RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

By the way, I have said it before. Hillary would be a damn fool to talk to the FBI. Beyond the effects of the concussion, she has been unable to discern truth from lies for decades.

 

[varwoche]

So two out of three ain't bad?

Your argument in response to my cite is an unabashed ad hominem fallacy. Can you please explain why readers should assign weight to your fallacious arguments?

Does this person have access to facts that we don't otherwise have access to? Or does he interpret facts in a way that clarifies something or another? Or...?

It's reasonable to ask why a particular cite has merit, especially when it's sketchy on the surface. Your dismissal of my question leaves me with the distinct sense that the advocate/commentator has merit simply because you agree with him.

 

[The Big Dog]

Does this person have access to facts that we don't otherwise have access to? Or does he interpret facts in a way that clarifies something or another? Or...?

It's reasonable to ask why a particular cite has merit, especially when it's sketchy on the surface. You're dismissal of my question leaves me with the distinct sense that the advocate/commentator has merit simply because you agree with him.

He seems to have facts that some people in this thread didn't know, and even if not true "access to facts" is not actually a justification for making a blatant ad hominem fallacy.

This is a skeptic site where we spend time focusing on critical thinking. Pointing out that your "objection" is utterly fallacious is perfectly appropriate.

Go back and remove the fallacy and I will be happen to entertain your post.

 

[The Big Dog]

By the way, I have said it before. Hillary would be a damn fool to talk to the FBI. Beyond the effects of the concussion, she has been unable to discern truth from lies for decades.

Case in point:

"I have now put out all of my emails."

— Hillary Clinton on Sunday, April 3rd, 2016 in comments on Meet the Press



Uhh, Hillary, remember how you admitted that you and your cabal destroyed over half of them? And how you refused to turn over the actual computer files containing the actual electronic files.

She is a verifiable pathological congenital liar.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wisconsin's largest paper Lambasts Hillary and her Emails

Leading up to a key primary tomorrow, Wisconsin's largest paper Wisconsin’s Largest Newspaper Blasts Clinton Over Her Emails

Hillary Clinton. Her horrible track record on transparency raises serious concerns for open government under a Clinton administration — so serious we believe they may disqualify her from public office. We hope Wisconsin voters give this issue the consideration it deserves when they go to the polls on Tuesday.

Clinton's abysmal record on open government

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Still bringing this misinformation up?

Uhh, Hillary, remember how you admitted that you and your cabal destroyed over half of them? And how you refused to turn over the actual computer files containing the actual electronic files.

Pretty sure nothing was destroyed. Emails considered personal were deleted. The FBI recovered them and the State Department determined they disagreed with some of them and put them in the State Department business category.

Deleted and recoverable is not the same as destroyed. And people's opinions differ on what was personal and what wasn't just as opinions differ as to what was classified and what wasn't.

When are you going to quit misremembering this and quit repeating your inaccurate version?

 

[The Big Dog]

The FBI recovered them and the State Department determined they disagreed with some of them and put them in the State Department business category.

What are you talking about???

The FBI has never confirmed that they were able to retrieve the emails from the server, from Platte River or from Datto. Further, are you suggesting that the FBI turned over the documents they might have retrieved to the State Department who released some of them???

If so, that is utterly ludicrous.

 

[plague311]

What are you talking about???

The FBI has never confirmed that they were able to retrieve the emails from the server, from Platte River or from Datto. Further, are you suggesting that the FBI turned over the documents they might have retrieved to the State Department who released some of them???

If so, that is utterly ludicrous.

You're the one that posted the FBI "seized" Hillary's backup server snapshots (Which they didn't. As I previously pointed out, Hillary, her lawyer and Platte approved the data being turned over). If they did that then they were able to recover all information that was on that server since Platte ran it. After all, that's what makes a backup. If they have the physical hard drive from her original server then who knows what they can find. At this point it would be much more reasonable to assume that the FBI has all of her information and have combed through it.

The State Department has gone through all of her emails, redacted the needed information, and then released them in segments. If they were able to do that in this time frame then it is safe to say that the FBI has gone through her emails, and has had way more than enough time to recover any information.

If they're missing something at this point, they're never going to find it.

 

[The Big Dog]

If they did that then they were able to recover all information that was on that server since Platte ran it. After all, that's what makes a backup. If they have the physical hard drive from her original server then who knows what they can find. At this point it would be much more reasonable to assume that the FBI has all of her information and have combed through it.

The State Department has gone through all of her emails, redacted the needed information, and then released them in segments. If they were able to do that in this time frame then it is safe to say that the FBI has gone through her emails, and has had way more than enough time to recover any information.

everything quoted above is not inconsistent with what i wrote.

Was that you intent?

 

[plague311]

everything quoted above is not inconsistent with what i wrote.

Was that you intent?

You never said that they got the backups from the two tech companies? You also never said that they "seized" her original server and acquired the hard drive from said computer? Because the only thing I attributed to you was the fact that you said they had acquired those backups and the physical drive. The rest was me filling in facts about what would take place after that. You can disregard those, per the SOP.

 

[The Big Dog]

You never said that they got the backups from the two tech companies? You also never said that they "seized" her original server and acquired the hard drive from said computer? Because the only thing I attributed to you was the fact that you said they had acquired those backups and the physical drive. The rest was me filling in facts about what would take place after that. You can disregard those, per the SOP.

I said that the FBI had never "confirmed that they were able to retrieve the emails from the server, from Platte River or from Datto." Platte River's lawyer confirmed that they had turned over the "blank" server to the FBI.

 

[The Big Dog]

Still bringing this misinformation up?

Pretty sure nothing was destroyed. Emails considered personal were deleted. The FBI recovered them and the State Department determined they disagreed with some of them and put them in the State Department business category.

Deleted and recoverable is not the same as destroyed. And people's opinions differ on what was personal and what wasn't just as opinions differ as to what was classified and what wasn't.

When are you going to quit misremembering this and quit repeating your inaccurate version?

Gee, she never came back to explain this pig's breakfast of a post.

Surprised.

 

[Leftus]

6 weeks later....

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-221509

Hillary Clinton said Sunday the FBI has not yet reached out to her in its investigation into her private email server and some classified emails — and again vowed to fully cooperate.

"No, no they haven't," the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination said on NBC's "Meet the Press" when asked if the FBI had sought to interview her.

"Back in August, we made clear that I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody might have, and I stand by that," she said.

I keep thinking that if they are going to wrap this up in the next few weeks, they are going to talk to Clinton at some point .... but they haven't yet.

I still don't see how this delay has made more likely she's the target, though.



6 weeks later....I can't find any confirmation they haven't "been served with notices from the FBI about an interview" ... but it doesn't appear that they have.



When will we learn this for sure ?

Do not conflate "hasn't happened by now" with "won't happen."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html

No dates have been set for questioning the advisors, but a federal prosecutor in recent weeks has called their lawyers to alert them that he would soon be doing so, the sources said. Prosecutors also are expected to seek an interview with Clinton herself, though the timing remains unclear.

Also - http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...artment-halts-review-of-emails-at-fbi-request

“The FBI communicated to us that we should follow our standard practice, which is to put our internal review on hold while there is an ongoing law enforcement investigation ,” State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau told reporters.

Prosecutors, not FBI agents, will be doing the interviews. The State department called the FBI efforts a law enforcement investigation. It just might be possible that interviews with prosecutors during a law enforcement investigation might lead to the conclusion that laws may have been broken.

Do you think the FBI and DOJ plan on interviewing her? If yes, what is your reason they haven't yet?

 

[The Big Dog]

WaPo reports evidence that Asian Government was reading hillary's emails

In another blockbuster, the Washington Post:

There now seems to be a very real probability that Hillary Clinton rushed to install an encryption certificate in March 2009 because the U.S. intelligence community caught another country reading Clinton’s unencrypted messages during her February 16-21, 2009, trip to China, Indonesia, Japan, and S. Korea.

Equally as important, the records discovered show that the head of the State Departments security win sent Hillary's pal Cheryl Mills a memo entitled "Use of Blackberrys in Mahogany Row" that anyone even considering voting for Hillary should read it, as the memo clearly outlines the fact that State offered Hillary a State Department blackberry keyed into her State Department account, and outlining the vulnerabilities in the use of her blackberry.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...State-iPad-iPhone-documents-006461-Pg-6-8.pdf

Here is a very good article summarizing the latest:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ing-hillary-clintons-emails-in-february-2009/

 

[TheL8Elvis]

In another blockbuster, the Washington Post:



Equally as important, the records discovered show that the head of the State Departments security win sent Hillary's pal Cheryl Mills a memo entitled "Use of Blackberrys in Mahogany Row" that anyone even considering voting for Hillary should read it, as the memo clearly outlines the fact that State offered Hillary a State Department blackberry keyed into her State Department account, and outlining the vulnerabilities in the use of her blackberry.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...State-iPad-iPhone-documents-006461-Pg-6-8.pdf

Here is a very good article summarizing the latest:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ing-hillary-clintons-emails-in-february-2009/

I was waiting for you to post that yesterday.

"The likely answer to that question is pretty troubling. There now seems to be a very real probability that Hillary Clinton rushed to install an encryption certificate in March 2009 because the U.S. intelligence community caught another country reading Clinton’s unencrypted messages during her February 16-21, 2009, trip to China, Indonesia, Japan, and S. Korea."

See that hilited part ? It's because the author doesn't have actual facts, just a ridiculous theory.

The whole "encryption certificate" theory from venafi has already been debunked. There is no evidence she was operating her server without a cert.

I suppose this could all be coincidence, but the most likely scenario is that the Secretary’s Asia trip produced an intelligence report that was directly relevant to the security of Clinton’s communications. And that the report was sufficiently dramatic that it spurred Clinton to make immediate security changes on her homebrew server.
Did our agencies see Clinton’s unencrypted messages transiting foreign networks? Did they spot foreign agencies intercepting those messages? It’s hard to say
Not if you just make up your own facts.

We don’t know the answers to those questions, and they may have perfectly good answers. But they do suggest that the investigation should be focusing heavily on who did what to clintonemail.com in January through March of 2009.

I'm sure the FBI will take his suggestions very seriously.


ETA:
The actual WAPO Opinion piece title:
Was an Asian government reading Hillary Clinton’s emails in February 2009?

is a whole lot more accurate than your dishonest post title:

WaPo reports evidence that Asian Government was reading hillary's emails

 

[The Big Dog]

The whole "encryption certificate" theory from venafi has already been debunked. There is no evidence she was operating her server without a cert.

Really? 'k. After reading the attached article which clearly states she did not have a certificate for the first two months, this is the part of the thread where you post the evidence that she had a cert:

Tick tock....

/oh gee, he called me dishonest again.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Really? 'k. After reading the attached article which clearly states she did not have a certificate for the first two months, this is the part of the thread where you post the evidence that she had a cert:

Tick tock....

The article is simply parroting venafi, who provided no evidence.

If the claim is:

Clintons emails communications were sent in cleartext from Jan-Mar 18,2009

that claim needs evidence to back it up. The burden of proof is on venafi to back that claim up.

There is no evidence of that, as I already outlined below:

===============================

I am not asking anyone to prove a negative. The argument is simply not sound.

1:March 2009, mail.clintonemail.com was enabled with a Network Solutions’ digital certificate
2:clintonemail.com domain was registered with Network Solutions in January 2009
3:Therefore, from January to end of March 2009 access to clintonemail.com did not use encryption

3 does not follow from 1 and 2.

They could easily provide evidence for 3. A network packet capture, for example, showing plain text communication with the server in question.

I can't tell whether you are failing because you don't understand the technology involved, the logic involved, or if you are simply being intentionally obtuse.

I Already covered this earlier, when Venafi made some unprovable claims about security:

https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server/
Starting in late March 2009, mail.clintonemail.com was enabled with a Network Solutions’ digital certificate and encryption for web-based applications like Outlook Web Access. This was 3 months after Secretary Clinton took office. The clintonemail.com domain was registered with Network Solutions in January 2009 – 8 days before Secretary Clinton was confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Therefore, from January to end of March 2009 access to clintonemail.com did not use encryption.

Let me break down the argument for any of those posters who are less 'technically inclined'
SSL secures communications sent across the internet
SSL requires a digital certificate
clintonemail.com domain was registered with Network Solutions in January 2009
mail.clintonemail.com was enabled with apurchased Network Solutions’ digital certificate March 2009,
Therefore, from January to end of March 2009 access to clintonemail.com did not use encryption.

So what's the problem ?

Having a "digital certificate" and securing communications does not require purchasing a cert from NetSol. It's easy, and an accepted practice to create your own CA and certificates:
https://www.google.com/search?q=creating+a+ssl+certificate
It's not only possible, but plausible they simply installed a self-signed cert until they purchased the NetSol one.
Or, equally as possible, didn't actually start using the server until after obtaining the netsol cert.

So unless www.venafi.com has a time machine;
They cannot know if the mail server was secured or not.
They cannot know what services (ie mail, web) were actually running on the machine

Hooray for FUD and misinformation.

ETA: added link so you can see post in context if you want

Yes, evidence is required for the original claim by venafi that, "Therefore, from January to end of March 2009 access to clintonemail.com did not use encryption."

===============================

Then, you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the entire issue by trying to claim I want Venafi to "prove a negative:

Or, ya know, Hillary and her Cabal could release the certificate, which they refuse to do.... Oh wait, that does not fit in with your rank speculation.

Venafi? Bad guys, cause they can't prove a negative!Clinton? How dreamy....

Cool snipe at me at the end because I am calling shenanigans on baseless speculation....

Asking venafi to prove communications were in plain text is not asking to prove a negative, no matter how much you wish it to be.

/oh gee, he called me dishonest again.

Your post is titled:
WaPo reports evidence that Asian Government was reading hillary's emails

Then you linked to an opinion piece with no evidence.

If the shoe fits...

 

[The Big Dog]

lack of evidence snipped

Your Claim: Hillary had a certificate before the Certificate was issued in March.

Your Evidence: pending....

I asked for evidence for your claim.

Or just say you don't know.

 

[The Big Dog]

Then you linked to an opinion piece with no evidence.

If the shoe fits...

OH DEAR! I missed this. The "opinion" piece was LOADED with evidence including this:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...State-iPad-iPhone-documents-006461-Pg-6-8.pdf

and this

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...-State-iPad-iPhone-documents-006461-pg-17.pdf

“her attention was drawn to a sentence that indicates we have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.”

If the shoe fits? Indeed.

Now make with the evidence of your claim.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's not only possible, but plausible they simply installed a self-signed cert until they purchased the NetSol one.
Or, equally as possible, didn't actually start using the server until after obtaining the netsol cert.

Sounds legit. It is possible....

Or

Or, equally as possible, didn't actually start using the server until after obtaining the netsol cert.

Say, did everyone else notice that the WaPo article contains evidence that Hillary did start using clintonemails.com before March?

I DID!!!