RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

Your claim, you support it, 16.5

Not that TheL8Elvis and plague311 aren't doing a good job of dismantling your claim, but the burden of proof falls on you. Making a claim, and pretending it is true until falsified to your extremely biased satisfaction isn't how this stuff works.

Tee hee! Sounds legit.

The claim was that Hillary might have had a self signed cert before March of 2009, your buddies admitted that they didn't know. My claim is that she first got a cert in late March, as pointed out in the WaPo article this am.

You got evidence for a cert before March? Well? We are waiting....

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Elaborate? Remember when you said the article didn't have any evidence and I pointed out that it did including this:

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

which you didn't read or something?

Yes, I read it. No, it's not evidence.

Elaborate.

What specific vulnerability was this email referring to, and how do you know ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Tee hee! Sounds legit.

The claim was that Hillary might have had a self signed cert before March of 2009, your buddies admitted that they didn't know. My claim is that she first got a cert in late March, as pointed out in the WaPo article this am.

You got evidence for a cert before March? Well? We are waiting....

You don't claim her communication was not secured in january and feburary.

Cool.

Glad that's clear.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm sorry if all that actual logic was too confusing for you

Just call it ******** and move on, that's how to prove your point

(Also, ignore posts asking for your evidence)

The earliest she had a cert was March of 2009. You admitted you got nothing earlier, sooo....

Self Signed Cert Truther!

 

[The Big Dog]

You don't claim her communication was not secured in january and feburary.

Cool.

Glad that's clear.

We have already shown that you and your buddies have not shown that it was.

Bit of a problem for you, isn't it?

DEBUNKED

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, I read it. No, it's not evidence.

The email is not evidence?

ELABORATE

 

[wareyin]

Tee hee! Sounds legit.

The claim was that Hillary might have had a self signed cert before March of 2009, your buddies admitted that they didn't know. My claim is that she first got a cert in late March, as pointed out in the WaPo article this am.

You got evidence for a cert before March? Well? We are waiting....

No. Your claim was that she probably did not:

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.

Your claim, that she probably did not, has not been substantiated. I make no claim, I ask you to provide evidence for your claim. We are waiting...

 

[The Big Dog]

No. Your claim was that she probably did not:

Your claim, that she probably did not, has not been substantiated. I make no claim, I ask you to provide evidence for your claim. We are waiting...

Oh dear, another TRUTHER asking me to prove a negative rather than showing she did have one.

Hillary fans don't do logic, do they?

 

[wareyin]

Oh dear, another TRUTHER asking me to prove a negative rather than showing she did have one.

Hillary fans don't do logic, do they?

You admit you have no evidence for your claim? Then why should we take it seriously?

Right now, you have an evidence free claim that she didn't, or probably didn't (you waffle, so it's not clear) have a certificate. A counter claim was made that she might, also without evidence. Has either claim been proven? No. Has either claim been disproven? No. Does 16.5 get to claim victory unless his evidence free claim is disproven? No.

Do you understand this?

 

[The Big Dog]

You admit you have no evidence for your claim? Then why should we take it seriously?

Right now, you have an evidence free claim that she didn't, or probably didn't (you waffle, so it's not clear) have a certificate. A counter claim was made that she might, also without evidence. Has either claim been proven? No. Has either claim been disproven? No. Does 16.5 get to claim victory unless his evidence free claim is disproven? No.

Do you understand this?

The earliest that Hillary had a certificate is march 2009.

Prove she had an earlier one, you pals admitted that they could not.

TICK TOCK

 

[wareyin]

The earliest that Hillary had a certificate is march 2009. Prove she had an earlier one, you pals admitted that they could not.

TICK TOCK

This is your claim. You must support your own claim. TICK TOCK.

 

[The Big Dog]

This is your claim. You must support your own claim. TICK TOCK.

already done, the March Cert has been posted.

If you claim that there was an earlier one, prove it.

If not, we all agree.

TICK TOCK

 

[wareyin]

already done, the March Cert has been posted.

If you claim that there was an earlier one, prove it.

If not, we all agree.

TICK TOCK

Your claim is not the null hypothesis. You have not supported it. The March Cert is the earliest one you are aware of, but there are easy ways to have them which you would not be aware of. Lack of evidence for a certificate is not evidence of lack of a certificate.

Support your claim, or I (at least) will agree that you are making evidence free assertions that can be dismissed without evidence (Hitchens' Razor).

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Oh dear, another TRUTHER asking me to prove a negative rather than showing she did have one.

Hillary fans don't do logic, do they?

Although it's tedious, I will continue correcting you.

No one is asking you to prove a negative.

You don't care to understand that the opposite of encrypted is not non-existence.

The opposite of encrypted communications is clear text communications

If you want to claim that information sent jan-mar18 was not encrypted, that means it was sent in clear text,and you must provide evidence that it was sent in clear text.

Can you do that ??

 

[applecorped]

 

[varwoche]

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.

All hail Kevin Bacon.

It's time that the rule of Oh Dear be called out. Posts containing Oh Dear have a strong chance of lacking any merit, in favor of infantile neenering. (If OH DEAR is all caps followed by an exclamation, it's a virtual certainty.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A couple of pertinent articles -

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275167-fbi-head-no-rush-to-wrap-clinton-email-probe-pre

"In no hurry" meaning in the same sense as a glacier. In that article they mention the State Department's investigation of a staggering 22 emails, they've been at it for months. I caught in another article that the investigation itself hadn't actually started, just at the "administrative level". Well, that means they didn't investigate.

This article goes into detail on why:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/04/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-legal-definition-national-defense-information-classification-column/82446130/...

Yet another right wing law expert declares Clinton a criminal.

There are just as many law experts with equal expertise that say, it's ridiculous. The law is intended to be used against people with criminal intent. It has never been used against anyone at the cabinet level for a mere policy breach.

Your first link is bad. The State Department investigation is on hold while the FBI finishes. There nothing to see there.

 

[The Big Dog]

Nobody really thought they were going to come up with anything to support the claim that there was a cert earlier than March right?

Posters on this site spent years sawing off 911 truthers at the knees for making ridiculous claims like the Hillary truthers are doing here.

The earliest cert is March. You claim something earlier? Prove it.

 

[plague311]

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.

Here you go (see comments to blog post) (my emphasis added):

Called that one....

As if anyone on the opposite side of this conversation would even possibly entertain evidence that consists of the words (see comments to blog post), as if they meant absolutely anything at all.

So assuming this Venafi employee is correct,

Correct about what? There is nothing specific enough to walk away with from this. He said they did a scan going back 10 years, and that it tested for CA and self-signed certs, but it's also noninvasive. As stated previously, I'd have more faith in words by someone other than the person making money from it.

this is strong evidence that Clinton's server was not using an X.509 certificate for proving identity nor doing encryption of communications. It's certainly possible that Clinton was sending and receiving encrypted emails, using, say PGP, but that it is rather onerous.

The hilited is complete fantasy. Certificates != Email encryption.

I think at this point it's extremely likely that Clinton had a very unsecure server for a couple of months.

Based on blog posts? Seems legit.

Worse, it's possible that when the certificate was finally installed, the private key could have been obtained by somebody who had already compromised the server. Thereafter, access to server communications would have remained open to whomever got a hold of that private key.

Words.

 

[plague311]

Nobody really thought they were going to come up with anything to support the claim that there was a cert earlier than March right?

Posters on this site spent years sawing off 911 truthers at the knees for making ridiculous claims like the Hillary truthers are doing here.

The earliest cert is March. You claim something earlier? Prove it.

Your claim is a blog post by a company selling a product. We should at least include your evidence if you're going to headboard raise on such weak standards.