RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

It should not be baffling as State also has a secure fax system which they were/are in the habit of using.

Note this email from Dog Town's link which mentions it specifically (and tellingly indicates a conscious attempt not to send classified material on HRC's server).

Highlighting added by me. (NB: there may be some minor discrepancies as I copied this from the PDF download and the text recognition isn't perfect).

They also have a secure courier service too! What is baffling is that SG keeps on bringing up "faxing" despite that fact that top secret intelligence was found on her email server.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not going to go over the difference between confidential and top secret with you again.

So now it's not classified, but confidential?

 

[Garrette]

They also have a secure courier service too! What is baffling is that SG keeps on bringing up "faxing" despite that fact that top secret intelligence was found on her email server.

Courier service not mentioned in the emails. Faxing was. Not difficult. And I seem to recall (though I may be wrong as I didn't follow in detail) that faxing was referenced in earlier testimony/reports about the whole thing.

 

[Wolrab]

No, I didn't think you were addressing me as a shill.

I was referring to you calling the HC spokesperson a shill, which is clearly an ad hominem.

As a spokesperson he is the very definition of a shill!

And then, of course, followed by the attack on NBC.

NBC had Chelsea as an employee in a sweetheart deal where she could still work for her parents foundation. That looks like a conflict of interest to me, not an ad hom.

Neither of which actually addresses what was in the article.

The article stated there were "attempted veiled references" to operators, while not naming them outright, it may be enough to identify them.

Which was reminiscent of your earlier ad hom post:Where you also failed to address the content of the article.

The author of the article was in charge of MSNBC and I find that worse than Fox. He was presented as a legal expert without mentioning his MSNBC connection. Again, not an ad hom.

 

[The Big Dog]

Courier service not mentioned in the emails. Faxing was. Not difficult. And I seem to recall (though I may be wrong as I didn't follow in detail) that faxing was referenced in earlier testimony/reports about the whole thing.

actually courier service was mentioned 100's of times in the emails. Not difficult

The classified data is in her emails, the whole faxing nonsense is just that, a complete derail and a total red herring.

 

[Newtons Bit]

So now it's not classified, but confidential?

Confidential is the lowest form of classification for Department of State.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hillary Clinton has a major honesty problem after New Hampshire

More than one in three (34 percent) of all New Hampshire Democratic primary voters said that honesty was the most important trait in their decision on which candidate to support. Of that bloc, Sanders won 92 percent of their votes as compared to just 6 percent for Clinton.

Ninety two to six.

Case in point?

It was Clinton's decision to be the first secretary of state in history to exclusively use a private email server while in office. It was Clinton who said that server would never have to be turned over to an independent investigator. (It eventually was.) It is Clinton who, time and time again, has refused to see the political damage being done to her by the questions surrounding the FBI investigation into the server.

The vast right wing conspiracy just ain't playing Hillary, you better come up with a new excuse.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

As a spokesperson he is the very definition of a shill!

SHil noun 1.
an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

Words have meanings. If you didn't intend to convey the pejorative connotation, you could simply have pointed out that it was a campaign spokesman, but that's not what you chose to do.

NBC had Chelsea as an employee in a sweetheart deal where she could still work for her parents foundation. That looks like a conflict of interest to me, not an ad hom.

It is NBC. Aren't they the ones that had Clinton's daughter on the payroll?

You are attacking NBCs impartiality based on employing Chelsea, not addressing what the content of the article was.

The article stated there were "attempted veiled references" to operators, while not naming them outright, it may be enough to identify them.

Please pay attention, I already quoted this in my earlier response to you:

You haven't been paying attention to the news, have you? There are emails on Hillary's server which contain information so sensitive that they will not be released to the public even in redacted form, information which includes the identities of human sources. It's the kind of stuff that can get people killed if it's compromised.

As you say, it may be enough to identify someone. But that wasn't the claim that was being addressed.

The author of the article was in charge of MSNBC and I find that worse than Fox. He was presented as a legal expert without mentioning his MSNBC connection. Again, not an ad hom.

Wait , what ? Because he worked at MSNBC among other news organizations, that's a reason to dismiss his opinion ?

IDK what that is other than an ad hom attack.

 

[Garrette]

actually courier service was mentioned 100's of times in the emails. Not difficult

You will, of course, be demonstrating this, yes?

The classified data is in her emails, the whole faxing nonsense is just that, a complete derail and a total red herring.

I am not agreeing with Skeptic Ginger (nor am I disagreeing). I am pointing out that your criticism falls short. Her point as I understand it (and I could well be wrong) is that the fax is relevant because its demonstrated and proper use for secure communications indicates that inappropriate use of the email server for classified info was less likely and that this is strengthened by the fact (according to SG) that such inappropriate use has so far not been demonstrated, though it has been strongly implied and lately specifically alleged.

 

[The Big Dog]

You will, of course, be demonstrating this, yes?

No. The entire fax/courier discussion is utterly pointless and a complete red herring.

Did she get classified stuff via secured fax? Of course. Did she get classified stuff via courier? Of course.

I am not agreeing with Skeptic Ginger (nor am I disagreeing). I am pointing out that your criticism falls short. Her point as I understand it (and I could well be wrong) is that the fax is relevant because its demonstrated and proper use for secure communications indicates that inappropriate use of the email server for classified info was less likely and that this is strengthened by the fact (according to SG) that such inappropriate use has so far not been demonstrated, though it has been strongly implied and lately specifically alleged.

Did classified intelligence get into her unsecured email? YEP:

"The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby told the AP.

http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/01/22_clinton_emails_were_top_sec.html

 

[Garrette]

No. The entire fax/courier discussion is utterly pointless and a complete red herring.

As you make a claim you choose not to back up, your opinion on the red herring is without merit. Until such time as you back up your claim, you can have a monologue on it.

Did classified intelligence get into her unsecured email? YEP:

"The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby told the AP.

http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/01/22_clinton_emails_were_top_sec.html

Did I dispute that? I suggest you read more of Grizzly Bear's posts as he is the one with the clearest grasp on the proper approach here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Confidential is the lowest form of classification for Department of State.

So you are proposing confidential belonged in a fax? Or everything classified and above? or just top secret?

Sounds to me like they should have just faxed everything.

 

[Garrette]

So you are proposing confidential belonged in a fax? Or everything classified and above? or just top secret?

Sounds to me like they should have just faxed everything.

Not sure what he's saying, but just to be clear:

"Classified" is not a classification; it is merely a descriptive.

Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret are classifications. All of them will frequently have further markings such as NOFORN (Not for Foreign Dissemination), and Top Secret will almost always have a follow-on codeword to designate SCI/SAP.

When I was in Military Intelligence, if I had taken a comic book page and stamped "Confidential" on it, it would, in fact, be classified until I went through the process of declassifying it (it would be far easier simply to shred the page).

Such authority does not, however, extend to civilians. This is part of the confusion with what Blumenthal sent. He marked a lot of his stuff "Confidential" but that did not automatically classify it because he had no official capacity to do so, and so while the content may indeed have been Confidential it would not have been so by virtue of Blumenthal's marking it as such.

Which gets to how classified information should have been communicated. Anything that was actually classified at any level should not have gone onto HRC's email server. Any that happened to be sent to her via that server (sorry if I'm getting the tech terms wrong; I'm a good computer user but not a good computer understanderer) and which would reasonably be seen AT THE TIME as containing classified material should have been handled appropriate to their actual classification whether marked as such or not.

Again, I refer to Grizzly Bear's posts.

 

[The Big Dog]

your opinion on the red herring is without merit.

'k.

Did I dispute that?

Yes

that such inappropriate use has so far not been demonstrated, though it has been strongly implied and lately specifically alleged.

 

[Garrette]

'k.



Yes

Ah, I see you are having difficulty with the nuance. Your statement was that "The documents are being upgraded...", i.e., after-the-fact. My statement that you only partially quoted referred quite clearly in context to the classification of the material at the time.

You demonstrated difficulty with such critical nuance in the Benghazi thread, too. Perhaps you should read a bit more slowly.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ah, I see you are having difficulty with the nuance. Your statement was that "The documents are being upgraded...", i.e., after-the-fact. My statement that you only partially quoted referred quite clearly in context to the classification of the material at the time.

You demonstrated difficulty with such critical nuance in the Benghazi thread, too. Perhaps you should read a bit more slowly.

ah, the master of the moving goalposts. I do enjoy the completely condescending tone, while you "subtly" shift position.

You said nothing about classification "at the time." Further, the documents that are getting the upgrade are the Hillary documents from her server.

The classified intelligence that is in those upgraded documents comes from the intelligence community, which was classified at the time it was generated and sent by the IC to State.

Perhaps you should read a bit more slowly. Oh dear, this *********** nonsense again.

 

[Garrette]

It was intentionally condescending and shall remain such so long as your posts retain the low quality they have. Any shifting goalposts were on your side.

Here is my entire statement:

"I am not agreeing with Skeptic Ginger (nor am I disagreeing). I am pointing out that your criticism falls short. Her point as I understand it (and I could well be wrong) is that the fax is relevant because its demonstrated and proper use for secure communications indicates that inappropriate use of the email server for classified info was less likely and that this is strengthened by the fact (according to SG) that such inappropriate use has so far not been demonstrated, though it has been strongly implied and lately specifically alleged."

Note that I haven't even yet pointed out that I was stating my thoughts on what SG meant, not on what I believed (something that a slower reading might have helped you catch).

Here is your statement that you claim my statement meant I was denying:

Did classified intelligence get into her unsecured email? YEP:

""The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby told the AP."

Let's paraphrase to make it clear:

Me: I think SG is saying X about the documents on the server at the time it was being used

You: The documents were later upgraded to classified

Me: Did I deny that?

You: Yes, because you said SG is saying X about the documents on the server at the time it was being used


Key characteristics of my statement: (1) Representative of SG's thoughts as I understood them, and (2) at the time of active use of the server

Key characteristics of your statement: (1) Relied upon my thoughts which remain unstated, and (2) at a time after active use of the server

No goalposts moved. No denial (no agreement, either).

You continue to miss nuance, so the condescension remains in place.

 

[The Big Dog]

It was intentionally condescending and shall remain such

Stopped reading here. Thanks for posting.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Newtons Bit]

So you are proposing confidential belonged in a fax? Or everything classified and above? or just top secret?

Sounds to me like they should have just faxed everything.

Which fax? A secure fax? That's one way of appropriately sending classified documents. SMTP is not.

 

[Garrette]

Stopped reading here. Thanks for posting.

Have a blessed day.

Excellent. Second double standard across the two threads we've seen. First was the bit about someone else's mistake invalidating everything they did but not for you. This one is about you doing all the "HEE HEE" childishness as if it has substance but can't take condescension when you refuse to admit your own misreadings and errors.

No loss, though. Have a good day yourself (that part's not condescending).