RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Do you have evidence there are more than 12 people in the FBI investigating the emails besides leaks from Republicans?

I think not.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I scan the liberal press, even red commie literature. I scan the conservative press, give me John Birch Society - great.

Then I check their sources, how they reasoned, think about it independently.

It just wears thin, this little game of show me your sources so I can invalidate them.

There are logical details to work out. Namely: it is reported, who gives a **** where, that the FBI has recovered what she deleted.

Okay, that is a really reasonable question to explore. REGARDLESS of who said it. So can we please not act like 12 year olds and figure out LOGICALLY how that could happen?

An independent can type such things into google and up comes Platte River. It seems to be well sourced. So now I want tech people telling me what that means regarding how the FBI can recover everything (or not) regardless of whether they get cooperation from either Hillary or Platte River.

I don't give a **** if the person is from the left or right, Ill consider the explanation.

 

[sunmaster14]

Do you have evidence there are more than 12 people in the FBI investigating the emails besides leaks from Republicans?

I think not.

Oh, I can believe that. Twelve agents is plenty. What I thought was ridiculous was the last sentence from the Media Matters article (which you quoted and highlighted):

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."

An indictment may not happen, but the prospect is certainly not ridiculous. Getting some people to say that is just Clinton campaign spin strategy.

 

[davefoc]

I scan the liberal press, even red commie literature. I scan the conservative press, give me John Birch Society - great.

Then I check their sources, how they reasoned, think about it independently.

It just wears thin, this little game of show me your sources so I can invalidate them.

There are logical details to work out. Namely: it is reported, who gives a **** where, that the FBI has recovered what she deleted.

Okay, that is a really reasonable question to explore. REGARDLESS of who said it. So can we please not act like 12 year olds and figure out LOGICALLY how that could happen?

An independent can type such things into google and up comes Platte River. It seems to be well sourced. So now I want tech people telling me what that means regarding how the FBI can recover everything (or not) regardless of whether they get cooperation from either Hillary or Platte River.

I don't give a **** if the person is from the left or right, Ill consider the explanation.

I hope I understand your question, if I don't I apologize.

Data is stored on hard disks in sectors. The number of sectors that are used to store a particular file depends on the file size and the sector size. The operating system keeps track of which sectors a particular file is stored in with tables. Most operating system don't erase the data from the sectors a file is stored in when the file is deleted by an operator. They just change the tables that point to those sectors to indicate that those sectors are empty, but the data is still actually stored in those sectors. There is off the shelf, commonly available software for recovering deleted data. However the data can only be recovered using this technique if the sectors where the data was hasn't been written over with new data.

It is theoretically possible to recover even data that has been written over with some kinds of recovery tools, but at a minimum that requires specialized hardware and I don't know how well it works or even that it is practical. It is possible to defeat even this theoretically possible technique by writing over the sectors several times, perhaps using random patterns to make it especially difficult to detect any useful signal from the original data. I doubt that the FBI needed to employ anything more than the commonly available data recovery software to recover the data from Clinton's computer.

In addition, and I was unaware of this, based on what was written above the FBI also seems to have found backups of the server so that even using standard data recovery techniques may not have been required.

As an aside, Clinton was between a rock and a hard place as to how to handle the deleting of data from her hard disk. She wanted to delete it because it was at least possible that somebody was going to successfully have a legal means to obtain the disk and she didn't want the data that was deleted available to the people that obtained the disk. But if she used even straight forward commonly available software to thoroughly and irretrievably delete the data from her hard disk it would have looked like she did it to prevent an investigating agency from recovering potentially embarrassing or incriminating data from her hard disk.

Perhaps from her perspective there was an argument for the middle ground approach she took. The files were deleted making it difficult to recover the files without doing some extra work so that they could not be easily retrieved by a person with only a casual curiosity but it avoided the bad appearance of going to great lengths to make sure the data would not be discoverable by a law enforcement agency.

If I had been her lawyer/political consultant/technical consultant I would have advised her to do turn the hard disk over to the state department and make note of the fact that some possibly sensitive or classified information had been discovered on the disks during the process or retrieving the state department emails and that the disk was returned as was required by law.

As I saw it she had three options 1. Give the disk to the State Department as described above 2. delete the data on the disk 3. Use software to thoroughly and irretrievably destroy the data on the hard disk. I would have argued the problem with option two is that it wouldn't succeed in hiding any data that she wanted hidden because the data could be discovered by almost any computer literate person and it had the disadvantage of supporting the notion that she had something to hide. Option 3 had the potential to be very problematic legally and politically. It would have appeared that she went to extraordinary lengths to hide the data and that would have suggested that the data was potentially incriminating or embarrassing.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

It was indeed in her basement and transferred to Platte River in 2013 or so. After the State Department requested that she turn over her documents, and after her team of lawyers went through the emails, she had the data on the server transferred to Platte River servers, and the original server's data was deleted. Platte River was instructed to impose a rule on the data that deleted any emails over thirty days. However, they forget to tell their off site data back up provider Datto about that rule.

As such, Hillary's clever ruse to give the FBI nothing backfired in at least two ways. There was recoverable data on her cowboy server, and there were backups at Datto.

Why did Hillary go to all that trouble to try to delete the emails after they were requested by State and several FOIA requests?

Hmmm,,,,

Alright, thanks.

You know, a person can not have this exactly right, be looking for how to piece it together right, not want to say you are relying on one single source for the whole god damned thing...

and it's "you're an idiot, don't know what you're talking about", It's 12 not 147 boy are you stupid, etc.

Criminals cover their tracks. It isn't our fault someone was acting in bad faith and obviously committed crimes. Yes, republicans commit crimes too.

If we aren't utter morons we have to think through logically how this can conclude before November. And what the consequences will be. Not because we hate Hillary but because we have brains. This is extremely serious.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I hope I understand your question, if I don't I apologize.

.

No, thanks. You did.

This is not my area but after reading that and other background material it seems Hillary is up against the FBI revealing way, way more than she tried to conceal.

And unless I believe in fairies, she has a lot worse coming to light.

 

[davefoc]

...
This is not my area but after reading that and other background material it seems Hillary is up against the FBI revealing way, way more than she tried to conceal.

I am not sure the FBI is going to reveal what was on the drives beyond a summary of the kinds of classified material and how it got there. They may also discuss the security of the emails during the time the server was active and the security of the data. There may also be details about the laws involved and to what degree they were complied with.

As to the data that was discovered: I think it's possible they they won't talk about any information beyond what they are tasked to investigate. So would they reveal incriminating data unrelated to their stated goals? Maybe not. Of course, the Republicans would like them to, and there is a legal argument that the discovery of incriminating information by the FBI might be admissible against Clinton even if it was unrelated to the purported reason for the investigation. Sill, I think any close calls here will be decided in Clinton's favor and that will be the end of it.

And unless I believe in fairies, she has a lot worse coming to light.

I also doubt that there is incriminating data to be discovered. For one thing I have a somewhat higher opinion of Clinton's integrity than you do, so I think there's a good chance she didn't have any quid quo pro discussions with potential bribers. But even assuming your view of Clinton is correct (I certainly don't reject that possibility) I don't think high level bribery is usually done with explicit agreements. It is more one hand washing the other kind of stuff and even if all the communications were revealed everybody involved would have some kind of plausible deniability.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, thanks. You did.

This is not my area but after reading that and other background material it seems Hillary is up against the FBI revealing way, way more than she tried to conceal.

And unless I believe in fairies, she has a lot worse coming to light.

Please, elaborate. What will be coming to light that hasn't already in the last 8 months ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Alright, thanks.

You know, a person can not have this exactly right, be looking for how to piece it together right, not want to say you are relying on one single source for the whole god damned thing...

and it's "you're an idiot, don't know what you're talking about", It's 12 not 147 boy are you stupid, etc.

Criminals cover their tracks. It isn't our fault someone was acting in bad faith and obviously committed crimes. Yes, republicans commit crimes too.

If we aren't utter morons we have to think through logically how this can conclude before November. And what the consequences will be. Not because we hate Hillary but because we have brains. This is extremely serious.

Exactly, "we have to think through logically how this can conclude"

Would the FBI and DOJ intentionally wait until we were more than halfway through the nominating process for POTUS before suddenly laying out a list of major charges against one of the candidates ?

Is THAT the conclusion the FBI wants to bring to the country and the presidential process ???

The OBVIOUS conclusion is that within a few weeks of the beginning of the investigation, the FBI and DOJ knew whether they would recommend charges or not.

Clearly, the lack of leaks and the general silence tells us the answer is not.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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

As legit as Judicial watch.

 

[varwoche]

Amazing. You called that person a "critic" while in fact that person was an employee of the NSA responsible for setting up secured communications.

Funny, I point out that the article took one word out of context, and you respond by taking one word out of context.

Oh dear?

 

[sunmaster14]

Exactly, "we have to think through logically how this can conclude"

Would the FBI and DOJ intentionally wait until we were more than halfway through the nominating process for POTUS before suddenly laying out a list of major charges against one of the candidates ?

What do you mean by "intentionally?" The process takes as long as it takes. When dealing with such a politically charged issue, they're going to want to take their time and dot all their "i"s and cross all their "t"s.

Is THAT the conclusion the FBI wants to bring to the country and the presidential process ???

The OBVIOUS conclusion is that within a few weeks of the beginning of the investigation, the FBI and DOJ knew whether they would recommend charges or not.

Huh? Not only is that not obvious, it makes no sense. How could they know such a thing when there are so many emails at issue, as well as determinations to make about their classification, their provenance, and the intent behind their transmission?

Clearly, the lack of leaks and the general silence tells us the answer is not.

No, all it tells me is that the FBI is running a very tight operation. Frankly, I think we would be seeing more leaks and less silence if the FBI was finding nothing (since there would be less harm - no potential prosecution to jeopardize), but I can see how reasonable people could disagree.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What do you mean by "intentionally?" The process takes as long as it takes. When dealing with such a politically charged issue, they're going to want to take their time and dot all their "i"s and cross all their "t"s.

I mean "intentionally." The process does not take "as long as it takes", that's a useless truism.The process takes as long as allowed, based on time, money, resources and many other factors. Not the least of which is an impending presidential election.

Huh? Not only is that not obvious, it makes no sense. How could they know such a thing when there are so many emails at issue, as well as determinations to make about their classification, their provenance, and the intent behind their transmission?

I thought classification was so obvious anyone who had a clearance could look at an email and know immediately if it was sooper-sekrit or not ? At least, I've seen that argued frequently in this thread.
I've also seen arguments that intent is meaningless.

But how could they know ? They could assign 150 agents and do a key-word search and know within a few days if there are classified emails. And if so, who sent them. And whether that is worthy of being charged.

You, of all people, who have argued for her obvious guilt from almost the beginning of this thread, now want to argue there is no way for the FBI to determine if it's likely for charges to be brought within a few weeks ?

No, all it tells me is that the FBI is running a very tight operation. Frankly, I think we would be seeing more leaks and less silence if the FBI was finding nothing (since there would be less harm - no potential prosecution to jeopardize), but I can see how reasonable people could disagree.

Well, let's just disagree then and pretend both our positions are reasonable. In a few weeks we'll know which one of saved face here

 

[The_Animus]

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

Thanks for the validation

 

[N0z]

The real question may come if and when all of the emails could be recovered from servers.

 

[Tero]

The FBI has no interest in charging Hillary. They just want to know what was in there and where it went.

If I were in a post like that, I would not use email at all. Only to invite staff to meetings and the usual stuff. No content. All communication would be handled in person or transporting the data. I would use a cell phone but only for personal stuff.

A lot of stuff would go on paper and be processed that way. Nothing on paper would leave the building.

 

[sunmaster14]

I mean "intentionally." The process does not take "as long as it takes", that's a useless truism.The process takes as long as allowed, based on time, money, resources and many other factors. Not the least of which is an impending presidential election.

Tautologies can sometimes be very enlightening. They can prompt people to focus on what matters, which is often very simple, rather than on distractions, which can confuse their analysis.

I thought classification was so obvious anyone who had a clearance could look at an email and know immediately if it was sooper-sekrit or not ? At least, I've seen that argued frequently in this thread.
I've also seen arguments that intent is meaningless.

But how could they know ? They could assign 150 agents and do a key-word search and know within a few days if there are classified emails. And if so, who sent them. And whether that is worthy of being charged.

You, of all people, who have argued for her obvious guilt from almost the beginning of this thread, now want to argue there is no way for the FBI to determine if it's likely for charges to be brought within a few weeks ?

You're conflating my claim that she violated the Federal Records Act, which goes back over a year now, with my claim that she violated laws regarding the mishandling of classified material. I did not begin to make the latter claim until long after the FBI investigation had begun. Also, just because she broke the letter of the law (which she clearly did), it doesn't mean that it's worth prosecuting her for it. A lot depends on common practice and how the laws have been enforced in the past. I am not privy to all of that information. For example, I think she intended to give her emails to her lawyers, and she had good reason to believe that her emails contained classified information. That's a technical violation of the law (I've already rebutted the claim that she had reason to believe that only lawyers with security clearances would have access to her emails once they were at the law firm). Whether or not that is worthy of prosecution, I don't know. I'm sure it depends on how sensitive the classified material was. It also depends on Hillary's state of mind. For all I know, she can plead complete ignorance and incompetence, and it would be a plausible defense. This did all happen after her bump on the head after all.

Well, let's just disagree then and pretend both our positions are reasonable. In a few weeks we'll know which one of saved face here

I haven't put my face at risk. I've put $200 at risk. I'd say that Tony has put his face at risk, however, with his childish taunts. Perhaps that's why he wears an iron mask.

 

[Fudbucker]

The FBI has no interest in charging Hillary. They just want to know what was in there and where it went.

If I were in a post like that, I would not use email at all. Only to invite staff to meetings and the usual stuff. No content. All communication would be handled in person or transporting the data. I would use a cell phone but only for personal stuff.

A lot of stuff would go on paper and be processed that way. Nothing on paper would leave the building.

Quibble: the FBI doesn't charge people. They recommend whether charges should be filed. And it sounds like they're wrapping things up. I'm sure there's pressure to resolve this, one way or another, before November.

 

[The Big Dog]

As legit as Judicial watch.

You mean the organization running Hillary to ground through the courts?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

A very interesting opinion piece from Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/04/01/the-state-department-halts-a-potentially-vindicating-review-of-hillary-clinton-emails/#51ca30403ed2

The State Department was involved in a Vindicating Review that would have proved 95% of the emails were from other people to Hillary, not vice-versa and that it was business as usual for the State Department.

Us dopey non-filthy-rich commoners need to understand that an unfortunate feature of our legal system is that criminal investigations remove a person's right to Vindicating Reviews in the Civil system.

One thing Forbes forgot to mention is that it's much worse. The non-vindicating civil suits are still allowed to press forward. The bias of the civil court judges could not be more apparent with two of them making statements about bad faith and all.

Here, she has been convicted of absolutely NOTHING and even judges who supposedly follow the law are making these kinds of statements and even requiring Hillary turn over emails regarding official State Department business!

Worse yet, these judges are actually requiring State Department officials to answer questions. Not from the FBI, but from citizens. They have to tell the truth under penalties for lying when Hillary has already told us everything we need to know!

We know she had no classified information go through that server, that she did it for convenience, to email Bill, with the permission of the State Department, all of which emails were saved in the State Department system. She has been not only helpful with this routine review, but every email connected in any way to her official duties has already been turned over.

But, as Forbes said, there are these systemic problems in our legal system that remove the right to vindication.