RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[TheL8Elvis]

There were no Schedule C employees in IT other than Pagliano, the guy who Hillary was paying to run her cowboy server.

And she got up there and claimed it was for "convenience."

Is there an argument in there somewhere ? Evidence of something illegal ?

 

[The Big Dog]

Here is a little bit more background to help you realize just how absurd Hillary's conduct was:

Schedule C positions are excepted from the competitive service because of their confidential or policy-determining character. Most such positions are at grade 15 of the General Schedule or lower. Schedule C positions above the GS-15 level are either in the Senior Level (SL) personnel system or are specifically authorized in law…

Requests for Schedule C exception are appropriate when:

The position involves making or approving substantive policy recommendations; or
The work of the position can be performed successfully only by someone with a thorough knowledge of and sympathy with the goals, priorities, and preferences of an official who has a confidential or policy determining relationship with the President or the agency head…

The immediate supervisor of a Schedule C position must be a Presidential appointee, a Senior Executive Service appointee (career or noncareer) occupying a General position, or a Schedule C appointee.

Well, Hillary's goal was to circumvent governmental transparency rules and regulations, so maybe this cat was actually the guy for the job!

If this does not make you pissed off, you have not been paying attention.

 

[Ziggurat]

So it's not an ad hom if it's slang to degrade people that also work with software? That's the *********** strangest rationalization for it NOT being an ad hom I've ever heard.

It's a derogatory term, and the majority of programmers despise being called by it.

First, according to my first link, it's not really derogatory. And second, even if it is derogatory, there's a difference between an insult and an ad hominem. Do you know what the difference is?

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you know what the difference is?

No they clearly do not have the first clue what an ad hominem fallacy is, and I long ago gave up trying to explain it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

First, according to my first link, it's not really derogatory. And second, even if it is derogatory, there's a difference between an insult and an ad hominem. Do you know what the difference is?

I didn't feel like getting into it, but your link is ****. Monkey is not a term of endearment when used that way.

And I saw it as an ad hominem. "Hillary's server monkey was a political appointee." as if that somehow explains ...well, anything.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yeah, who indeed knows. after all, Clinton's political appointee's entire email file is missing.

And to think, he was a political appointee too. Hillary's server monkey was a political appointee. Just more convenient that way, I reckon.

And, BTW, old news is still old... but when rehashing **** is all you got...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/hillary-clinton-bryan-pagliano-emails-state-department-216679

State Department can't find emails of top Clinton IT staffer
The FBI has taken possession of Bryan Pagliano's computer system.
By RACHAEL BADE 12/11/15 04:35 PM EST

State officials told the Senate Judiciary Committee in a recent closed-door meeting that they could not locate what’s known as a “.pst file” for Pagliano’s work during Clinton’s tenure, which would have included copies of the tech expert’s emails, according to a letter Chairman Chuck Grassley sent to Secretary of State John Kerry that was obtained by POLITICO.

The department also told the committee the FBI has taken possession of Pagliano’s government computer system, where traces of the messages are most likely to be found, according to the letter.

 

[Ziggurat]

And I saw it as an ad hominem. "Hillary's server monkey was a political appointee." as if that somehow explains ...well, anything.

16.5 is right, you don't know the difference, and explaining it to you is probably pointless. But I'll give you a hint anyways: has Bryan Pagliano presented any argument for us to debate?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

16.5 is right, you don't know the difference, and explaining it to you is probably pointless. But I'll give you a hint anyways: has Bryan Pagliano presented any argument for us to debate?

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument,

But you may be right. Perhaps it was just poisoning the well.

Or maybe even 16.5 was just being insulting because he has no actual argument ??

 

[plague311]

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument,

But you may be right. Perhaps it was just poisoning the well.

Or maybe even 16.5 was just being insulting because he has no actual argument ??

You beat me to the punch, but it was rich being scolded from an intellectual high horse. To me, it looks like a little bit of both, but next I'll be told that we can't have overlapping fallacies. It has to be one or the other....wait, isn't that another type of fallacy?

Anyway, just because you found a link that claims something doesn't make that link right. I can probably find a link that says the KKK isn't racist, and only wants society to progress, but that would be ******** too.

Oh, I digress. I forgot that urban dictionary was some kind of authority on slang names.

 

[Ziggurat]

But you may be right. Perhaps it was just poisoning the well.

From your link:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
​

But I'll give you a hint anyways: has Bryan Pagliano presented any argument for us to debate?

Looks like you didn't take the hint.

Or maybe even 16.5 was just being insulting because he has no actual argument ??

Getting closer.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

From your link:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
​

Yes. Do you think we won't ever be hearing statements from Bryan Pagliano ? This is simply the early smear campaign. He's just a "server monkey" and a political appointee".

Looks like you didn't take the hint.
Getting closer.

Back to Pagliano ....

Hmm. Now could you support those conclusions with ... something ?

Clearly you don't have any evidence other than a lack of emails, but I don't follow how that leads to your conclusions.

 

[The Big Dog]

From your link:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
​

Looks like you didn't take the hint.

Getting closer.

Oh dear, they are really outraged that I used the term server monkey, aren't they...

Concerned about the improper use of Schedule C employment, missing emails and the fact that Clinton was lying from day one about the purpose of her cowboy server (you know, things that actually matter?) Meh... not so much.

As Susan Swart said: "what a bunch a ...."

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes. Do you think we won't ever be hearing statements from Bryan Pagliano ?

No, I don't. I think he's not going to make any public comments, and the FBI is unlikely to release his statements either. After pleading the 5th, making public comments is more likely to hurt him than help him, and I think he knows that.

This is simply the early smear campaign. He's just a "server monkey" and a political appointee".

Well, he IS a political appointee. That's not a smear, that's just the truth.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, I don't. I think he's not going to make any public comments, and the FBI is unlikely to release his statements either. After pleading the 5th, making public comments is more likely to hurt him than help him, and I think he knows that.

Well, he IS a political appointee. That's not a smear, that's just the truth.

Yes, and I asked 16.5 why that's relevant, but he has purportedly decided not to have any actual discussion [with me], but live in his own little echo chamber, so no answer.

You can try and explain why if you also think it's relevant.

Or even present your arguments for your statements that "We can conclude that Bryan was acting very badly, and we can conclude that Clinton acted badly in using him as her personal IT guy. We can also conclude that there's a lot of very relevant information that the public does not yet have, but should."

 

[Ziggurat]

Or even present your arguments for your statements that "We can conclude that Bryan was acting very badly,

Because his emails are supposed to be available to State, and they are not.

and we can conclude that Clinton acted badly in using him as her personal IT guy.

She hired a guy who didn't follow the rules. Is it not obvious why that's a bad thing? Of course, it's not a surprising thing, given that she didn't follow the rules either.

We can also conclude that there's a lot of very relevant information that the public does not yet have, but should."

This one should be so obvious that if you don't already understand it, then that can only be by deliberate choice, and no effort by me can change that.

 

[plague311]

Because his emails are supposed to be available to State, and they are not.



She hired a guy who didn't follow the rules. Is it not obvious why that's a bad thing? Of course, it's not a surprising thing, given that she didn't follow the rules either.



This one should be so obvious that if you don't already understand it, then that can only be by deliberate choice, and no effort by me can change that.

So just normal implications, coupled with a heavy dose of, "If you weren't so stupid you'd know. Trust me, you'd know."

Always a solid argument. Always.

 

[The Big Dog]

Lets take a deeper dive into the email chain that resulted in Hillary's cowboy server wrangler getting a Schedule C Political Appointment in the IT Department at the State Department.

Someone sent some resumes including Bryan Pagliano to Heather Samuelson, who was also on the email explaining that Pagliano could be the only IT guy in the IT department who was a Schedule C political employee. Heather Samuelson... wait a tick, that name rings a bell....

Oh yeah! Samuelson was the person who decided which of Clinton's State Departments emails were work-related and which were "personal."

So Samuelson helped Hillary get her IT boy on board and then Samuelson helped Clinton discard those tens of thousands of "personal" emails that Clinton's IT boy kept buried in Hillary's server.

Sounds legit.

 

[The_Animus]

That was an amusing exchange. I especially liked the admission that it may not be ad hom after all, but with the qualifier that it might maybe sometime in the future turn into an ad hom.

 

[The_Animus]

double post

 

[Mike!]

Oh sure, we can clearly see her hand was IN the cookie jar, but can you PROVE she took a cookie?
There are any number of perfectly good reasons for her hand to be in the cookie jar, besides taking a cookie.
Do we even know if there's a missing cookie or not?