RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[TheL8Elvis]

What I'm asking is whether or not actual emails were stolen, compromised or read, and this article does not clarify this.

Hacking into a system does not automatically mean that information was stolen.

Really though, this is not important to the discussion anyways. I'd bet everything I own that this is not her reason for using her own server. She has never stated that she thought using a private sever would be more secure.

I don't think it was her reason either.

I just keep reading that the gov system was "hacked" with no other details given. In reality it doesn't matter anyways.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cybersecurity-statedept-idUSKCN0J11BR20141117
The U.S. State Department on Monday said its unclassified email systems were the victim of a cyber attack in recent weeks, around the same time as White House systems were breached, but no classified data was compromised.

I can't read that any other way than emails were stolen, compromised or read. If hackers had remote access to the email systems, the had de facto access to the emails.

https://securityintelligence.com/us-state-department-hack-has-major-security-implications/

In the U.S. State Department hack, an unclassified email system was compromised, with emails related to the Ukrainian crisis among those stolen. Even though the attackers did not penetrate any classified areas of the network, officials concede that sensitive information that could be of value to foreign intelligence agencies is routinely shared in unclassified emails.

 

[mgidm86]

I don't think it was her reason either.



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cybersecurity-statedept-idUSKCN0J11BR20141117
The U.S. State Department on Monday said its unclassified email systems were the victim of a cyber attack in recent weeks, around the same time as White House systems were breached, but no classified data was compromised.

I can't read that any other way than emails were stolen, compromised or read. If hackers had remote access to the email systems, the had de facto access to the emails.

https://securityintelligence.com/us-state-department-hack-has-major-security-implications/

In the U.S. State Department hack, an unclassified email system was compromised, with emails related to the Ukrainian crisis among those stolen. Even though the attackers did not penetrate any classified areas of the network, officials concede that sensitive information that could be of value to foreign intelligence agencies is routinely shared in unclassified emails.

I bolded the parts that I think are important. I am not willing to assume emails were stolen - they need to say that they were. They do not and I think it is telling.

The notion that "The gov servers were not secure either" can't be used to defend Hillary in any way without this important information.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't mind whether or not you're outraged at anything. It does after all assist my argument when you argue for things that show my assessment to be accurate. In this case you are arguing that laws are for show and breaking them is basically not an issue when it is politically convenient. Double standards don't get much more blatant than that

This would be an erroneous assessment of your interpretation of what I mean by not outraged.

I will repeat what I have said now more than a couple times. There are a lot of laws that regulate the workplace. Violating them is common, employees are human and it is the nature of regulatory law and the workplace.

It is not always considered criminal to violate these workplace laws even and when criminal penalties are part of the law. Criminal charges are reserved for purposefully committing crimes like Petraeus giving documents to his girlfriend/biographer, or when seriously negative outcomes occur and the laws were skirted without regard to worker safety.

The idea any workplace law not followed should result in criminal charges is ludicrous.

 

[The Big Dog]

This would be an erroneous assessment of your interpretation of what I mean by not outraged.

I will repeat what I have said now more than a couple times. There are a lot of laws that regulate the workplace. Violating them is common, employees are human and it is the nature of regulatory law and the workplace.

It is not always considered criminal to violate these workplace laws even and when criminal penalties are part of the law. Criminal charges are reserved for purposefully committing crimes like Petraeus giving documents to his girlfriend/biographer, or when seriously negative outcomes occur and the laws were skirted without regard to worker safety.

The idea any workplace law not followed should result in criminal charges is ludicrous.

This is such a silly argument it boggles the imagination.

Jeepers laws regarding classification, and governmental records are not typical "workplace laws." Who'dathunk?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I bolded the parts that I think are important.T I am not willing to assume emails were stolen - they need to say that they were. hey do not and I think it is telling.

In the U.S. State Department hack, an unclassified email system was compromised, with emails related to the Ukrainian crisis among those stolen. Even though the attackers did not penetrate any classified areas of the network, officials concede that sensitive information that could be of value to foreign intelligence agencies is routinely shared in unclassified emails.

So the part where they explicitly say they were stolen is not good enough ?

ETA:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/three-months-later-state-department-hasnt-rooted-out-hackers-1424391453

No official determination has been made about who is behind the breach. But five people familiar with the original intrusion said they had seen or been told of links suggesting involvement by the Russian government.
The malware, or intrusion software, is similar to other tools linked to Moscow in the past. Two of the people said the intruders had taken State emails related to the crisis in Ukraine, among other things.

The notion that "The gov servers were not secure either" can't be used to defend Hillary in any way without this important information.

Well, since I provided that important information, can I use that notion now ?

 

[Fudbucker]

NBCnews, of all places, is running this story:

"The Romanian hacker who first exposed Hillary Clinton's private email address is making a bombshell new claim -- that he also gained access to the former Secretary of State's "completely unsecured" server."

...

"A source with knowledge of the probe into Clinton's email setup told NBC News that with Guccifer in U.S. custody, investigators fully intend to question him about her server."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hacker-guccifer-i-got-inside-hillary-clinton-s-server-n568206

 

[mgidm86]

In the U.S. State Department hack, an unclassified email system was compromised, with emails related to the Ukrainian crisis among those stolen. Even though the attackers did not penetrate any classified areas of the network, officials concede that sensitive information that could be of value to foreign intelligence agencies is routinely shared in unclassified emails.

So the part where they explicitly say they were stolen is not good enough ?

ETA:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/three-months-later-state-department-hasnt-rooted-out-hackers-1424391453

No official determination has been made about who is behind the breach. But five people familiar with the original intrusion said they had seen or been told of links suggesting involvement by the Russian government.
The malware, or intrusion software, is similar to other tools linked to Moscow in the past. Two of the people said the intruders had taken State emails related to the crisis in Ukraine, among other things.



Well, since I provided that important information, can I use that notion now ?

Sure. Thanks for clearing it up. I must have missed it. Were any emails stolen from the classified server? Just wondering, not important.

Since we agree that Clinton did not use her own server for these reasons, I'm just curious at this point.

I see in the news right now that Guccifer is claiming that he hacked Hillary's server in 2013 - supposedly Blumenthal's email address was his way in. His story sounds possible according to cyber experts. Many sites are reporting it, for what it's worth, so I'll refrain from posting a link to any particular source.

ETA: Ninja'd above. He claims that he wasn't that interested in the server back then because it wasn't the infamous "Hillary's Server" at the time.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Sure. Thanks for clearing it up. I must have missed it. Were any emails stolen from the classified server? Just wondering, not important.

Not that anyone admitted that I am aware of.

Would they, if it happened ?

Since we agree that Clinton did not use her own server for these reasons, I'm just curious at this point.

I see in the news right now that Guccifer is claiming that he hacked Hillary's server in 2013 - supposedly Blumenthal's email address was his way in. His story sounds possible according to cyber experts. Many sites are reporting it, for what it's worth, so I'll refrain from posting a link to any particular source.

ETA: Ninja'd above. He claims that he wasn't that interested in the server back then because it wasn't the infamous "Hillary's Server" at the time.

Yeah ... I will wait till Guccifer produces his evidence.

BTW - Guccifer revealed her 'private' email address in 2013 ... but no one knew it existed until march 2015.

 

[The Big Dog]

Federal prosecutors in Virginia assisting in Clinton email probe

Federal prosecutors in the same office that successfully prosecuted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui — and who would handle any Edward Snowden case, should he ever return to the country — are assisting in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia has been assisting in the probe for some months, with prosecutors sitting in on interviews and providing other guidance, the officials said. Their involvement is not indicative that charges are imminent or even likely, but if they were brought, Clinton would be facing a team that is no stranger to high-profile cases involving classified material.

But I was told that this was a "security review." that is also why the FBI just finished interviewing Hillary's top staff.

Hillary looked right in the camera and lied about it being a routine security review.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?postshare=9911462477362412&tid=ss_tw

Man, she doesn't hide her sneering contempt for the truth, does she?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Federal prosecutors in Virginia assisting in Clinton email probe



But I was told that this was a "security review." that is also why the FBI just finished interviewing Hillary's top staff.

Hillary looked right in the camera and lied about it being a routine security review.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?postshare=9911462477362412&tid=ss_tw

Man, she doesn't hide her sneering contempt for the truth, does she?

False premise.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinton-aide/

Some of Hillary Clinton's closest aides, including her longtime adviser Huma Abedin, have provided interviews to federal investigators, as the FBI probe into the security of her private email server nears completion, U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN. The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say.
...
The probe remains focused on the security of the server and the handling of classified information and hasn't expanded to other matters, the officials said.
...
In addition, this week, a notorious hacker awaiting trial claimed he infiltrated Clinton's server but law enforcement officials said the FBI investigation into Guccifer found no sign he got into the Clinton server according to law enforcement sources.


So ... no indictment forthcoming. No grand Clinton global initiative investigation. Guccifer full of ****.

I hope all the HDS sufferers are taking copious notes.

 

[sunmaster14]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinton-aide/

Some of Hillary Clinton's closest aides, including her longtime adviser Huma Abedin, have provided interviews to federal investigators, as the FBI probe into the security of her private email server nears completion, U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN. The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say.

I think 16.5 has found a new campaign slogan for Clinton:

"Hillary 2016: So far, no evidence to prove that she willfully violated the law!"

...
The probe remains focused on the security of the server and the handling of classified information and hasn't expanded to other matters, the officials said.
...
In addition, this week, a notorious hacker awaiting trial claimed he infiltrated Clinton's server but law enforcement officials said the FBI investigation into Guccifer found no sign he got into the Clinton server according to law enforcement sources.
[/I]

An interesting attribution. According to law enforcement sources, law enforcement officials say the FBI investigation has found no sign Guccifer hacked Clinton's server. Is that double hearsay, or triple hearsay?

 

[The Big Dog]

Hillary too Exhausted to be President

Another large tranche of never seen before emails shows up gain, this time 9 months after she swore that she had turned over all responsive documents in her possession. “These emails further undermine Hillary Clinton’s statement, under penalty of perjury, suggesting she turned over all of her government emails to the State Department,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Here is an interesting one in light of the questions about Hillary's fitness for President, Huma writes:

"I just got the I’m exhausted thing from her."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...th-production-of-Huma-emails-00684-pg-126.pdf

Lets give Hillary the rest she deserves, shall we?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I think 16.5 has found a new campaign slogan for Clinton:

"Hillary 2016: So far, no evidence to prove that she willfully violated the law!"

Yes, and I'm sure even after the FBI provides no evidence, and the DOJ doesn't indict, the HDS campaign slogan for Clinton will still be the same.

An interesting attribution. According to law enforcement sources, law enforcement officials say the FBI investigation has found no sign Guccifer hacked Clinton's server. Is that double hearsay, or triple hearsay?

So, can you provide some evidence Guccifer hacked Clinton's server ?
Or, are you Just Asking Questions ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Another large tranche of never seen before emails shows up gain, this time 9 months after she swore that she had turned over all responsive documents in her possession. “These emails further underminesupports Hillary Clinton’s statement, under penalty of perjury, suggesting she turned over all of her government emails in her posession to the State Department,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Here is an interesting one in light of the questions about Hillary's fitness for President, Huma writes:

"I just got the I’m exhausted thing from her."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...th-production-of-Huma-emails-00684-pg-126.pdf

Lets give Hillary the rest she deserves, shall we?

I fixed the Judicial watch statement.

Where did these emails come from ?

 

[The Big Dog]

[/I]

I think 16.5 has found a new campaign slogan for Clinton:

"Hillary 2016: So far, no evidence to prove that she willfully violated the law!"

An interesting attribution. According to law enforcement sources, law enforcement officials say the FBI investigation has found no sign Guccifer hacked Clinton's server. Is that double hearsay, or triple hearsay?

This willful stuff is silly. We know that she "willfully" set up her private cowboy server to evade Federal Record Keeping laws and FOIA, in fact a Federal Judge has already found evidence of that. The fact that she was trying to avoid one set of Federal Laws allowed her to "inadvertently" violate other related criminal laws?

Nonsense.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yes, and I'm sure even after the FBI provides no evidence, and the DOJ doesn't indict, the HDS campaign slogan for Clinton will still be the same.



So, can you provide some evidence Guccifer hacked Clinton's server ?
Or, are you Just Asking Questions ?

He says he did. So that's evidence. And the US requested his extradition in order to interview him about Clinton's server. So that's corroboration. Is it proof? No, of course not.

Also, I'll note that Guccifer hacked Sidney Blumenthal's email, so it seems extremely likely that he would have tried to hack Hillary's server (which he obviously knew about). As you've said before, he seems to be a rather diligent password guesser. If Hillary used a relatively easy to guess password, he had a good chance of guessing it. Given her age, her unwillingness to accept official IT assistance, and the obvious decline in her mental acuity since 2008, I'd say that there's a good chance she didn't use a particularly robust password. It was probably something like "GoldmanSachs" or "****Bill" or some such.

 

[The Big Dog]

It was probably something like "GoldmanSachs" or "****Bill" or some such.

 

[sunmaster14]

This willful stuff is silly. We know that she "willfully" set up her private cowboy server to evade Federal Record Keeping laws and FOIA, in fact a Federal Judge has already found evidence of that. The fact that she was trying to avoid one set of Federal Laws allowed her to "inadvertently" violate other related criminal laws?

Nonsense.

Well, the claim was rather weak to say the least. You don't of course need proof to indict. You need proof to convict. On top of that, if you violate the law, you violate the law, so it's rather weird to think that having no proof that you "willfully" violated the law is equivalent to exoneration. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that there is no proof that Hillary willfully mishandled classified information? I mean if you unintentionally violated the law, isn't that still violating the law? Tautologies are tautological after all.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, the claim was rather weak to say the least. You don't of course need proof to indict. You need proof to convict. On top of that, if you violate the law, you violate the law, so it's rather weird to think that having no proof that you "willfully" violated the law is equivalent to exoneration. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that there is no proof that Hillary willfully mishandled classified information? I mean if you unintentionally violated the law, isn't that still violating the law? Tautologies are tautological after all.

I was thinking more of a counterpart to the felony murder rule.

You know, for example, you and a buddy decide to burgle a house, and the homeowner comes out guns ablazing and your buddy dies. You get convicted of murder, even though you did not intend to kill anyone.

Here, Hillary and her buddies set up a system to evade FOIA, and it turns out that Hillary and her buddies also manage to violate several other Federal Statutes in the process. The fact that she did not willfully violate those other statutes is no defense.

Further, avid readers know that she was openly contemptuous of government classification, recall that she wanted classified documents "stripped"?