RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
More on the big lie this was about the lack of security on Clinton's server compared to the State Department's.

There was no secure government email server. That's one of the big lies that floats out there like faux facts on the wind. In fact, the government email servers were hacked while there is no evidence Clinton's ever were as I noted previously.

There was the secure fax system that was used for confidential information transfers. Government email, not so much.

Time Magazine - What’s More Secure: Gmail or Government Email?
“Neither,” says Justin White, a former director of information security compliance for the state of Colorado, who has also worked as an information security consultant with Microsoft, Costco, Wells Fargo, and the state of Washington. When asked which service he would use to send sensitive information, White, a graduate of the FBI Citizens Academy, begins to answer one way, then another....
First, while some governmental email systems are highly secure, that’s not true for every department. ...
Still, the State Department probably has very good email security for classified messages — security that Clinton apparently opted out of using.
Click to expand...

Sources: State Dept. hack the 'worst ever' (as I posted earlier)
Overlooked in the controversy over Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, is the fact that suspected Russian hackers have bedeviled State Department's email system for much of the past year and continue to pose problems for technicians trying to eradicate the intrusion.
Federal law enforcement, intelligence and congressional officials briefed on the investigation say the hack of the State email system is the "worst ever" cyberattack intrusion against a federal agency. The attackers who breached State are also believed to be behind hacks on the White House's email system, and against several other federal agencies, the officials say.
Click to expand...

But of course the supposed lack of security in Clinton's server is hoisted up on the facts-for-sale mast as if it is something we should all be outraged about.

In reality, by accident or whatever you want to attribute it to, Clinton's server was more secure than the State Department's.

Classified information was sent via fax which Clinton used 99.9999999% of the time, or maybe 100% depending on if said talking points were ever sent which they may not have been.
 
Does anyone know why Hillary's biggest fan is claiming that the top secret data that was found on her email server was sent via fax?

Or there was no secure server?

The state department and the Obama administration confirmed that top secret data was found on her emails.

Emails. Everything being posted about faxes is a desperate lie.

Top secret sap data on Hillary's email.
 
Now the state department is completely censoring emails from Sid blumenthal to Hillary

Correct me if I am wrong, but Obama told Hillary not to hire him?

Now we can't read his emails to Hillary. Hmmmmm....
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The same issue would have occurred if these had been on the state.gov address. The state.gov vs private email is not relevant.

I go back to what I said at the beginning, you get FOIA requests, the material gets reviewed and redacted before it is released - standard procedure.
Click to expand...
The difference is that in order to comply with FOIA the state department must either rely on separate records from other employees that are part of conversation chains or rely on gaining access to a system that was run independently by someone else. That inherently delays or burdens the process... so some criticism is perfectly understandable in that regard and not so easily defended unless one is ardently willing to overlook everything irrespective of the nature.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
Which is not to say that leaks can't happen. For example, you could have a traitorous mole like Edward Snowden, or an incompetent and negligent boob like Clinton.
Click to expand...

Or both. After all, staffers at the Department of State set up a system for transferring classified government information to insecure networks outside the government's control. And with the full knowledge and approval of official at the highest level of the agency, no less.
 
theprestige said:
Or both. After all, staffers at the Department of State set up a system for transferring classified government information to insecure networks outside the government's control. And with the full knowledge and approval of official at the highest level of the agency, no less.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean, information that was later changed to classified? Every news story says the information was not classified at the time it was sent.
 
Molinaro said:
Don't you mean, information that was later changed to classified? Every news story says the information was not classified at the time it was sent.
Click to expand...

Hillary has, on more than one occasion, told her subordinates (via email) to strip classified markings off of documents and send them to her unsecure.
 
Molinaro said:
Don't you mean, information that was later changed to classified? Every news story says the information was not classified at the time it was sent.
Click to expand...

We know that is not true. The top secret/sap is born classified, and the IC IG specifically stated that the top secret data in the emails that originally caused the referral to the FBI was top secret classified when sent by the CIA to State.

Some of the State generated emails were later deemed classified, the data coming from the Intelligence Community, however, was classified when sent to State and then mishandled by Hillary and her senior staff.
 
Molinaro said:
Don't you mean, information that was later changed to classified? Every news story says the information was not classified at the time it was sent.
Click to expand...
You are largely correct. The HDS sufferers are also ignoring the published evidence that at least one of these "top secret" email chains was actually a forwarded news article.

Clinton's aids may have sent her some actually "top secret" Intel without marking it top secret, but if so, the blame lies with the aid who sent it, not the recipient.
 
Molinaro said:
Don't you mean, information that was later changed to classified? Every news story says the information was not classified at the time it was sent.
Click to expand...

No, they all say it was not *marked* classified. As others have pointed out there may have been reasons for this. It's also a meaningless difference when it comes to the actual status of the information.

The fact that she was, at the very least, receiving classified material without proper markings is also a problem as she had a duty under the law to properly mark classified information as such and report the violation.
 
wareyin said:
You are largely correct. The HDS sufferers are also ignoring the published evidence that at least one of these "top secret" email chains was actually a forwarded news article.

Clinton's aids may have sent her some actually "top secret" Intel without marking it top secret, but if so, the blame lies with the aid who sent it, not the recipient.
Click to expand...

The claim that it was a forwarded newspaper article is a naked assertion by the Clinton Campaign. Since they don't have access to the emails they can't speak to the content of those emails. If they do have access to the content of those emails then someone is breaking the law.

To the second point, when you have a security clearance and you receive unmarked classified information on a classified system you have a legal duty to mark it as such and report the violation. When you are the head of that agency, you also have the ultimate duty to make sure you aren't sharing top secret information on unclassified systems.

"It wasn't marked classified" isn't an excuse. It's the heart of the problem.
 
16.5 said:
Now the state department is completely censoring emails from Sid blumenthal to Hillary

Correct me if I am wrong, but Obama told Hillary not to hire him?

Now we can't read his emails to Hillary. Hmmmmm....
Click to expand...

Here is a link discussing the fully redacted Sid emails

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/30/f...st-clinton-release-are-completely-classified/

How the hell did Sid Blumenthal, a then employee of media matters and the Clinton family foundation get classified intelligence?

Furthermore, recall that Hillary's "friend" had his email account hacked.

Thanks for the **** show Hillary.
 
Leftus said:
The claim that it was a forwarded newspaper article is a naked assertion by the Clinton Campaign. Since they don't have access to the emails they can't speak to the content of those emails. If they do have access to the content of those emails then someone is breaking the law.

To the second point, when you have a security clearance and you receive unmarked classified information on a classified system you have a legal duty to mark it as such and report the violation. When you are the head of that agency, you also have the ultimate duty to make sure you aren't sharing top secret information on unclassified systems.

"It wasn't marked classified" isn't an excuse. It's the heart of the problem.
Click to expand...
I understand that you don't like the facts as reported, but that doesn't change them. Further, receiving an email is not "sharing" information. But don't let that get in your way.
 
Leftus said:
The claim that it was a forwarded newspaper article is a naked assertion by the Clinton Campaign. Since they don't have access to the emails they can't speak to the content of those emails. If they do have access to the content of those emails then someone is breaking the law.

To the second point, when you have a security clearance and you receive unmarked classified information on a classified system you have a legal duty to mark it as such and report the violation. When you are the head of that agency, you also have the ultimate duty to make sure you aren't sharing top secret information on unclassified systems.

"It wasn't marked classified" isn't an excuse. It's the heart of the problem.
Click to expand...

The fact that Hillary's fans are blaming her top staff is remarkable because Hillary was the one ultimately responsible for their conduct.

More importantly Hillary was the one who decided that she would use her homebrew server.

Blaming her aides? What a terrible argument!
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The difference is that in order to comply with FOIA the state department must either rely on separate records from other employees that are part of conversation chains or rely on gaining access to a system that was run independently by someone else. That inherently delays or burdens the process... so some criticism is perfectly understandable in that regard and not so easily defended unless one is ardently willing to overlook everything irrespective of the nature.
Click to expand...
So which is it, the FOIA issue where like it or not Clinton provided those emails? According to you the big problem was a delay, hardly a crime to be outraged over.

Or the security issue where supposedly the private server was so vulnerable but it turns out the secure stuff was sent by fax whether she used the State Department server or her own? Again, the private server is not the issue. And classifying material after the fact is not an unusual event.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom