RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

NSA Chief: Hillary Clinton Emails Were 'Opportunity' for Foreign Spy Agencies

Cotton asked whether Rogers considered the communications of top advisers to the president, even those that are unclassified, a top priority for foreign spy agencies.

"Yes," Rogers responded.

http://www.newsweek.com/mike-rogers-nsa-hillary-clinton-emails-376432

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't keep calling the "lawsuits" "lawsuits brought against Clinton."

I am baffled why you would make something like that up.

From the earlier link:

What an incredibly odd post.... not sure how it is possible you are missing this....

So, you didn't mean this the way you wrote it then?

while there has been an orchestrated attempt by Clinton and her camp to blame all her problems on the GOP, you will notice that the lawsuits have also been brought by Vice, Gawker, the AP and breaking news on these issues (as shown yesterday) by CBS, WaPo and the New York Times....

By all means, tell us what you meant if not that you were claiming lawsuits were brought against Clinton.

Better yet, just tell us what Vice, Gawker, the AP, and CBS were suing for and what prompted their lawsuit.

 

[WildCat]

So, you didn't mean this the way you wrote it then?

By all means, tell us what you meant if not that you were claiming lawsuits were brought against Clinton.

Better yet, just tell us what Vice, Gawker, the AP, and CBS were suing for and what prompted their lawsuit.

I think it would be better for you to explain how you get "lawsuits against Clinton" by that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I believed the part where he outlined the procedures that an organization where security was important might take to protect their servers against hacking. ETA: I thought he provided a good faith basis that explained why he would know this.

I didn't agree with him that we can know what Clinton and the people in charge of her server did with respect to this.

I was glad to see you post, because you have told us about your extensive IT experience. Did you think that theprestige's overview of the kinds of things that might be done to provide for the security of servers was accurate?¹ Would you like to expand on it? ²Do you know what kind of security measures that Clinton had in place on her server?³ Perhaps you could comment on whether the measures she had in place were in compliance with the requirements for servers where classified material is stored?⁴

1.Yes
2.No
3.No
4.Classified emails reside on a separate network, whether it's her email server or state dept. Your question doesn't make sense in this context

I'm judging her on the same criteria my employer judges the quality of my own work: Failure to demonstrate compliance. If I told my boss that I don't need to provide evidence that my systems are secure, and that he should just assume they are, I'd be fired.

"Trust but verify" is great, but if I can't verify, then I can't trust. That failure of trust is the problem. When it comes to information security, that failure of trust is what I find unacceptable.

The Secretary of State's mail server is at risk by default. That neither she nor her staff are able to demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to mitigate that risk is damning. That you cannot find any sign that they took steps to mitigate that risk is damning.

Going back to point 3 above -
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It appears that people in this thread are making the assumption that because no one from the clinton side has publicly described what what was done to secure the mail server, that nothing was done.

I don't share this assumption. I also don't think Clinton has anything to gain from sharing her configuration or security information publicly. It's too complex and nuanced of an issue for the average person, and I don't think it can be distilled to a soundbite that will benefit her.

Her opponents have a much easier time creating negative soundbites, and don't require any actual evidence, as demonstrated a few posts above with the quote from rogers.

If the FBI ever creates a report, and if we get to see it, then maybe we will know what security was in place. Until then, everything is a guess.

 

[The Big Dog]

So, you didn't mean this the way you wrote it then?

By all means, tell us what you meant if not that you were claiming lawsuits were brought against Clinton.

Better yet, just tell us what Vice, Gawker, the AP, and CBS were suing for and what prompted their lawsuit.

Face palm. Jesus, read the article would you? You completely misrepresented what I said.

I never said the "lawsuits" were brought against Clinton, and you appear willfully ignorant of the facts.

Read the article do some basic research for once.

 

[Dog Town]

Face palm. Jesus, read the article would you? You completely misrepresented what I said.

I never said the "lawsuits" were brought against Clinton, and you appear willfully ignorant of the facts.

Read the article do some basic research for once.

Unbelievable!

 

[Dog Town]

I think it would be better for you to explain how you get "lawsuits against Clinton" by that.

Would love to see this answer!

 

[wareyin]

Hey, look, the NYT is talking about the email investigation: (my highlighting)

That email, which included an update from the Africa Command of the Department of Defense detailing Libyan military movements, is part of the evidence that law enforcement officials say the F.B.I. is now examining as it tries to determine whether aides to Mrs. Clinton mishandled delicate national security information when they communicated with their boss.

also

There is no evidence that any of the emails — a small portion of some 60,000 that Mrs. Clinton sent or received as secretary of state — were hacked or caused any harm to American interests, and law enforcement officials have said she is not a target of their investigation. But one of the questions they are seeking to answer is whether her aides or other State Department officials broke federal rules or laws when they sent her information. And arriving at an answer will not be simple, given the complex and often conflicting views of just how diplomatically fragile the information conveyed in the emails actually was.

Hmmm, this seems at odds with those Clinton Obsession sufferer's claims that it was Clinton herself being investigated.

Hat tip to 16.5 for pointing out this article in another thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hey, look, the NYT is talking about the email investigation: (my highlighting)


also



Hmmm, this seems at odds with those Clinton Obsession sufferer's claims that it was Clinton herself being investigated.

Hat tip to 16.5 for pointing out this article in another thread.

You mean where you say this:

Of course, a day after I claim that it isn't in the news, the outlet that brought us 'the criminal investigation that wasn't' chimes in. I'd say they are about as credible as Fox News editorials when it comes to all things Clinton, by now.

You see they are not investigating Hillary, they are investigating her top aides, including those that are right this very second running her campaign.

I knew we would reach this point, of course, I just wonder how long it is going to take Hillary's pals to realize what an idiotic defense this is.

Hillary blaming her underlings for her decision to run the state department off her own cowboy server?

God damn, that would be absolutely beautiful....

Hillary 2016, The Buck Stops here With Huma

Fantastic slogan!

 

[wareyin]

You mean where you say this:

I gave you credit for finding an article which points out yet again that Clinton is not being investigated. What more can you ask for?

You see they are not investigating Hillary, they are investigating her top aides, including those that are right this very second running her campaign.

I knew we would reach this point, of course, I just wonder how long it is going to take Hillary's pals to realize what an idiotic defense this is.

You knew we would reach this point? Even though you repeatedly (but without evidence) argued that it was actually Clinton being investigated? Somehow, that does not seem believable.

 

[The Big Dog]

I gave you credit for finding an article which points out yet again that Clinton is not being investigated. What more can you ask for?

You knew we would reach this point? Even though you repeatedly (but without evidence) argued that it was actually Clinton being investigated? Somehow, that does not seem believable.

Yes, that someone would reach the point of "Hillary is not being investigated, Hillary's TOP AIDES are being investigated for how they sent Hillary emails on Hillary's cowboy server that they were required to use to email Hillary."

Look out Huma, here comes the bus! Hee hee!

 

[wareyin]

Yes, that someone would reach the point of "Hillary is not being investigated, Hillary's TOP AIDES are being investigated for how they sent Hillary emails on Hillary's cowboy server that they were required to use to email Hillary."

Look out Huma, here comes the bus! Hee hee!

Either your previous claims that Clinton was being investigated were made knowing that they were false, or your claim now to have known that Clinton's aides were the ones being investigated rather than Clinton is false. They do contradict each other, after all.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes, that someone would reach the point of "Hillary is not being investigated, Hillary's TOP AIDES are being investigated for how they sent Hillary emails on Hillary's cowboy server that they were required to use to email Hillary."

Look out Huma, here comes the bus! Hee hee!

You must be dizzy from all that spinning

It was already pointed out (not by you) in this thread that other people were being investigated for what they emailed to clinton on a non-secure network.

 

[The Big Dog]

You must be dizzy from all that spinning

It was already pointed out (not by you) in this thread that other people were being investigated for what they emailed to clinton on a non-secure network.

No spin at all! They are not "other people" this is her inner ring. The non-secure network was Hillary's non-secure network that Hillary set up and insisted her inner circle use.

So she was either directly involved or monstrously incompetent.

Either way:

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since my question was ignored while pretending "suing" doesn't refer to a "lawsuit" and, "an orchestrated attempt by Clinton and her camp to blame all her problems on the GOP," didn't mean "the suing was suing Clinton", I'll repeat the request:

Tell us what you meant if not that you were claiming lawsuits were brought against Clinton.

Not that I expect you to answer it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Since my question was ignored while pretending "suing" doesn't refer to a "lawsuit" and, "an orchestrated attempt by Clinton and her camp to blame all her problems on the GOP," didn't mean "the suing was suing Clinton", I'll repeat the request:

Tell us what you meant if not that you were claiming lawsuits were brought against Clinton.

Not that I expect you to answer it.

You aren't being spoon fed the answer because it amuses people to see your confusion. But I've been amused enough, so I'll put you out of your misery. The FOIA lawsuits are against the State Department, not against Hillary Clinton.

 

[wareyin]

No spin at all! They are not "other people" this is her inner ring. The non-secure network was Hillary's non-secure network that Hillary set up and insisted her inner circle use.

So she was either directly involved or monstrously incompetent.

Either way:

They are not "other people"? Are "they" Clinton, or not?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You aren't being spoon fed the answer because it amuses people to see your confusion. But I've been amused enough, so I'll put you out of your misery. The FOIA lawsuits are against the State Department, not against Hillary Clinton.

Well sorry to spoil what you thought was a joke but pointing out the semantics was my point and noting the suit was with the State Department not Clinton isn't relevant to the point I made.

16.5 is falsely claiming "Vice, Gawker, the AP and breaking news on these issues (as shown yesterday) by CBS, WaPo and the New York Times...." initiated an investigation, when it was the Benghazi witch hunters behind the whole thing.

"an orchestrated attempt by Clinton and her camp to blame all her problems on the GOP,"

Not an attempt, but rather it's a fact and the right wing droolers want to pretend the GOP witch hunters weren't behind it. That doesn't look as good as pretending the news media uncovered something.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well sorry to spoil what you thought was a joke but pointing out the semantics was my point

I didn't say it was a joke, I said it was amusing. And you didn't spoil it, you were the essence of it, so no need to apologize.

and noting the suit was with the State Department not Clinton isn't relevant to the point I made.

It may not be relevant to what you care about, but it was directly relevant to what you actually said.

Not an attempt, but rather it's a fact and the right wing droolers want to pretend the GOP witch hunters weren't behind it.

In what way is the GOP "behind" Vice's lawsuit against the State Department?

 

[davefoc]

Well sorry to spoil what you thought was a joke but pointing out the semantics was my point and noting the suit was with the State Department not Clinton isn't relevant to the point I made.

16.5 is falsely claiming "Vice, Gawker, the AP and breaking news on these issues (as shown yesterday) by CBS, WaPo and the New York Times...." initiated an investigation, when it was the Benghazi witch hunters behind the whole thing.

"an orchestrated attempt by Clinton and her camp to blame all her problems on the GOP,"

Not an attempt, but rather it's a fact and the right wing droolers want to pretend the GOP witch hunters weren't behind it. That doesn't look as good as pretending the news media uncovered something.

There seem to be two claims here:
1. 16.5 said something that a reasonable person would interpret to mean that Clinton was being sued.

I didn't notice that, but if he did it seems that he was wrong. Did you have a particular post in mind where he said something like that?

2. The various news agencies that are suing the State Department based on FOIA claims were instigated to do so by the GOP Benghazi witch hunters.

Is this a defense of Clinton? If the GOP did initiate the media interest in CLinton's server and the emails that weren't available to the Benghazi panels, is this the fault of the GOP, the media or Clinton for not following the rules with regard to providing her emails for archiving? I agree that the Benghazi stuff is all about partisan politics and the exploitation of a tragedy for partisan political purposes, but does that mean everything that they happen to uncover is not a real issue. Did they happen to stumble on a real issue here? I think it's obvious that this is a real issue and it is more a point in favor of partisan politics than against it. If it was up to the Democrats would the public know that Clinton thumbed her nose at regulations and took ridiculous risks with sensitive SoS communications? I don't think so.