RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[sunmaster14]

Sounds legit. It is possible....

Or



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

I DID!!!

Me too. Which, pace TheL8Elvis, does sound like evidence that she was operating the server without a cert.

 

[The Big Dog]

Me too. Which, pace TheL8Elvis, does sound like evidence that she was operating the server without a cert.

My favorite part is where he declared it DEBUNKED based on his claim that it is "possible" she had a self signed cert, which of course she never provided and of course he has ZERO evidence of.

Self Signed Cert Truthers, they are adorable.

 

[plague311]

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.

Reverse burden of proof fallacy. Venafi made the claim with regards to Hillary's setup and her emails. The proof is on them to show Hillary sent information in plaintext or unprotected. That's what Elvis is asking for, and you're basically saying it's his job to prove she was using it. It's not. The burden is on Venafi and they've posted jack **** to confirm their claims.

Also, weird that I brought up data privacy with regards to the illegally held information of Hillary's, and the companies that held the data said the same thing:

“With the consent of our client and their end user, and consistent with our policies regarding data privacy, yesterday, Tuesday, October 6, Datto delivered a hardware device to the FBI containing all backed up data related to Platte Rivers Networks' client known to be in its possession,” Datto said in a statement.

They actually cite their policies with data privacy. While they didn't state the actual law, which I wouldn't if I were them either, they make a point to confirm they had approval from their client and their end user. More evidence showing how ridiculous my statements are according to those on the other side

 

[plague311]

Me too. Which, pace TheL8Elvis, does sound like evidence that she was operating the server without a cert.

My favorite part is where he declared it DEBUNKED based on his claim that it is "possible" she had a self signed cert, which of course she never provided and of course he has ZERO evidence of.

Self Signed Cert Truthers, they are adorable.

Sweet, we're getting closer. Now there's just about 3-4 more hurdles to jump. The biggest problem is the claim it was used for government business during that time. So....was it? Also, do we have evidence of a self-signed cert or lack their of? We covered this in a ton of pages. Do you guys even know what they do, how they work, or what they cover? I'll give you a huge hint, they have nothing to do with the encryption of emails.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sweet, we're getting closer. Now there's just about 3-4 more hurdles to jump. The biggest problem is the claim it was used for government business during that time. So....was it? Also, do we have evidence of a self-signed cert or lack their of? We covered this in a ton of pages. Do you guys even know what they do, how they work, or what they cover? I'll give you a huge hint, they have nothing to do with the encryption of emails.

Yes, we do know they used it for government business, read the article.

Yes, we have no evidence of a self signed cert.

Do you?

now is when you type "No".

 

[wareyin]

Yes, we do know they used it for government business, read the article.

Yes, we have no evidence of a self signed cert.

Do you?

now is when you type "No".

You have no evidence one way or the other? As you keep bringing this matter up, shouldn't you provide some?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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

Wrong. I didn't make that claim.

Let me help you:

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:

The hilited is the claim you are depending on. You (or Venafi) need to prove it.

I asked for evidence for your claim.

Or just say you don't know.

Right, I didn't make a claim, because I don't know and neither do you.

Its funny that you snipped my whole post and wrote "lack of evidence" because that's exactly what you suffer from.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Sounds legit. It is possible....

Or



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

I DID!!!

Sorry I didn't get into my time machine and jump forward and check the news 6 months hence last september when I posted that ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Me too. Which, pace TheL8Elvis, does sound like evidence that she was operating the server without a cert.

How exactly is that evidence of "operating the server without a cert." ?

Please, be specific, I'm fascinated....

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You have no evidence one way or the other? As you keep bringing this matter up, shouldn't you provide some?

No, it's more fun to JAQ off.

Here's an interesting question though ... was it against the law to send email in clear text from Jan -Mar 18, if that indeed happened ?

I say no.

 

[plague311]

Yes, we do know they used it for government business, read the article.

Ok, I've read the article. Now what? Is it just the emails you're referring to? Because if you are, certificates mean exactly dick all when it comes to sending and receiving email. Go back and read the last time we did this, because nothing has changed with regards to the certificates. You still don't know what they do, you still don't know how they're relevant, and you obviously don't know what their presence, or lack their of, even means.

Yes, we have no evidence of a self signed cert.

Where is the evidence it didn't exist? Don't link to that random company that implied they scanned the entire internet and saw that she didn't have one. Give me something tangible that is released by someone OTHER than the company selling the specific program that they used to "confirm" there was no cert.

Do you?

now is when you type "No".

You're right, no. I don't. The chances that it would still even exist is somewhere between none, and 0. They aren't tangible. You can't reach out and touch them. They're virtual. Just like most of the internet world, or disposable razor blades, once you're done with them you forget they ever existed.

 

[The Big Dog]

The whole "encryption certificate" theory from venafi has already been debunked.

Wrong. I didn't make that claim.

.....

Right, I didn't make a claim, because I don't know and neither do you.

Oh dear, you confidently said it was, and I quote "debunked."

Now you are admitting that you "don't know."

we also know that the first time there was evidence she had one was March.

 

[The Big Dog]

You're right, no. I don't. The chances that it would still even exist is somewhere between none, and 0. They aren't tangible. You can't reach out and touch them. They're virtual. Just like most of the internet world, or disposable razor blades, once you're done with them you forget they ever existed.

Ahh, a second admission! Terrific!

The curious thing is we have evidence that she got one in March, and no evidence that she had one before that.

So that just happened.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Oh dear, you confidently said it was, and I quote "debunked."

Now you are admitting that you "don't know."

we also know that the first time there was evidence she had one was March.

Oh dear, I debunked the claim that there was no encryption in use between jan and march.

Are you still confused about making claims and providing evidence ? I would be happy to clarify it (again) ...

BTW- I admitted we all didn't know in september.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh dear, I debunked the claim that there was no encryption in use between jan and march.

LOLZ!

When you said: "It's not only possible, but plausible they simply installed a self-signed cert until they purchased the NetSol one."

That was "evidence" you used to DEBUNK something?

That is magnificent.

Where is the evidence of the self signed cert? Oh wait, you just admitted that you didn't know.

Ace Debunking there....

 

[plague311]

Ahh, a second admission! Terrific!

Someone would have had to deny it to have a second admission. No one ever claimed they knew, unless you can provide evidence of such, either way. I'm holding out that you have evidence this time, since your last posts have show a distinct lack thereof.

The curious thing is we have evidence that she got one in March, and no evidence that she had one before that.

So? I had a car in March too. Just bought another one. You can have more than one, or you can swap them out, or you can do whatever you want. That's quite possibly the weakest possible evidence ever in the history of anything.

So that just happened.

So? So did the Panama Papers. Both of which are equally relevant to certs.

 

[plague311]

LOLZ!

When you said: "It's not only possible, but plausible they simply installed a self-signed cert until they purchased the NetSol one."

That was "evidence" you used to DEBUNK something?

That is magnificent.

Where is the evidence of the self signed cert? Oh wait, you just admitted that you didn't know.

Ace Debunking there....

It really doesn't matter, he doesn't have to debunk anything. He made a completely logical point that makes your "evidence" meaningless. You and that ****** source made a claim, he gave a reason why what they said was just wrong. I'd call the debunking something. Are we changing the meanings of words?

 

[The Big Dog]

So? I had a car in March too. Just bought another one. You can have more than one, or you can swap them out, or you can do whatever you want. That's quite possibly the weakest possible evidence ever in the history of anything.

Oh dear, I don't think he gets it...

Do you have evidence that she a a self signed cert in January and February of 2009?

Answer: No.

Then please stop making the utterly specious claim that she "might" have had one.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

LOLZ!

When you said: "It's not only possible, but plausible they simply installed a self-signed cert until they purchased the NetSol one."

That was "evidence" you used to DEBUNK something?

That is magnificent.

Where is the evidence of the self signed cert? Oh wait, you just admitted that you didn't know.

Ace Debunking there....

I'm sure everyone notices how you have to keep dishonestly cherrypicking my posts

As soon as you provide evidence the server was not using encryption between jan and mar18, you will have made your point.

Until then... *YAWN*

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Oh dear, I don't think he gets it...

Do you have evidence that she a a self signed cert in January and February of 2009?

Answer: No.

Then please stop making the utterly specious claim that she "might" have had one.

Oh dear, I don't think he gets it...

Do you have evidence that she did not use a a self signed cert in January and February of 2009?

Answer: No.

Then please stop making the utterly specious claim that her server didn't use encryption.