling Clinton's emails. For the price of a commercial or two, and nobody, not Trump, not the GOP, nobody is buying them? Other than some in this thread, I mean? Hmmm, not one mainstream media mention of this? Seems legit! Clearly it's evidence that Clinton's emails were hacked. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Buying hacked emails is a crime. Pretty obvious, c'mon man....
 
davefoc said:
1. As Ziggurat has mentioned a few times, we don't know if they were hacked or not.
2. Sid Blumenthal's emails are known to have been hacked and he seems to have been using an email server controlled by the Clintons, clintonmail.com. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...in-registered-the-day-of-her-senate-hearings/)
3. The fact is that there is a claim that they were hacked. It doesn't mean that they were hacked, but it is possible, especially given that a Clinton email server had already been hacked.

All the above is moot to some degree. Ziggurat used a technical term for this kind of argument. That isn't too surprising, Ziggurat is a smart guy and he knows stuff like that. But most of us when we are not making blatantly partisan arguments, are well aware of the principal. When somebody breaks into a house and steals stuff he isn't absolved of guilt when the house burns down the next day because the owners of the stuff he stole would have lost their stuff anyway.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
Some people give credence to the most ridiculous things to keep from having to face the idea that they've been duped.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Is the state departments email truly a "protected property zone" ? Mail servers are Internet facing, usually in a dmz. I don't see how it could be a "protected property zone" , so I disagree that her cowboy homebrew server was in any worse in this regard.
Click to expand...

There is clearly a range of security for email servers. At the bare minimum this is shown by an admin's power to set the password standards. If Clinton provided evidence for her server security being at least equivalent to the general State servers, I would agree that she is not responsible for any mishandling of classified information. Is there such evidence?

I don't think my argument is "running her own mail server is a good idea because it's just as secure", but rather "her decision to run her own mail server didn't actually result in something worse happening than if she had used hrc@state.gov"

IOW, you can't fault her based on outcomes, only on the idea that "potentially, it may have been worse, so it was a bad idea."
Click to expand...

This simply isn't how the classified world works. A clearance holder is responsible for both actual harm as well as potential harm. At least that is the standard that ordinary people are held to.
 
16.5 said:
Wait, did you just try to make a point that there is a substantive difference between:

Hillary Clinton Hacked Emails for sale. and Hacker Threatens To Sell Hillary Clinton’s ENTIRE UNRELEASED Private Emails For $500K


Oh dear! That is spectacular!

By the way? the URL ends "hillary-clinton-hacked-emails-sale." even way more special?
Click to expand...

Who gives a **** what the URL says ? That's not what we were talking about.

16.5 said:
If on firefox (like me) open a couple of tabs and see what it says in the tab:

Mine says: Hillary Clinton Hacked Emails for sale.

Cool use of roll eyes, tho.

Fantastic!
Click to expand...

Again, that's not what you claimed.

You mean don't cite the well publicized claim that Hillary's emails were hacked for the proposition that someone claimed the emails were hacked?
Click to expand...

Words have meanings, be precise, say what you mean.

And no where does the article say the email server was hacked. For all the article says, it was an inside job, and he simply purchased them.

But it doesn't matter, because the article is a joke.

You shouldn't be surprised when people laugh at you when your evidence is a joke. :thumbsup::D
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Who gives a **** what the URL says ? That's not what we were talking about.

gain, that's not what you claimed.



Words have meanings, be precise, say what you mean.

And no where does the article say the email server was hacked. For all the article says, it was an inside job, and he simply purchased them.

But it doesn't matter, because the article is a joke.

You shouldn't be surprised when people laugh at you when your evidence is a joke.
Click to expand...

Oh man, when you are reduced to parsing out utterly insignificant differences in the way words are printed, you truly have nothing.

But wait a tick, a new claim suddenly appears: "For all the article says, it was an inside job, and he simply purchased them."

Purchased them? An Inside jobby job?

Hmmm, who else had access to Hillary's sefer? Hmmmm... I know! Hillary herself might have done it!

People, we are THROUGH the looking glass here!
 
Beeyon said:
There is clearly a range of security for email servers. At the bare minimum this is shown by an admin's power to set the password standards. If Clinton provided evidence for her server security being at least equivalent to the general State servers, I would agree that she is not responsible for any mishandling of classified information. Is there such evidence?
Click to expand...

Fair enough - she has provided no evidence as to the security of her server.

State dept. hasn't provided any evidence about thiers, either.

Beeyon said:
This simply isn't how the classified world works. A clearance holder is responsible for both actual harm as well as potential harm. At least that is the standard that ordinary people are held to.
Click to expand...

IDK. I had a TS and I don't recall things being as you say.

You have a link so the state dept FAH/FAM where this is spelled out, right ?
 
Last edited:
Say, lets ask someone with knowledge, rather than relying on Hillary 2016! Fans, shall we?

Edward Snowden has branded as “completely ridiculous” the idea that Hillary Clinton’s personal email server was secure while she was secretary of state.

There ya go. let the spinning continue.
 
davefoc said:
1. As Ziggurat has mentioned a few times, we don't know if they were hacked or not.
2. Sid Blumenthal's emails are known to have been hacked and he seems to have been using an email server controlled by the Clintons, clintonmail.com. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...in-registered-the-day-of-her-senate-hearings/)
3. The fact is that there is a claim that they were hacked. It doesn't mean that they were hacked, but it is possible, especially given that a Clinton email server had already been hacked.

All the above is moot to some degree. Ziggurat used a technical term for this kind of argument. That isn't too surprising, Ziggurat is a smart guy and he knows stuff like that. But most of us when we are not making blatantly partisan arguments, are well aware of the principal. When somebody breaks into a house and steals stuff he isn't absolved of guilt when the house burns down the next day because the owners of the stuff he stole would have lost their stuff anyway.
Click to expand...

Blumenthal was using AOL, not the homeboy/cowbrew server :eye-poppi
 
By the way, we are talking about a geriatric woman who could not even use the TV Guide, for cripes sake, how difficult do you think it would be to crack her password?

I bet you a nickel that it was "password."

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom