RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

Datto "illegally" stored her email, so Hillary is going to file a "lawsuit" to keep that evidence from the FBI!

BWHAHAHA!!!!

Hillary always cooperated, except **** Congress!

 

[plague311]

Datto "illegally" stored her email, so Hillary is going to file a "lawsuit" to keep that evidence from the FBI!

That is a burning man sized strawman you've built. You don't have to put "illegally" in scare quotes. Datto literally held on to data that they were not paid, nor requested to hold on to. That's against the law. That's why the article I quoted stated that Platte and Hillary had to agree.

I also never said she DID file a lawsuit, I said she easily could have. She didn't. She had no issues in turning the backups over instead of fighting it. If you don't understand, that's fine. You can laugh all you want, but it just goes to continuously show that you are out of your league when discussing data backups and the laws relating to them.

Hillary always cooperated, except **** Congress!

Never said **** Congress, I said "**** the Benghazi committee". It's the same as saying "**** the Boston Red Sox" isn't the same as saying, "**** Baseball".

Anything else I can maybe help clarify for you?

 

[The Big Dog]

OK we've had our fun, and as I am sure most of you know Datto didn't "illegally" hold on to documents "against the law." It might have "breached it contract" rendering it liable for "damages," but that is a civil matter.

It absurd to suggest that a breach of contract would allow Hillary to file a "lawsuit" that would prevent the FBI from exercising a "search warrant" issued in aid of "counter-intelligence" referral from the "Intelligence Community Inspector General" in light of the fact that "Hillary's cowboy server" contained "top secret" US Government intelligence.

By the way, funny how quickly we got from Hillary always "cooperated" to "**** the Benghazi Committee."

Oh Hillary, you and your supporters are always good for a laugh!

 

[sunmaster14]

OK we've had our fun, and as I am sure most of you know Datto didn't "illegally" hold on to documents "against the law." It might have "breached it contract" rendering it liable for "damages," but that is a civil matter.

It absurd to suggest that a breach of contract would allow Hillary to file a "lawsuit" that would prevent the FBI from exercising a "search warrant" issued in aid of "counter-intelligence" referral from the "Intelligence Community Inspector General" in light of the fact that "Hillary's cowboy server" contained "top secret" US Government intelligence.

Agreed. plague311's arguments are getting increasingly ridiculous. At least he's maintaining a high standard of incivility. I'm looking forward to the next volley of insults to spring forth from his keyboard.

 

[davefoc]

...


Are you claiming that the FBI used force or threats to get the server? Evidence of that?

When I read stuff like this I wonder if I'm even on the same planet as some of the people that are attempting to defend Clinton here.

Really, you think that Clinton turned her server over to the FBI because she was trying to help the investigation? Wow and wow. You might not like 16.5 or agree with him on much but he put forth a solid argument that Clinton had no such intention and only cooperated after she had no choice, either because she realized that not cooperating would look really bad for her politically or as 16.5 suggests the recovery of the server would be done under court order if she didn't cooperate. That sounds like a text book example of coercion to me.

Incidentally, the there-is-no-problem-here,-the-Republicans-just-made this- stuff-up defense is crumbling as numerous left leaning pundits have mentioned that there are serious issues here. Perhaps this might give you something to think about the next time you want to defend Clinton with analysis that only the most strident, deeply committed partisan would see as anything but BS.

As to the server should have been private nonsense: Yes a server for a personal email account should be private. Is that what this was? I'd agree that the personal emails on the server should have been private in most circumstances. One circumstance where the contents of somebody's private email server would not be private would be if the server was used to transmit classified information. If, even by happenstance, it became known that classified material had been improperly and potentially illegally had been transmitted on somebody's personal server do you think the FBI couldn't legally seize that computer? This kind of nonsense, defend Clinton on every point regardless of how silly the point doesn't give credence to whatever point the Clinton defenders are trying to make in this thread.

ETA2: The scariest part of this whole scandal for this person that will probably vote for Clinton and thinks that it will be a good thing that she becomes president is the implications of this scandal about Clinton. Mixing of private and business emails was a bizarrely strange thing for any lawyer let alone a lawyer that hopes to be the president of the US. The ramifications of that decision alone have cost Clinton dearly and it was a decision that very few lawyers in this country would have been stupid enough to make. It is now clear that there was considerable discussion about the security of Clinton's email before she made this horrible decision to use her private server. Clinton ignored the advice of experts and instead used her apparently sycophantic apparatchiks to implement her plan. This is another reason that her decision here calls into question fitness to be president.

 

[wareyin]

When I read stuff like this I wonder if I'm even on the same planet as some of the people that are attempting to defend Clinton here.

Really, you think that Clinton turned her server over to the FBI because she was trying to help the investigation? Wow and wow. You might not like 16.5 or agree with him on much but he put forth a solid argument that Clinton had no such intention and only cooperated after she had no choice, either because she realized that not cooperating would look really bad for her politically or as 16.5 suggests the recovery of the server would be done under court order if she didn't cooperate. That sounds like a text book example of coercion to me.

Perhaps we live on different planets, because there is no way your description fits the definition of coerced I provided. Being legally compelled does not fit the definition of coercion, and Clinton turned the server over before she was legally compelled to.

You do realize that you have created a false dichotomy with your 'help the investigation' or 'coerced', don't you?

Incidentally, the there-is-no-problem-here,-the-Republicans-just-made this- stuff-up defense is crumbling as numerous left leaning pundits have mentioned that there are serious issues here. Perhaps this might give you something to think about the next time you want to defend Clinton with analysis that only the most strident, deeply committed partisan would see as anything but BS.

You may want to think this stance through just a little bit better. You are falling for Republican partisan BS, that (if your unsupported claim of left leaning pundits support is true) is probably being adopted by Sanders supporters in an attempt to attack Clinton.

As to the server should have been private nonsense: Yes a server for a personal email account should be private. Is that what this was? I'd agree that the personal emails on the server should have been private in most circumstances. One circumstance where the contents of somebody's private email server would not be private would be if the server was used to transmit classified information. If, even by happenstance, it became known that classified material had been improperly and potentially illegally had been transmitted on somebody's personal server do you think the FBI couldn't legally seize that computer? This kind of nonsense, defend Clinton on every point regardless of how silly the point doesn't give credence to whatever point the Clinton defenders are trying to make in this thread.

Another poorly thought out point. No one (to my knowledge) has claimed the FBI couldn't legally seize that computer. Did the FBI seize that computer?

ETA2: The scariest part of this whole scandal for this person that will probably vote for Clinton and thinks that it will be a good thing that she becomes president is the implications of this scandal about Clinton. Mixing of private and business emails was a bizarrely strange thing for any lawyer let alone a lawyer that hopes to be the president of the US. The ramifications of that decision alone have cost Clinton dearly and it was a decision that very few lawyers in this country would have been stupid enough to make. It is now clear that there was considerable discussion about the security of Clinton's email before she made this horrible decision to use her private server. Clinton ignored the advice of experts and instead used her apparently sycophantic apparatchiks to implement her plan. This is another reason that her decision here calls into question fitness to be president.

Another poorly thought out position. If, as you claim, this is a serious issue that is going to be a legal problem for Clinton, you will be stuck voting for Sanders or Trump. You have previously pointed out that if this were a serious issue, Obama and the DNC would be discouraging Clinton's campaign. Is this happening? Or have you forgotten that chain of reasoning?

 

[mgidm86]

That is a burning man sized strawman you've built. You don't have to put "illegally" in scare quotes. Datto literally held on to data that they were not paid, nor requested to hold on to. That's against the law. That's why the article I quoted stated that Platte and Hillary had to agree.

I also never said she DID file a lawsuit, I said she easily could have. She didn't. She had no issues in turning the backups over instead of fighting it. If you don't understand, that's fine. You can laugh all you want, but it just goes to continuously show that you are out of your league when discussing data backups and the laws relating to them.

...

I just read here a few days ago in this very thread that companies like Datto stake their reputations on adhering to policies that honor their customer's security and privacy, as well as the law.

sunmaster14
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.

Yet they broke the law by having an unauthorized backup. So we really have no clue whether or not this company follows its own guidelines, which brings their ethics into question.

Using a private company to store sensitive (or any) government information is asking for trouble. What a stupid and unnecessary risk to take with our country's (yours and mine, not just hers) information.

And to what end? What was the big reason again?

 

[Mike!]

I just read here a few days ago in this very thread that companies like Datto stake their reputations on adhering to policies that honor their customer's security and privacy, as well as the law.



Yet they broke the law by having an unauthorized backup. So we really have no clue whether or not this company follows its own guidelines, which brings their ethics into question.

Using a private company to store sensitive (or any) government information is asking for trouble. What a stupid and unnecessary risk to take with our country's (yours and mine, not just hers) information.

And to what end? What was the big reason again?

I'm pretty sure it's going to be, because the republicans are big mean poopyheads.

 

[Tony Stark]

Has she been indicted yet? LOL

 

[The Big Dog]

So has Hillary been indicted yet? LOL.

Has she been indicted yet? LOL.

So has she been indicted yet?

LOL.

Has she been indicted yet? LOL

I assume this is considered clever in the type of places Hillary supporters hang out.

Spam. Lol.

 

[Tony Stark]

I assume this is considered clever in the type of places Hillary supporters hang out.

Spam. Lol.

Not particularly clever. But it is fun mocking you people.

When is Hillary getting indicted again? LOL.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not particularly clever. But it is fun mocking you people.

When is Hillary getting indicted again? LOL.

Not clever at all, but I have noticed that you roll it out usually when this thread has gone particularly bad for Hillary and her fans, like today.

 

[Tony Stark]

Not clever at all, but I have noticed that you roll it out usually when this thread has gone particularly bad for Hillary and her fans, like today.

Sure.

Please estimate when Hillary will be indicated. I guess never.

 

[The_Animus]

I assume this is considered clever in the type of places Hillary supporters hang out.

Spam. Lol.

I've noticed this as well. Tero for example pops in every so often to make a similar comment about whether Clinton is wearing prison orange yet. They don't seem to understand the only thing their comments do is reflect poorly on them.

 

[plague311]

OK we've had our fun, and as I am sure most of you know Datto didn't "illegally" hold on to documents "against the law." It might have "breached it contract" rendering it liable for "damages," but that is a civil matter.

It absurd to suggest that a breach of contract would allow Hillary to file a "lawsuit" that would prevent the FBI from exercising a "search warrant" issued in aid of "counter-intelligence" referral from the "Intelligence Community Inspector General" in light of the fact that "Hillary's cowboy server" contained "top secret" US Government intelligence.

By the way, funny how quickly we got from Hillary always "cooperated" to "**** the Benghazi Committee."

Oh Hillary, you and your supporters are always good for a laugh!

Agreed. plague311's arguments are getting increasingly ridiculous. At least he's maintaining a high standard of incivility. I'm looking forward to the next volley of insults to spring forth from his keyboard.

What a joke. So you've gone from "they did nothing wrong" to "maybe they did this" or "maybe they did that" but it's a civil matter. Yeah, you're right. Something is ridiculous and always good for a laugh. It's the crew that thinks holding on to peoples' data AGAINST their request, without payment, and without consent is somehow not against the law. You should read up on data protection, because what the other company did was intercepted data they had no right to access. It was personal data.

I can't believe I have to explain the difference here, but Hillary did cooperate. In fact, she even cooperated with the Benghazi committee...er...wait. Wasn't that her that testified for hours on end before that group? Oh, I guess it wasn't. Weird. Looked like her.

There's a difference between cooperating and doing everything you're told. If you can't read the link I posted above, and need it explained further, just let me know. You can see the part where it said, "Hillary's lawyers and Platte River agreed" to release the data. If I were wrong, and they were just going to seize it, then why the hell did those two entities have to approve it? Seriously.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Chris Hayes is on now with a clarification it's 12 people looking at the case and the lies are being leaked by Republicans in Congress.

Washington Post Corrects Faulty Report That Nearly 150 FBI Agents Are Investigating Clinton Emails

The original story reported: "One hundred forty-seven FBI agents have been deployed to run down leads, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey."

IOW a Republican lawmaker spreading outright lies about the email controversy.

The media continues to scandalize Hillary Clinton during the FBI's probe, even though legal experts have repeatedly explained that Clinton is unlikely to face prosecution and have termed an indictment "ridiculous."

 

[The Big Dog]

Hey, maybe I am all wet about this Hillary DID get really cooperative.

Right after the FBI got involved....

lolz

 

[Tony Stark]

I've noticed this as well. Tero for example pops in every so often to make a similar comment about whether Clinton is wearing prison orange yet. They don't seem to understand the only thing their comments do is reflect poorly on them.

So when do you think Hillary is going to be indicted. LOL.

 

[The Big Dog]

Chris Hayes is on now with a clarification it's 12 people looking at the case and the lies are being leaked by Republicans in Congress.

Washington Post Corrects Faulty Report That Nearly 150 FBI Agents Are Investigating Clinton EmailsIOW a Republican lawmaker spreading outright lies about the email controversy.

Bold, let me guess.... Media matters?

YEP, Media Matters! Nailed it! Full throated propaganda from a hillary scumknuckle who also runs a massive pro-Hillary Pac.

Sounds legit

 

[sunmaster14]

Bold, let me guess.... Media matters?

YEP, Media Matters! Nailed it! Full throated propaganda from a hillary scumknuckle who also runs a massive pro-Hillary Pac.

Sounds legit

I made the same guess before clicking the link, and I turned out to be right! I didn't brag about it like you though. I bet I would crush you like a paper cup in a humility contest.