Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[plague311]

As to your point that my expectations of her computer knowledge were unrealistic: I think almost any professional younger person would have had a better understanding than she seems to have had

As a person that does IT for a technical college, in my anecdotal experience, you would be incorrect. Maybe young people that are going into computer related fields would have a better understanding, but outside of that, there is absolutely no reason why any individual would have an understanding of servers at all. Especially younger people who could care less as long as their printers print, and they can connect to Wi-Fi. I spend the majority of my day at work scrubbing laptops, and explaining why individuals aren't more secure with 4 anti-virus programs on their computers. Hell, you're lucky if half of them don't have food\candy stuck in between the keys holding them down. Just because young people use computers doesn't mean young people understand them. Just like, previous to school, I watched a **** ton of TV, but I couldn't explain the intricacies of the process, or even a generic outlook for that matter.

but my point there wasn't so much about her lack of knowledge as her failure to obtain and utilize guidance from people better informed than herself.

Sounds like she had some good guidance on the setup. A person from the State Department installed and configured her server. It's not like she hired someone from the local papers, craigslist, or Angie's list. She went to someone who had experience, in her specific department, to get her system setup.

Whether it is wrong or right, in your opinion, she still spoke with people better informed than herself.

Some people posting in this thread should take note.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If your point was that her supposed "yoga routines" didn't need to be available, you're being pointlessly pedantic about my phrasing. Emails pertaining to government business were supposed to be made available to State. She had emails that pertained to the business of state (such as between herself and Abedin, or Blumenthal) which should have been available to state but which never went to State's email system. Are you honestly not aware of this?

I didn't ask you for your interpretation of the rules, I asked you for the rules. Once we know know these, then we can move on to your claims of what may or may not have violated said rules.

She didn't turn over her emails because she didn't want State to have them. Quite simple, really.

Mind reading. Impressive.

 

[shuize]

Mind reading. Impressive.

Clinton went to all the trouble of setting up a separate, cowboy server outside the State Department loop and then did not turn over the emails connected with that server because ....

A) she really wanted the State Department to have them.

B) she really didn't want the State Department to have them.

I don't think it requires "mind reading" to say the answer is "Not A."

 

[davefoc]

As a person that does IT for a technical college, in my anecdotal experience, you would be incorrect. Maybe young people that are going into computer related fields would have a better understanding, but outside of that, there is absolutely no reason why any individual would have an understanding of servers at all. Especially younger people who could care less as long as their printers print, and they can connect to Wi-Fi. I spend the majority of my day at work scrubbing laptops, and explaining why individuals aren't more secure with 4 anti-virus programs on their computers. Hell, you're lucky if half of them don't have food\candy stuck in between the keys holding them down. Just because young people use computers doesn't mean young people understand them. Just like, previous to school, I watched a **** ton of TV, but I couldn't explain the intricacies of the process, or even a generic outlook for that matter.



Sounds like she had some good guidance on the setup. A person from the State Department installed and configured her server. It's not like she hired someone from the local papers, craigslist, or Angie's list. She went to someone who had experience, in her specific department, to get her system setup.

Whether it is wrong or right, in your opinion, she still spoke with people better informed than herself.

Some people posting in this thread should take note.

I'm not sure why you see that any of this is much of a defense of Clinton. I guess your claim with regard to young people's computer knowledge is that the average young professional wouldn't have understood that the security required on a server used by a high government official, particularly the secretary of state, would have been greater than the security available if one set up a typical private server. Or that young non-computer professionals wouldn't understand that deleting a file doesn't prevent the recovery of that file.Or that the average young non-computer professional wouldn't realize that somebody could retrieve the entire batch of emails on the server on to memory sticks plugged into the front of the server. I think your assessment is probably wrong.

You make a great deal about your IT skills, but you haven't written anything in this thread where you have done more than spit out common partisan talking points coupled with a little self puffery.

Clinton failed to conform with laws and rules requiring her to submit her emails for archiving and the evidence is very strong that she had no intention of conforming with those rules. It doesn't take a job in IT to understand this.

Clinton used her server for the receipt and transmission of classified material. It would take a giant idiot not to realize that at a minimum sensitive information would be stored on the SoS email server. So what special precautions did Clinton together with her IT guy institute for physically securing the server, and the backup media? What special software did her IT guy institute on her server to be able to detect hacking attempts? What precautions were taken to protect the server when it ended up in a data center? And even if they thought of all that stuff, why would they do it in the first place. Presumably cyber security is a priority for the government. If Clinton thought the government cyber security guys didn't know what they were doing why didn't she attempt to fix that problem?

Your mention of the state department guy that set up the server is particularly misleading. That guy was the IT guy from her previous presidential run, and the guy she got a high paid job for in the State Department and the guy that she paid to set up the server and the guy that lost his job at the same time Clinton retired from the SoS position and the guy that has taken the fifth rather than testify about his involvement with the server. The State Department didn't set up Clinton's server or have anything to do with it beyond giving a job to a Clinton crony.

 

[davefoc]

Clinton went to all the trouble of setting up a separate, cowboy server outside the State Department loop and then did not turn over the emails connected with that server because ....

A) she really wanted the State Department to have them.

B) she really didn't want the State Department to have them.

I don't think it requires "mind reading" to say the answer is "Not A."

To be comprehensive and fair here there are a few more possibilities

C) She forgot

D) She didn't know about the requirement to provide her SoS emails for archiving

E) She was going to provide the emails at some point in the future to the State Department, she hadn't gotten around to it yet.

F) She felt like the fact that most of her emails had been sent to SoS personnel was enough to satisfy the requirements to provide emails for archiving.

You probably considered C, D, E and F but thought them be so unlikely as to be not worth mentioning. Perhaps. Certainly if it was C, D, E or F Clinton's intellectual acuity is called in to question.

But Clinton's intellectual acuity is already suspect based on her decision to commingle her SoS emails with her other kinds of emails. It seems like the lowliest lawyer working in the lowliest law office would have advised her that that was a pretty stupid idea, but somehow lawyer Clinton didn't figure that out.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Clinton went to all the trouble of setting up a separate, cowboy server outside the State Department loop and then did not turn over the emails connected with that server because ....

A) she really wanted the State Department to have them.

B) she really didn't want the State Department to have them.

I don't think it requires "mind reading" to say the answer is "Not A."

False dichotomy

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<>
But Clinton's intellectual acuity is already suspect based on her decision to commingle her SoS emails with her other kinds of emails. It seems like the lowliest lawyer working in the lowliest law office would have advised her that that was a pretty stupid idea, but somehow lawyer Clinton didn't figure that out.

Why was it a bad idea to "commingle her SoS emails with her other kinds of emails" ?
What specific bad consequences have followed from that specific action ?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why was it a bad idea to "commingle her SoS emails with her other kinds of emails" ?
What specific bad consequences have followed from that specific action ?

How many times do we have to go through the difference between a priori and a posteriori before it finally sinks in? Driving home from the bar drunk is a bad idea. You might make it home without having an accident, but it's still a bad idea even if no "specific bad consequences have followed from that specific action".

 

[The Big Dog]

Why was it a bad idea to "commingle her SoS emails with her other kinds of emails" ?
What specific bad consequences have followed from that specific action ?

violated FOIA

Violated subpoenas

required the reopening of several lawsuits regarding foia

delayed the Benghazi, BAE, Huma Abedin investigations

exposed top secret information

exposed classified information

she destroyed records

ongoing criminal investigation,

further exposed Hillary Clinton's sneering contempt for governmental transparency

 

[Ziggurat]

More strangeness:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...f-classified-benghazi-emails-four-months-ago/

"Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy [asked] Hillary Clinton’s lawyer to destroy all electronic copies of a classified email found in records Clinton decided to turn over to the State Department six months before.
...
The Kennedy letter shows that the State Department knew that Clinton had classified material on her email system two months before it was disclosed publicly on July 23, when Congress was alerted to the issue by the inspector general of the intelligence community.

Clinton’s attorney responds several weeks later, on June 15 – saying it would not be “prudent” to delete the email."

So here we have a case of State acting fishy, and Clinton's lawyer being the one to show a modicum of good sense. But neither, of course, was letting the public know that classified material was found in the emails.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hillary's aide took the 5th.

Consequence free convenience for Hillary?

 

[Leftus]

Really, can you show me where that rule is ? That she is required to make all her email correspondence available ?

I'm betting not

It is a fact that people submitted FOIA requests that were denied because Hillary had hidden her records. Those requests are now making their way through the court.

The rule, or rather the law, is 5 USC 552 commonly known as the FOIA.
(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows:

(3)

(B) In making any record available to a person under this paragraph, an agency shall provide the record in any form or format requested by the person if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format. Each agency shall make reasonable efforts to maintain its records in forms or formats that are reproducible for purposes of this section.
(C) In responding under this paragraph to a request for records, an agency shall make reasonable efforts to search for the records in electronic form or format, except when such efforts would significantly interfere with the operation of the agency’s automated information system.
(D) For purposes of this paragraph, the term “search” means to review, manually or by automated means, agency records for the purpose of locating those records which are responsive to a request.

 

[The Big Dog]

A week after her aide invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination (and a couple of months after the counterespionage referral to the FBI from the Intelligence Community Inspector General) human simulacrum Hillary Clinton sniggered at the thought that she might be in the cross hairs of the FBI.

What was in those emails you destroyed anyway?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

How many times do we have to go through the difference between a priori and a posteriori before it finally sinks in? Driving home from the bar drunk is a bad idea. You might make it home without having an accident, but it's still a bad idea even if no "specific bad consequences have followed from that specific action".

As many times as it takes you to actually provide evidence, rather than simply making assertions about what "might have happened" and the actual likelihood of something happening.

In this case, a claim was made that co-mingling emails is bad. I want to know why, specifically.

 

[Ziggurat]

In this case, a claim was made that co-mingling emails is bad. I want to know why, specifically.

If you wanted to know what was wrong with it, you would have asked what could have gone wrong, rather than demanding proof that something did go wrong. But you didn't. You asked a question with a far higher burden of proof, and which holds Hillary to an illogical standard. So I simply don't believe your claim about your intent. I think you're only interested in dismissing the argument.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It is a fact that people submitted FOIA requests that were denied because Hillary had hidden her records. Those requests are now making their way through the court.

The rule, or rather the law, is 5 USC 552 commonly known as the FOIA.
(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows:

(3)

(B) In making any record available to a person under this paragraph, an agency shall provide the record in any form or format requested by the person if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format. Each agency shall make reasonable efforts to maintain its records in forms or formats that are reproducible for purposes of this section.
(C) In responding under this paragraph to a request for records, an agency shall make reasonable efforts to search for the records in electronic form or format, except when such efforts would significantly interfere with the operation of the agency’s automated information system.
(D) For purposes of this paragraph, the term “search” means to review, manually or by automated means, agency records for the purpose of locating those records which are responsive to a request.

That law doesn't specify that every email the SoS sends is a record that must be available under FOIA, which was the claim.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you wanted to know what was wrong with it, you would have asked what could have gone wrong, rather than demanding proof that something did go wrong. But you didn't. You asked a question with a far higher burden of proof, and which holds Hillary to an illogical standard. So I simply don't believe your claim about your intent. I think you're only interested in dismissing the argument.

Of course he's not interested, I just explained it in detail.

Others have explained the damage control aspects arising out of the fact that we can't know whether and to what extent Hillary was hacked, etc.

I have posted the program the government uses, and the fact that Hillary's lawyer refuses to disclose what if any security they used.

Instead you'll get pedantic nitpicking and goal posts wandering throughout the stratosphere.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If you wanted to know what was wrong with it, you would have asked what could have gone wrong, rather than demanding proof that something did go wrong. But you didn't. You asked a question with a far higher burden of proof, and which holds Hillary to an illogical standard. So I simply don't believe your claim about your intent. I think you're only interested in dismissing the argument.

Congratulations on avoiding either question, and failing to provide evidence on your earlier assertions.

I understand it's much easier to sit on the sidelines and snipe and nitpick, while working very hard to avoid making any positive claims that you need to substantiate with evidence, but it doesn't really do much for advancing the discussion.

 

[The Big Dog]

Congratulations on avoiding either question, and failing to provide evidence on your earlier assertions.

I understand it's much easier to sit on the sidelines and snipe and nitpick, while working very hard to avoid making any positive claims that you need to substantiate with evidence, but it doesn't really do much for advancing the discussion.

Irony.....

 

[Mike!]

I think this nicely summarizes why the symbol of the Democratic party is a jackass.