RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

Update Regarding FBI's investigation

The FBI has asked US District Court Judge Randolph Moss to dismiss VICE News' FOIA lawsuit on grounds that the documents it does have about Clinton's private email server are located in files pertaining to a pending investigation that is exempt from disclosure because their release would interfere with active law enforcement proceedings.

The FBI has 150 agents working on it.

I am sorry, I see that I neglected to link the article that I just quoted from!

https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-investigation-hillary-clinton-email-server-details

My apologies

/who wants to place a wager that the FBI is taking a long hard look at how Clinton Family Foundation employee Sid Blumenthal got NSA top secret information regarding a high level meeting in the Sudan and emailed it to Hillary Clinton less than 24 hours later?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The FBI has 150 agents working on it.

/who wants to place a wager that the FBI is taking a long hard look at how Clinton Family Foundation employee Sid Blumenthal got NSA top secret information regarding a high level meeting in the Sudan and emailed it to Hillary Clinton less than 24 hours later?

HOLY CRAP !!! THE FBI is investigating Clintons server !

Congrats 16.5, welcome to 9 months ago.

ETA: that quote is from VICE, not the FBI, so ... who cares ? Why did you bother bolding it ???

 

[Tony Stark]

I like the odds, but the stakes are high.

However, someone here once said a bet is a tax on ************, and I admire your willingness to put your beliefs on the line.

I don't like the time limit on election day though. It's possible the investigation may continue even after she's elected (it's even within the realm of possibility she could be impeached over this).

How about if she isn't indicted over this before the election, I pick your avatar for two months. If she is indicted over it, you pick mine for two years, no matter if it happens before or after the election.

This offer extends to anybody willing to take the bet.

 

[plague311]

As it is, she purposely put classified information into the hands of people not authorized to receive it. To wit, her lawyers and the good people who maintained her server. Worse, from the perspective of national security, the government was obstructed from being able to do an audit of what classified information may exist on unclassified computers because the unclassified computers at issue were not under the government's control.

The two hilited portions are complete ******** and show that you know nothing about how IT works. Those that "maintain" the server don't access information on the server itself. Not only is it against the law, but no one would ever use that company again if it ever came out that they were accessing the information they were storing for people. Also, they have all of Hillary's equipment related to the server. Both previously and from the company itself. So they are under the government control, they can still acquire all of the information. 16.5 has even implied that they are doing so RIGHT now. So, unless you have something to backup that ******** claim, then retract it.

Instead of using her homebrew server, Hillary should have just hired hitmen to take out Issa and Gowdy, and any other troublesome Republicans liable to go on witch hunts. She could still use the same defense as you're proposing, and the upside is that our national security wouldn't have been compromised.

Do you have anything at all to confirm that our national security had or has been compromised? I'll take anything at all. Last I checked the security logs showed that the server was never compromised at all. On top of that, we all know how weak the government network is as the Chinese and Russians have lived in our servers since their inception.

I'll be awaiting whatever you scrounge up to support your statements; however, due to my desire to want to live, I won't be holding my breath.

 

[sunmaster14]

The two hilited portions are complete ******** and show that you know nothing about how IT works. Those that "maintain" the server don't access information on the server itself. Not only is it against the law, but no one would ever use that company again if it ever came out that they were accessing the information they were storing for people.

The fact that you would say such things show that you know little about the law. Regardless of whether or not it is unethical (and reputation damaging), or even illlegal, for the IT company to access private data on the server itself, the point is that they had access. It is not simply a theoretical point. If I hand an unauthorized friend classified data and ask him to store it for me and not to look at it, and he promises not to (and I trust him), I'm still intentionally giving access to classified data to somebody who isn't authorized to have it. In fact, I'm quite sure that David Petraeus asked his mistress not to reveal the classified information he gave her to anybody, and I have little doubt she wasn't worthy of his trust, but he still got punished for it. I'll note that you didn't have anything to say about the lawyers Hillary gave the classified information to. Her lawyers are bound by ethical rules as well, and attorney-client privilege is actually recognized in the law. Yet, she still broke the law by giving her attorneys access to classified information since they were not authorized to receive it.

Also, they have all of Hillary's equipment related to the server. Both previously and from the company itself. So they are under the government control, they can still acquire all of the information. 16.5 has even implied that they are doing so RIGHT now. So, unless you have something to backup that ******** claim, then retract it.

My point is that it is years too late. The damage is compounded by delay, and Hillary delayed the discovery that classified information was exposed on insecure computers for a very long time.

Do you have anything at all to confirm that our national security had or has been compromised? I'll take anything at all. Last I checked the security logs showed that the server was never compromised at all. On top of that, we all know how weak the government network is as the Chinese and Russians have lived in our servers since their inception.

They haven't lived in our classified servers. Those are secure because they're not even connected to the internet. Obviously, they're susceptible to spies like Edward Snowden, but not hacking. If she had put classified information on unclassified servers, but servers still under government control, perhaps something could have been done about it sooner.

As for compromising our national security, it is a certainty that it happened. The reason is that the government has to operate under the assumption that her server was compromised until proven otherwise (which is probably impossible to do). Therefore, a lot of costly stuff has to be done to mitigate any potential damage. That costly stuff is damage all by itself.

 

[The Big Dog]

A Second Judge Allows Discovery in Clinton Email Case

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted discovery to Judicial Watch into Hillary Clinton’s email matter. Lamberth ruled that “where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.”

Where there is evidence of "wrong doing" and "bad faith"!

WOW.

It continues:

An understanding of the facts and circumstances surrounding Secretary Clinton’s extraordinary and exclusive use of her “clintonemail.com” account to conduct official government business, as well as other officials’ use of this account and their own personal e-mail accounts to conduct official government business is required before the Court can determine whether the search conducted here reasonably produced all responsive documents.

Read it here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...JW-v-State-Memorandum-and-discovery-01242.pdf

 

[plague311]

The fact that you would say such things show that you know little about the law. Regardless of whether or not it is unethical (and reputation damaging), or even illlegal, for the IT company to access private data on the server itself, the point is that they had access.

It's amazing how much those that are anti-Hillary will stretch to imply she's guilty of anything possible.

It is not simply a theoretical point. If I hand an unauthorized friend classified data and ask him to store it for me and not to look at it, and he promises not to (and I trust him), I'm still intentionally giving access to classified data to somebody who isn't authorized to have it.

****** analogy. You're beginning by telling the person it's classified. Which Hillary never did, and according to 16.5's sources the server wasn't setup under her name. She paid them to store the information, she didn't ask a friend. There's a massive difference. This company was bound by both the law, and ethics. Don't preach to me about knowing the law, when it's obvious you don't know the law regarding IT. It's hypocritical and counterproductive.

In fact, I'm quite sure that David Petraeus asked his mistress not to reveal the classified information he gave her to anybody, and I have little doubt she wasn't worthy of his trust, but he still got punished for it.

No ****** You don't see any difference between the two situations? A person handing known classified information to his reporter girlfriend, and a person setting up a server that was never intended to have classified information on it, being setup through a company that is required by law and ethics to not break that trust. Those two are similar to you somehow? Ok

I'll note that you didn't have anything to say about the lawyers Hillary gave the classified information to. Her lawyers are bound by ethical rules as well, and attorney-client privilege is actually recognized in the law. Yet, she still broke the law by giving her attorneys access to classified information since they were not authorized to receive it.

The reason I didn't address it is the same reason you have absolutely no issue implying that a business, a group of professionals, could or would go through a clients information just because they have the opportunity. I find it irrelevant for a couple of reasons 1) None of the information was leaked by her attorneys, even the information that would help her. 2) Most of the information has been retroactively redacted or listed as classified. I know, I know. You guys don't believe it, and in fact, have refused to acknowledge that there is any interior bickering about what should and shouldn't be classified at all. Why? I don't know. If you'd like, we can tackle it, but I think we both know how it will end. Your argument will be that she is absolutely, and without a doubt, guilty of every and any crime, and I will disagree.

My point is that it is years too late. The damage is compounded by delay, and Hillary delayed the discovery that classified information was exposed on insecure computers for a very long time.

It happens all of the time. It's happened in the past few SoS's before her. Call it a tu quoque if you will, I don't really care, but if we locked everyone up that's done it in the government there wouldn't be much left.

Also, I don't think you know what "insecure" means. Just because you, without any IT experience at all, says that her server was insecure doesn't mean it was. Say it all you want, and even find a way to say it with more certainty, but it won't change the fact that it's wrong. You don't know what security logs are, you obviously don't know how they're relevant, and has been stated before, there is proof that her server was never accessed or hacked.

They haven't lived in our classified servers. Those are secure because they're not even connected to the internet.

Huh? Are you talking about SIPRNet? Please tell me you aren't talking about SIPRNet.

Obviously, they're susceptible to spies like Edward Snowden, but not hacking.

If you're talking about SIPRNet, there are also over 4.2 million users that span over 5 different countries.

If she had put classified information on unclassified servers, but servers still under government control, perhaps something could have been done about it sooner.

Sure, like? They weren't even able to notice that Hillary was using her own server, with its own domain name. She emailed people on their .gov accounts and the government has failed to find some of those. Have you been keeping up with the story? The government has openly said that months of emails are gone because the system wasn't backing up correctly. Chances are they would have had a lot less than what they got.

As for compromising our national security, it is a certainty that it happened.

Of course it is, she's a democrat. It's an almost certainty that anything that's bad that has ever happened is directly related to a democrat. Duh.

The reason is that the government has to operate under the assumption that her server was compromised until proven otherwise (which is probably impossible to do).

Prove it. Source something. I need more than just your, I'm sure expert, knowledge. Your lack of IT knowledge is showing. How do you think other hackers are caught? How do you think I know when people try to access my VPN, or personal servers and so on? It's called intrusion software, security logs, and there is plenty more. Including hardware and software firewalls, which I'm positive Platte had, and the like. You're right though, it's all a mystery. I'll add computer forensics to the list of things you're an obvious expert of....

Therefore, a lot of costly stuff has to be done to mitigate any potential damage. That costly stuff is damage all by itself.

Like? Like what "costly stuff" has to be done? Would you, for the love of everything that is holy, provide some sort of evidence supporting your claims? Anything?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<> I'll note that you didn't have anything to say about the lawyers Hillary gave the classified information to. Her lawyers are bound by ethical rules as well, and attorney-client privilege is actually recognized in the law. Yet, she still broke the law by giving her attorneys access to classified information since they were not authorized to receive it.
<>

Just to focus on one thing at a time ...
Says you ?
http://www.grassley.senate.gov/site...assified docs, 08-25-15, Kendall response.pdf

 

[davefoc]

...

Your analogy fails, by the way. "Intending to rob a bank" as a private citizen is not actually a crime. Robbing a bank is. Intending to divulge state secrets and circumvent security procedures, however, is certifiably a crime.

With respect, I think it was a pretty good analogy. Clinton took steps to avoid compliance with Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). She probably did it to avoid making her emails available for scrutiny by the Republicans and to make them unavailable to people seeking them through FOIA. But just like the bank robber it isn't necessary to know why she did it to know that she broke important federal regulations in a significant way.

She also violated Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code with regard to her handling of classified information in an email account. The degree to which she did so and the degree of her culpability is an open question. I agree with the poster that said if there was a serious risk of her being indicted for this, the Democratic powers would have stepped in and shut down her campaign. Probably Biden would have run at the very least. But I also agree with the people that believe what's going to happen with regard to this is still not knowable by the general public and I don't see enough facts to be able to make an educated guess about this beyond that the available information supports the idea that she isn't going to be indicted. Comparison with the Patreus actions are incorrect. Patreus intentionally shared classified information. Clinton actions are different and her culpability is more ambiguous but still arguably illegal.

 

[sunmaster14]

It's amazing how much those that are anti-Hillary will stretch to imply she's guilty of anything possible.



****** analogy. You're beginning by telling the person it's classified. Which Hillary never did, and according to 16.5's sources the server wasn't setup under her name. She paid them to store the information, she didn't ask a friend. There's a massive difference. This company was bound by both the law, and ethics. Don't preach to me about knowing the law, when it's obvious you don't know the law regarding IT. It's hypocritical and counterproductive.



No ****** You don't see any difference between the two situations? A person handing known classified information to his reporter girlfriend, and a person setting up a server that was never intended to have classified information on it, being setup through a company that is required by law and ethics to not break that trust. Those two are similar to you somehow? Ok



The reason I didn't address it is the same reason you have absolutely no issue implying that a business, a group of professionals, could or would go through a clients information just because they have the opportunity. I find it irrelevant for a couple of reasons 1) None of the information was leaked by her attorneys, even the information that would help her. 2) Most of the information has been retroactively redacted or listed as classified. I know, I know. You guys don't believe it, and in fact, have refused to acknowledge that there is any interior bickering about what should and shouldn't be classified at all. Why? I don't know. If you'd like, we can tackle it, but I think we both know how it will end. Your argument will be that she is absolutely, and without a doubt, guilty of every and any crime, and I will disagree.



It happens all of the time. It's happened in the past few SoS's before her. Call it a tu quoque if you will, I don't really care, but if we locked everyone up that's done it in the government there wouldn't be much left.

Also, I don't think you know what "insecure" means. Just because you, without any IT experience at all, says that her server was insecure doesn't mean it was. Say it all you want, and even find a way to say it with more certainty, but it won't change the fact that it's wrong. You don't know what security logs are, you obviously don't know how they're relevant, and has been stated before, there is proof that her server was never accessed or hacked.



Huh? Are you talking about SIPRNet? Please tell me you aren't talking about SIPRNet.



If you're talking about SIPRNet, there are also over 4.2 million users that span over 5 different countries.



Sure, like? They weren't even able to notice that Hillary was using her own server, with its own domain name. She emailed people on their .gov accounts and the government has failed to find some of those. Have you been keeping up with the story? The government has openly said that months of emails are gone because the system wasn't backing up correctly. Chances are they would have had a lot less than what they got.



Of course it is, she's a democrat. It's an almost certainty that anything that's bad that has ever happened is directly related to a democrat. Duh.



Prove it. Source something. I need more than just your, I'm sure expert, knowledge. Your lack of IT knowledge is showing. How do you think other hackers are caught? How do you think I know when people try to access my VPN, or personal servers and so on? It's called intrusion software, security logs, and there is plenty more. Including hardware and software firewalls, which I'm positive Platte had, and the like. You're right though, it's all a mystery. I'll add computer forensics to the list of things you're an obvious expert of....



Like? Like what "costly stuff" has to be done? Would you, for the love of everything that is holy, provide some sort of evidence supporting your claims? Anything?

I find it interesting that the civility with which you argue is in inverse proportion to the strength of your arguments. I'll only respond to a couple of your "points" in the interest of completeness, but almost everything you've written does nothing to rebut my argument:

Petraeus' "reporter" girlfriend was his biographer and had a top secret security clearance. The Platte River guys may or may not have been Hillary's boyfriends, but they did not have a top secret security clearance.

You do not know if any information was accessed or leaked by Platte River. You do not know if any information was leaked by Hillary's lawyers. We do know her lawyers accessed the information because they went through every single one of approximately 60,000 emails, and that requires people (a team actually) to actually access the information (i.e. read it).

You claim that previous SoS's did similar things? Talk about ********.

I do know what "insecure" means, and I don't know why you think I don't have any IT experience. I have enough. More importantly, I know what other IT professionals have written about Hillary's setup. Oh, I know what security logs are by the way. I also know they can be hacked as well.

Yes, I was talking about SIPRnet. Yes, 4.2 million people have access to parts of it, all of whom have security clearances. Compare that to everybody in the world - 7.5 billion at last count.

 

[sunmaster14]

Just to focus on one thing at a time ...
Says you ?
http://www.grassley.senate.gov/site...assified docs, 08-25-15, Kendall response.pdf

Well, that's some defense. I doubt that the two people with security clearances at the law firm were the only ones who combed through 60,000 emails though. In fact, I doubt David Kendall did any of that. He's a pretty senior guy after all.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Well, that's some defense. I doubt that the two people with security clearances at the law firm were the only ones who combed through 60,000 emails though. In fact, I doubt David Kendall did any of that. He's a pretty senior guy after all.

Argument from incredulity. Moving the goalposts.
Gotcha.

 

[plague311]

*snip random "nuh uh"*

Petraeus' "reporter" girlfriend was his biographer and had a top secret security clearance. The Platte River guys may or may not have been Hillary's boyfriends, but they did not have a top secret security clearance.

And there's also no evidence saying Platte accessed any of the information, is there? As previously stated, her lawyers had security access as well. I would have absolutely no reason at all to think that they accessed the information.

You do not know if any information was accessed or leaked by Platte River. You do not know if any information was leaked by Hillary's lawyers. We do know her lawyers accessed the information because they went through every single one of approximately 60,000 emails, and that requires people (a team actually) to actually access the information (i.e. read it).

So basically lack of evidence is exactly the evidence you need. Since there's absolutely nothing showing that Platte accessed anything, and her lawyers being approved to view that information, then you've changed your stance to "can't prove they did, can't prove they didn't." Very effective

You claim that previous SoS's did similar things? Talk about ********.

Uhm, they did. One used Gmail. I mean, ALL of google can access that or did you forget about that?

I do know what "insecure" means,

No, you don't.

and I don't know why you think I don't have any IT experience.

Because you've shown absolutely no evidence of actually possessing said knowledge.

I have enough.

Words I will absolutely never say, because I work in IT. What, exactly, do you have "enough" knowledge to do? You've failed miserably as far as I can tell.

More importantly, I know what other IT professionals have written about Hillary's setup. Oh, I know what security logs are by the way. I also know they can be hacked as well.

Maybe, it's possible security logs could be hacked. So that's one aspect. Combine that with the fact that no other detection (specifically the ones I've listed before that you conveniently ignored) that a hack occurred by any other means, and it appears that it hasn't been hacked.

Besides, you've read what SOME computer experts have to say. If you want to have a battle of the experts we absolutely can, but as many say it is secure as say it isn't. I'm not huge into appeals to authority, outside of what I personally know and I'm no expert. We can go back and forth if you want. After all, I and my knowledge have been insulted and mocked before in this thread. I have no fear of having it happen again. Considering everything I said the last time I was challenged was accurate and confirmed.

Yes, I was talking about SIPRnet.

laf

Yes, 4.2 million people have access to parts of it, all of whom have security clearances. Compare that to everybody in the world - 7.5 billion at last count.

Wow, 7.5 billion people all have internet! That...is...out...standing. You should tell a lot of them though, because I don't think they know. You know, considering that only about 3 billion have access. It's like a Donald Trump statement!

Of that 3 billion that access the internet, probably about 1% of them knows how to hack. The rest are either script kiddies, or bots.

Given the fact that a ton of documents have been released by multiple breaches from Manning and Snowden, you'll have to excuse me if I don't find that network as secure as you obviously do.

Try to provide a secure network for 4.2 million people sometime and tell me how secure it is. Again, your lack of IT knowledge is on display.

Lastly, SIPRNet is still a packet-switched network that uses routers, switches, and cabling. It might be more secure, but even the slightest opening can make it susceptible to every attack the normal internet faces.

 

[sunmaster14]

Argument from incredulity. Moving the goalposts.
Gotcha.

Argument from incredulity isn't really a fallacy. I can't imagine that the sun is going to rise in the west any time in the next 30 years. Therefore, I don't think you should bother getting room-darkening shades for your west-facing window if you want to sleep later in the morning. Is that a fallacy?

Do you think David Kendall personally reviewed Hillary's emails? All 60,000 of them, along with his partner who also may or may not have had a security clearance at the time this was done (remember, they got the security clearances to prepare for Hillary's Benghazi testimony - the emails may have been passed to the law firm much earlier). It's not just incredulity on my part. It's incredulity on the part of any reasonably objective person who understands how many man-hours it would take to review 60,000 emails.

Reading Kendall's letter, it's clear that he is trying to confuse and deflect the issue. That's what good lawyers do. It's not going to work, however. The FBI is going to ask who had access to the emails at his law firm, and the answer is going to include a lot more people than the two he listed as having top secret clearances. By the way, Petraeus' mistress also had a top secret clearance. That didn't mean she was cleared to see what she saw. Nor was Kendall or his partner necessarily cleared to see what they saw. Almost certainly they weren't. Why would they need to have a clearance to see highly classified information about the CIA's drone program?

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

Because you've shown absolutely no evidence of actually possessing said knowledge.

And you've shown no knowledge of finance, or physics, or computer programming, or economics, or French. Does that mean I can reasonably conclude that you have no knowledge of such things? Where have I demonstrated a lack of knowledge? One mistake can tip me off as to the ignorance of a stranger in my areas of competence. Can you point out a single mistake I have made?

Words I will absolutely never say, because I work in IT. What, exactly, do you have "enough" knowledge to do? You've failed miserably as far as I can tell.

I know that putting work product on a computer not controlled by my workplace, without coordination with the IT department, is a huge no-no. And I know why that is too. That's enough. If it's bad to do it at a private company, it's got to be ultra-bad to do it at the State Department.

<snip>

Wow, 7.5 billion people all have internet! That...is...out...standing. You should tell a lot of them though, because I don't think they know. You know, considering that only about 3 billion have access. It's like a Donald Trump statement!

Of that 3 billion that access the internet, probably about 1% of them knows how to hack. The rest are either script kiddies, or bots.

Given the fact that a ton of documents have been released by multiple breaches from Manning and Snowden, you'll have to excuse me if I don't find that network as secure as you obviously do.

Try to provide a secure network for 4.2 million people sometime and tell me how secure it is. Again, your lack of IT knowledge is on display.

Lastly, SIPRNet is still a packet-switched network that uses routers, switches, and cabling. It might be more secure, but even the slightest opening can make it susceptible to every attack the normal internet faces.

So what exactly is your argument here? That the government can't possibly keep 100% of its classified information under wraps 100% of the time, and therefore it's ok to flout their security protocols? I mean if that's true, why even have laws governing the mishandling of classified information?

 

[plague311]

And you've shown no knowledge of finance, or physics, or computer programming, or economics, or French. Does that mean I can reasonably conclude that you have no knowledge of such things?

Yes, you damn right it can. If I've made absolute statements regarding those fields that are false, then yes.

Where have I demonstrated a lack of knowledge? One mistake can tip me off as to the ignorance of a stranger in my areas of competence. Can you point out a single mistake I have made?

I've *********** hilited them in certain posts, and spoken directly to them after quoting them in others. I don't know how to make it easier for you to identify them.

I know that putting work product on a computer not controlled by my workplace, without coordination with the IT department, is a huge no-no.

It doesn't get more vague than "work product", and actually an IT person from the government DID install her equipment. It's in 16.5's posts and the title of the thread refers directly to it. In this case she was just receiving emails on her system. She didn't put government software or anything like that on her PC. Apples to oranges analogy. You're not good with those.

And I know why that is too. That's enough. If it's bad to do it at a private company, it's got to be ultra-bad to do it at the State Department.

It's generally bad to do because it's proprietary software (everything Hillary used was 3rd party software). Providing other people with company software can open that software up to being stolen and copied, which would lose the company money (not really a government concern here). You also have to look after your clients, and their protected information. This is really the only thing that we are concerned about here, and that hasn't shown up as an issue in this case.

So what exactly is your argument here? That the government can't possibly keep 100% of its classified information under wraps 100% of the time, and therefore it's ok to flout their security protocols? I mean if that's true, why even have laws governing the mishandling of classified information?

Nope, I was making a point about network security. You made the government SIPRNet to sound like an impenetrable network that no one can take advantage of. My point is that any network can be taken advantage of, even SIPRNet

 

[Tony Stark]

In order to prove that Hillary acted in a criminal manner by giving emails to her lawyers you would have to prove that they contained information that was classified at the time. Executive orders dictate that info is only classified if decided so by someone with the authority (like Hillary herself). Most of the emails in question contain info that was classified after the fact.

You would also have to prove that she knew they contained classified info. Good luck with that. Somehow, I doubt the FBI has a recording of her confessing like they did with Petraeus.

 

[Fudbucker]

How about if she isn't indicted over this before the election, I pick your avatar for two months. If she is indicted over it, you pick mine for two years, no matter if it happens before or after the election.

This offer extends to anybody willing to take the bet.

OK, that's a fair bet.

 

[Tony Stark]

OK, that's a fair bet.

Ok, we have a bet!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Argument from incredulity isn't really a fallacy.<>

Yes, it is. I'm just going to stop right here, since you clearly aren't interested in an honest discussion.