RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

Following your logic, if someone passes along intelligence from terrorists, that makes them a terrorist.

He wasn't a foreign agent.

Wow, what a terrible analogy... He was passing along reports from Foreign Agents without mentioning that he was doing so.

He is a private citizen, not subject to FOIA etc.

Nothing you wrote above makes him 'not a private citizen'.

His emails are subject to FOIA when they are sent to Hillary... man, this is REALLY basic stuff!!

The committee has Clinton’s e-mails — some of them, anyway — and it has in the finest Washington tradition leaked them. Thus we know she has been e-mailed by Sidney Blumenthal, a former White House aide and, in the required journalistic redundancy, a close confidant. So what? Blumenthal is not a felon or a foreign agent, and since he was and remains a private citizen, the contents of his e-mails were not in the least way classified. Why is it our business?
See where it says the emails were private ????? I don't either. Nice strawman

.

I just explained in massive detail why it is our business, you actually quoted the sentence I was answering and: YOU. MISSED. IT.

Red herring and strawman.

Uhhh, you might want to look up the definition of "leak" It does not mean releasing stuff that is already in the public. Well maybe in Hillary 2016 speak...

Keep up the good work !!

I will.

Drops Mic

 

[davefoc]

This may have been linked to before, but I thought it was the most concise overviews of the Clinton email issue that I had seen:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...emails-a-timeline-of-actions-and-regulations/

This was an interesting timeline item from the article:

August 2012: The State Department inspector general issues a scathing report on the performance of U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Scott Gration that includes criticism of the fact he used a private e-mail account to handle “sensitive but unclassified” material. Gration is later fired.

“The Ambassador’s requirements for use of commercial e-mail in the office and his flouting of direct instructions to adhere to Department policy have placed the information management staff in a conundrum: balancing the desire to be responsive to their mission leader and the need to adhere to Department regulations and government information security standards,” the IG report said.

This is the "scathing report" referred to above:
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/196460.pdf

This is the section that mentions his use of a commercial email

The Ambassador’s greatest weakness is his reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions. He made clear his disagreement with Washington policy decisions and directives concerning the safe-havening in Nairobi of families of Department employees who volunteered to serve in extreme hardship posts; the creation of a freestanding Somalia Unit; and the nonuse of commercial email for official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information. Notwithstanding his talk about the importance of mission staff doing the right thing, the Ambassador by deed or word has encouraged it to do the opposite.

It is hard to read through the timeline without being amazed that Clinton went down this path. People have objected to the word, arrogance, but if it wasn't arrogance it was just damn stupid. The regulations could hardly be clearer although the Clinton supporters can still find room to argue that she didn't break laws or at least she hasn't been indicted for breaking them.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned much in this thread is the Bush administration email controversy. Was Clinton somehow oblivious to that? Did she not notice that her fellow Democrats spent a great deal of time bashing the Bush administration for doing something that was very similar if not a bit less egregious than what she was doing because they had the fig leaf of a claim that they used the server for political talk?

It turns out one of the Democrats bashing the Republicans for their email practices was Clinton herself in the June 2007 Take Back America conference:

“Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts. It’s a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent.”

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/263...secret-e-mail-accounts-shredded-constitution/

Another little bit that came out of the timeline was that it was actually a Justin Cooper, an aide to Bill Clinton, that applied for the domain name for Clinton's email server in 2009. Eric Hoteham apparently registered the server in 2008. Eric Hothem, the individual suspected to Eric Hoteham was not reached by CNN.

ETA: This is a link to a video of some of her speech (secret email account reference is at 7:18):


It is sad to me. I agree with a lot of what she said, but holy cow, in the context of this issue her comments about secret email accounts are staggering hypocritical.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You do remember the law changed after Clinton left office, right?

And that the Presidential Cabinet is a completely different position from an ambassador, many of whom have been appointed as a favor?


Which brings up another issue, why is Clinton being addressed as if she were a low level employee rather than the head of the State Department? Colin Powell was never treated that way.

I'm not making an above the law argument. I'm arguing have a little respect for the President's principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy to have handled classified data appropriately unless there's evidence is wasn't. Claiming her server could have been hacked, when there's no evidence it was (only speculation), claiming she mishandled classified material when there's no evidence she did (only speculation), these are very disrespectful of the fact Clinton held a very high position in government, not some secretarial job.

Even when you break through that glass ceiling, some people refuse to give you the respect that's due.

 

[davefoc]

The Bush email scandal was before Clinton took office.
The Clinton speech castigating the Bush administration for their secret email accounts was before Clinton took office.
The State Department updated their foreign affairs manual prohibiting the transmission of sensitive but unclassified through personal email accounts before Clinton took office.
The regulations regarding the preservation of material on non government email accounts was updated right after she took office.

CNN had this to say about the security of Clinton's server:

But it only works if it's configured correctly. CNN found that Clinton's computer server wasn't using trusted Web certificates -- something that's frowned upon by computer security experts. Running a personal mail server is generally harder to protect than, say, the State Department, which has a dedicated computer security team.

Perhaps Plague311 could give us some technical information about this and tell us whether this is significant or not?

Regardless the claim that nothing bad happened is the tiniest shred of a fig leaf of a defense of Clinton's actions. 1. It is not publicly known whether the security was breached or not. 2. The claim that it's OK to do stupid things if nothing bad happens is just wildly illogical. We give people speeding tickets even when they don't have a crash.

 

[davefoc]

On the upside for Clinton, she at one point in time at least could deliver a speech well, she still has a lot of supporters, she still mostly leads the Republican candidates in the polling (curiously at least in some polls she was behind Fiorena and Carson). It is possible that without one more significant shoe dropping she could weather this storm.

But Biden seems to poll much better against the Republicans than she does and Sanders does somewhat better than she does and her poll numbers have been in free fall. But maybe they'll stabilize for awhile and a favorable FBI report (unlikely) might be just enough to get her into the White House. I notice that in the betting odds she is still the heavy favorite although not to the degree that she was a month ago.

ETA:
As to evidence that she mishandled classified material: The publicly available evidence is fairly strong but perhaps falls short on the intent issue. But the shuffling around of the flash drive with secret information is a pretty bad thing, but perhaps she can make the case that she didn't know. Maybe she didn't read the email. If she was aware that top secret information was sent to her on an unsecured server clearly she had a duty to report it. But the real point of this kind of thing is that it is probable that mistakes will be made and highly sensitive and classified material will end up on a SoS server. That's why most people that have the tiniest clue about the security of email communications wouldn't consider setting up their own server for SoS email. It is just reckless.

 

[davefoc]

I thought about another issue that we haven't heard about yet with regard to this. Apparently Clinton didn't sign the exit agreement so she didn't commit perjury by saying that she had turned over her emails to the State Department. I wonder if her staff didn't sign exit agreements as well. If they didn't sign I wonder why. Who has to sign an exit agreement in the State Department? If they did sign an exit agreement it sounds like they were not in compliance with the requirement that they provide there emails for archiving in the exit agreement which could put them in range of a perjury charge.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Come on davefoc, don't tell me you are delving into conspiracy theory territory?

Come back to reality. Either figure out what was actually being hidden or quit looking for dust bunnies under the bed.

 

[davefoc]

Come on davefoc, don't tell me you are delving into conspiracy theory territory?

Come back to reality. Either figure out what was actually being hidden or quit looking for dust bunnies under the bed.

I don't think I was suggesting a conspiracy theory. One of the accusations against Clinton early on was that if she had signed the standard State Department exit agreement she would have been guilty of perjury since she didn't turn over her emails as required by the agreement.

I just asked the question if her aides signed the agreement and if they did were they in compliance with it. I don't know why they wouldn't have signed the exit agreement. I assume most State Department employees sign the exit agreement. And if they did sign the agreement it looks like they were not in compliance with it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So what is the thing being hidden?

We have all sorts of accusations of conscious effort to avoid disclosure. Just what is the crime being covered up?

 

[wareyin]

So what is the thing being hidden?

We have all sorts of accusations of conscious effort to avoid disclosure. Just what is the crime being covered up?

That's one thing that makes all the Clinton "scandals" stand out, doesn't it? Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc, all started with a crime, then an investigation found wrongdoing. These Clinton "scandals" all start with investigations, no crime is found, but they just keep investigating.

 

[Leftus]

So what is the thing being hidden?

We have all sorts of accusations of conscious effort to avoid disclosure. Just what is the crime being covered up?

Having to comply with FOIA laws does not require that there be a crime not being disclosed.

The act of intentional non-disclosure when covered by the FOIA is the crime. Without that, the FOIA process is meaningless and we lose transparency and a government that can be held responsible to its people.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Having to comply with FOIA laws does not require that there be a crime not being disclosed.

The act of intentional non-disclosure when covered by the FOIA is the crime. Without that, the FOIA process is meaningless and we lose transparency and a government that can be held responsible to its people.

IOW got got nothing.

 

[Leftus]

IOW got got nothing.

The act, in and of itself, is a crime so I don't need anything else.

This is like saying "what were they trying to go to when they were speeding." I don't know and it doesn't matter when it comes to determining how fast they were going.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The Bush email scandal was before Clinton took office.
The Clinton speech castigating the Bush administration for their secret email accounts was before Clinton took office.
The State Department updated their foreign affairs manual prohibiting the transmission of sensitive but unclassified through personal email accounts before Clinton took office.
The regulations regarding the preservation of material on non government email accounts was updated right after she took office.

CNN had this to say about the security of Clinton's server:
But it only works if it's configured correctly. CNN found that Clinton's computer server wasn't using trusted Web certificates -- something that's frowned upon by computer security experts. Running a personal mail server is generally harder to protect than, say, the State Department, which has a dedicated computer security team.

Perhaps Plague311 could give us some technical information about this and tell us whether this is significant or not?

Regardless the claim that nothing bad happened is the tiniest shred of a fig leaf of a defense of Clinton's actions. 1. It is not publicly known whether the security was breached or not. 2. The claim that it's OK to do stupid things if nothing bad happens is just wildly illogical. We give people speeding tickets even when they don't have a crash.

I Already covered this earlier, when Venafi made some unprovable claims about security:

https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server/
Starting in late March 2009, mail.clintonemail.com was enabled with a Network Solutions’ digital certificate and encryption for web-based applications like Outlook Web Access. This was 3 months after Secretary Clinton took office. The clintonemail.com domain was registered with Network Solutions in January 2009 – 8 days before Secretary Clinton was confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Therefore, from January to end of March 2009 access to clintonemail.com did not use encryption.

Let me break down the argument for any of those posters who are less 'technically inclined'
SSL secures communications sent across the internet
SSL requires a digital certificate
clintonemail.com domain was registered with Network Solutions in January 2009
mail.clintonemail.com was enabled with apurchased Network Solutions’ digital certificate March 2009,
Therefore, from January to end of March 2009 access to clintonemail.com did not use encryption.

So what's the problem ?

Having a "digital certificate" and securing communications does not require purchasing a cert from NetSol. It's easy, and an accepted practice to create your own CA and certificates:
https://www.google.com/search?q=creating+a+ssl+certificate
It's not only possible, but plausible they simply installed a self-signed cert until they purchased the NetSol one.
Or, equally as possible, didn't actually start using the server until after obtaining the netsol cert.

So unless www.venafi.com has a time machine;
They cannot know if the mail server was secured or not.
They cannot know what services (ie mail, web) were actually running on the machine

Hooray for FUD and misinformation.

ETA: added link so you can see post in context if you want

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The act, in and of itself, is a crime so I don't need anything else.

This is like saying "what were they trying to go to when they were speeding." I don't know and it doesn't matter when it comes to determining how fast they were going.

The act you claim did not occur. So stop lying about it.

 

[The Big Dog]

IOW got got nothing.

A sleazy politician like Clinton does not have incentive to only cover up crimes, but also rank self dealing and incompetence, which she has in spades, so stop lying about it.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's not only possible, but plausible they simply installed a self-signed cert until they purchased the NetSol one.
Or, equally as possible, didn't actually start using the server until after obtaining the netsol cert.

EVIDENCE? You don't expect anyone to prove a negative, particularly when Hillary and her cabal REFUSE to show that it was secure, let alone how it was secure.

So now you are flat out making stuff up? Typical...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

EVIDENCE? You don't expect anyone to prove a negative, particularly when Hillary and her cabal REFUSE to show that it was secure, let alone how it was secure.

So now you are flat out making stuff up? Typical...

Yes, evidence is required for the original claim by venafi that, "Therefore, from January to end of March 2009 access to clintonemail.com did not use encryption."

 

[DavidJames]

I Already covered this earlier, when Venafi made some unprovable claims about security:

https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server/
Starting in late March 2009, mail.clintonemail.com was enabled with a Network Solutions’ digital certificate and encryption for web-based applications like Outlook Web Access. This was 3 months after Secretary Clinton took office. The clintonemail.com domain was registered with Network Solutions in January 2009 – 8 days before Secretary Clinton was confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Therefore, from January to end of March 2009 access to clintonemail.com did not use encryption.

Let me break down the argument for any of those posters who are less 'technically inclined'
SSL secures communications sent across the internet
SSL requires a digital certificate
clintonemail.com domain was registered with Network Solutions in January 2009
mail.clintonemail.com was enabled with apurchased Network Solutions’ digital certificate March 2009,
Therefore, from January to end of March 2009 access to clintonemail.com did not use encryption.

So what's the problem ?

Having a "digital certificate" and securing communications does not require purchasing a cert from NetSol. It's easy, and an accepted practice to create your own CA and certificates:
https://www.google.com/search?q=creating+a+ssl+certificate
It's not only possible, but plausible they simply installed a self-signed cert until they purchased the NetSol one.
Or, equally as possible, didn't actually start using the server until after obtaining the netsol cert.

So unless www.venafi.com has a time machine;
They cannot know if the mail server was secured or not.
They cannot know what services (ie mail, web) were actually running on the machine

Hooray for FUD and misinformation.

ETA: added link so you can see post in context if you want

FWIW and to some it's nothing, I managed EBusiness teams who maintained web hosting infrastructure. I can say with unequivocal certainty the scancerio laid out above in bold happens. I've seen it happen with major retailers multiple times.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, evidence is required for the original claim by venafi that, "Therefore, from January to end of March 2009 access to clintonemail.com did not use encryption."

IOW you got nothing.

Lolz. Asking venafil to prove a negative while you refuse to support you claim.