RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Grizzly Bear]

In fact, there hasn't been any evidence presented that the content of any of her emails sent to/from her on her HBC server would present any actual security risks. Just dozens (hundreds?) of posts asserting she didn't follow the rules, or how she lied about sending classified documents. It's all been about how "she's a congenital liar" , "Sid Blumenthal !!!11" etc. Not anything to do with any actual security repercussions. Because there haven't been and aren't any.
[/I]

The point that was already made is that even if this is true that nothing is hacked or otherwise compromised it is still actionable because she took that unnecessary risk. Im not going to bust a nut over whether she is jailed or reprimanded any other way but is that risk something that shouldn't be acted on or stopped in the future? Shouldnt this idea have been figured in the context of precedent? I am of the opinion that if she thought her own standards were more secure she should have opted to push for improvements in the state departments own system rather than run with her own at the risk of consequences that could put her in a tight spot. Doing her own thing certainly doesnt make any progress in improving the departments worl besidea making their lives harder when records have to be retained

 

[The Big Dog]

I am of the opinion that if she thought her own standards were more secure she should have opted to push for improvementd in the state departments own system rather than run with her own at the risk of consequences that could put her in a tight spot.

Which of course is another reason why she has never claimed it was more secure, and doing so would be ludicrous.

As numerous people have pointed out, robust computer security has two components. Intrusion protection on the one hand and Damage Control on the back end if something goes wrong. She has refused to release information regarding either. As such, the State and IC would be fools not to consider the server compromised.

Computer experts who have examined the system externally have noted numerous flaws (as discussed at lenghth in the first part of this thread)

Her IT guy took the Fifth, and she withheld the server until after the FBI received a referral from the ICIG.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The point that was already made is that even if this is true that nothing is hacked or otherwise compromised it is still actionable because she took that unnecessary risk. Im not going to bust a nut over whether she is jailed or reprimanded any other way but is that risk something that shouldn't be acted on or stopped in the future?

I agree - the laws should be fixed. Transparency, security etc are still awful. Legislating technology is hard, though - the govt is soooooo far behind.

Shouldnt this idea have been figured in the context of precedent? I am of the opinion that if she thought her own standards were more secure she should have opted to push for improvements in the state departments own system rather than run with her own at the risk of consequences that could put her in a tight spot. Doing her own thing certainly doesnt make any progress in improving the departments worl besidea making their lives harder when records have to be retained

Her setup was to serve her own agenda, obviously.

 

[applecorped]

Her setup was to serve her own agenda, obviously.

it sure was, the good of the country be damned

 

[DavidJames]

it sure was, the good of the country be damned

Based on the evidence, the "good of the country" was better served with the method she employed with her server then the U.S. government in general.

I'm not saying I think she made the best choice, just that based on evidence of hacking into U.S. Govt servers and none (so far) into hers.

But yeah, I know, evidence be damned.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I agree - she may have broken the rules.

BUT it would be nice if there was some outrage against the consequences, not imply the claim that she broke the rules. As I said earlier:

No one has demonstrated her server was any more or less secure than systems at the state department.

No one has demonstrated that there were any additional security risks involved in using her server vice the state departments.

In fact, there hasn't been any evidence presented that the content of any of her emails sent to/from her on her HBC server would present any actual security risks. Just dozens (hundreds?) of posts asserting she didn't follow the rules, or how she lied about sending classified documents. It's all been about how "she's a congenital liar" , "Sid Blumenthal !!!11" etc. Not anything to do with any actual security repercussions. Because there haven't been and aren't any.

it sure was, the good of the country be damned

Thanks for continuing the trend.

 

[The Big Dog]

Based on the evidence, the "good of the country" was better served with the method she employed with her server then the U.S. government in general.

I'm not saying I think she made the best choice, just that based on evidence of hacking into U.S. Govt servers and none (so far) into hers.

But yeah, I know, evidence be damned.

face palm. the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

particularly:

1. when the FBI ain't talking about the status of their investigation;
2. when Hillary destroyed and deleted evidence off her server;
3. when her IT guy is pleading the Fifth.
4. the fact that her favorite correspondent Sid Blumenthal had his own system hacked.

 

[wareyin]

face palm. the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

particularly:

1. when the FBI ain't talking about the status of their investigation;
2. when Hillary destroyed and deleted evidence off her server;
3. when her IT guy is pleading the Fifth.
4. the fact that her favorite correspondent Sid Blumenthal had his own system hacked.

We know that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but that does not mean the absence of evidence is actually evidence. Please to be providing better evidence than:

1. The FBI gave no comment
2. We can't read personal emails of people we obsess over.
3. Someone gave no testimony.
4. Someone else had something happen to them.

 

[mgidm86]

I agree - the laws should be fixed. Transparency, security etc are still awful. Legislating technology is hard, though - the govt is soooooo far behind.

Her setup was to serve her own agenda, obviously.

It hasn't been obvious to me that you felt this way. Maybe I've confused you with someone else. What do you think that agenda is?

We know that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but that does not mean the absence of evidence is actually evidence. Please to be providing better evidence than:

1. The FBI gave no comment
2. We can't read personal emails of people we obsess over.
3. Someone gave no testimony.
4. Someone else had something happen to them.

People acting in a manner that can be interpreted as guilty (items 2 and 3) is evidence, especially for non jurors like ourselves.

Item #2 reminds me of movies where a key witness suddenly dies by falling off a roof and the mafia boss gets his charges dropped. No evidence can certainly be evidence depending on how it "wasn't" obtained.

First, she sets up her own server and ignores years worth of FOIA requests. Next, when finally forced to give up the information, she deletes half of it before complying. This is the behavior of a person with something to hide. This is not the behavior of someone who should be president.

 

[wareyin]

People acting in a manner that can be interpreted as guilty (items 2 and 3) is evidence, especially for non jurors like ourselves.

If they could be interpreted as guilty, that's evidence of guilt? What could go wrong, especially considering the deranged hatred so often on evidence by those twisting the evidence to claim guilty?

Item #2 reminds me of movies where a key witness suddenly dies by falling off a roof and the mafia boss gets his charges dropped. No evidence can certainly be evidence depending on how it "wasn't" obtained.

Oh, argument by pretending a fictional mob movie somehow applies. Well, this is certainly well thought out.

First, she sets up her own server and ignores years worth of FOIA requests. Next, when finally forced to give up the information, she deletes half of it before complying. This is the behavior of a person with something to hide. This is not the behavior of someone who should be president.

Hmm, person predisposed to hate her interprets Clinton's actions in the most unfavorable light they can. See my first point.

 

[The Big Dog]

It hasn't been obvious to me that you felt this way. Maybe I've confused you with someone else. What do you think that agenda is?



People acting in a manner that can be interpreted as guilty (items 2 and 3) is evidence, especially for non jurors like ourselves.

Item #2 reminds me of movies where a key witness suddenly dies by falling off a roof and the mafia boss gets his charges dropped. No evidence can certainly be evidence depending on how it "wasn't" obtained.

First, she sets up her own server and ignores years worth of FOIA requests. Next, when finally forced to give up the information, she deletes half of it before complying. This is the behavior of a person with something to hide. This is not the behavior of someone who should be president.

Consciousness of Guilt is both a concept and a type of circumstantial evidence used in criminal trials by prosecutors. It refers to a powerful and highly incriminating inference that a judge or jury may draw from the statements or conduct of a defendant (accused) after a crime has been committed suggesting that the defendant knows he or she is guilty of the charged crime. In other words, the defendant's conduct after the crime is circumstantial (indirect) evidence that the defendant intended to commit the crime, or, in fact, committed the crime. Some of the most common types of consciousness of guilt are:

Fleeing from the crime scene or jurisdiction
False statements and lies
False alibi
Changing name or personal appearance
Concealing or destroying evidence (including a body or weapon)
Witness intimidation or bribery.


http://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/Legal-Dictionary/C/Consciousness-of-Guilt.aspx

 

[wareyin]

Consciousness of Guilt is both a concept and a type of circumstantial evidence used in criminal trials by prosecutors. It refers to a powerful and highly incriminating inference that a judge or jury may draw from the statements or conduct of a defendant (accused) after a crime has been committed suggesting that the defendant knows he or she is guilty of the charged crime. In other words, the defendant's conduct after the crime is circumstantial (indirect) evidence that the defendant intended to commit the crime, or, in fact, committed the crime. Some of the most common types of consciousness of guilt are:

Fleeing from the crime scene or jurisdiction
False statements and lies
False alibi
Changing name or personal appearance
Concealing or destroying evidence (including a body or weapon)
Witness intimidation or bribery.


http://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/Legal-Dictionary/C/Consciousness-of-Guilt.aspx

Oh, if you spin it far enough to the right, you might have circumstantial evidence. Wow, do you guys coordinate to be this bad?

 

[The Big Dog]

Following up on the consciousness of guilt, on the civil side destruction of evidence may result in a an adverse inference, and adverse finding all the way up to the entry of an adverse judgment, as discussed previously.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Following up on the consciousness of guilt, on the civil side destruction of evidence may result in a an adverse inference, and adverse finding all the way up to the entry of an adverse judgment, as discussed previously.

Here's what will actually happen. The FBI will conclude their investigation just before the election, with no charges filed against Hillary. Several thousand Republican heads will explode when they realize they are done for, having not found anything they can stick on her.

Then there will only be one option left - the only problem being where to find a 'lone nutcase' 'acting on his own' who is a good shot...

 

[applecorped]

Here's what will actually happen. The FBI will conclude their investigation just before the election, with no charges filed against Hillary. Several thousand Republican heads will explode when they realize they are done for, having not found anything they can stick on her.

Then there will only be one option left - the only problem being where to find a 'lone nutcase' 'acting on his own' who is a good shot...

 

[wareyin]

I know, right? Several thousand? It'll be a lot more than that!

 

[The Big Dog]

Snip

Yeah, don't quote me when you are posting this improper *********** nonsense, even as a joke.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It hasn't been obvious to me that you felt this way. Maybe I've confused you with someone else. What do you think that agenda is?

Maybe - it's been almost a year (OMG really ???) since you and I already had this discussion...

Do you think she didn't have a phone with her when she carried her iPad? That seems hard to believe. I guess it's possible she only used the iPad at home curled up in front of the fire, but more than likely she carried it somewhere.

There wasn't even such a thing as an iPad when she became SoS.

What I think is, in 2009, she wanted to use a single device for mobile communication, and it was much easier and gave her much more control to use her personal email address and carry one phone, mixing personal and work email. It may not have worked the same (at that time) if she had used a .gov email. She may have had to use a seperate device. IDK, this is speculation, and I have speculated about it earlier in the thread.

I feel a bit silly getting in on this part of the argument, but you are really reaching here. The person being the most silly though, is Hillary.

She said:
“Looking back, it would have been probably, you know, smarter to have used two devices,” Clinton said. Her office that day released a statement saying she “wanted the simplicity of using one device”.

We now know she did use two devices.

She did. But that's really not the same being forced to use two separate devices, one for work only, one for home only.

Think about it this way ... would you call her a liar if she also sent an email from a laptop ? That would mean she may have literally been carrying two devices ... a phone and laptop ! That would mean she was totally lying about only wanting to carry 1 device .... right ?? Right ?

Or ... not so much. Times change. Technology changes. I like to use my ipad instead of my phone sometimes because the screen is bigger. I prefer to use a device with a physical keyboard to respond to posts, because I find it easier to type, cut-n-paste, and look up things when responding.

She can't seem to come clean about anything. The only thing transparent about her is her evasiveness. Actually that could be considered a point in her favor if you twist it a little. At least we know how and when she's full of excrement.

That seems par for the course for most lawyers and politicians.

Whether or not any laws were broken, she has done, and continues to do everything she can to keep the contents of her communications under her complete control. She can't even keep her own stories straight.

I agree with the former, not with the latter. I think it's a silly nit to be picking.

People acting in a manner that can be interpreted as guilty (items 2 and 3) is evidence, especially for non jurors like ourselves.

Item #2 reminds me of movies where a key witness suddenly dies by falling off a roof and the mafia boss gets his charges dropped. No evidence can certainly be evidence depending on how it "wasn't" obtained.

First, she sets up her own server and ignores years worth of FOIA requests. Next, when finally forced to give up the information, she deletes half of it before complying. This is the behavior of a person with something to hide. This is not the behavior of someone who should be president.

You are wrong on both counts. The FOIA requests were to the state dept., who claims they didn't have the emails. And she voluntarily turned them over. If you want to discuss this, please get the facts straight.

And this behavior, IMHO, has little to do with being president.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Following up on the consciousness of guilt, on the civil side destruction of evidence may result in a an adverse inference, and adverse finding all the way up to the entry of an adverse judgment, as discussed previously.

OMG !!11! SPOLIATION !!! ELEVENTY !

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Brilliant argument, as always.