Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[wareyin]

This is the document:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...0/banda-email/

At the bottom of the first page we find the following:



That (C) marking indicates that what follows contains classified information. The first sentence following that remark is unredacted. Everything else following that mark is redacted. TheL8Elvis claimed that since the unredacted part did not contain sensitive information, any possible compromise of the email would have been irrelevant. There is no basis for this opinion, however. We do not know what was redacted, but the redacted information is part of what was marked as classified, and is sensitive enough that it is still not being released, so it might indeed have been significant if it had been compromised.

Thank you for that. Sounds like it's not quite the smoking gun that conservatives have been hoping for, what with "we do not know..." and "might".

 

[The Big Dog]

This is the document:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...0/banda-email/

At the bottom of the first page we find the following:



That (C) marking indicates that what follows contains classified information. The first sentence following that remark is unredacted. Everything else following that mark is redacted. TheL8Elvis claimed that since the unredacted part did not contain sensitive information, any possible compromise of the email would have been irrelevant. There is no basis for this opinion, however. We do not know what was redacted, but the redacted information is part of what was marked as classified, and is sensitive enough that it is still not being released, so it might indeed have been significant if it had been compromised.

The relevant part is not what was redacted but rather that Hillary lied that the emails that were sent to her were not marked. They clearly were, which is why the Shillaries want to cherry pick and race off in another direction.

Of course Hillary and all her staff specifically signed disclosures that classified info is classified whether marked or not.

 

[Fudbucker]

No, it's not, because .... those things are not evidence her server was hacked.

Let me paraphrase your argument:
The more you drive, the greater the odds are you will have a car accident.
You have friends who have been in car accidents.
Therefore, you have been in a car accident.




I agree it would be better for her without those things.

Let me paraphrase your paraphrase so it actually fits:

There are signs someone tried to jimmy your car door open. A notorious car thief, who got into your friend, Sydney's, car is on the phone bragging that he got into yours.

Evidence that someone was in your car? Yes.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This is the document:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...0/banda-email/

At the bottom of the first page we find the following:

That (C) marking indicates that what follows contains classified information. The first sentence following that remark is unredacted. Everything else following that mark is redacted. TheL8Elvis claimed that since the unredacted part did not contain sensitive information, any possible compromise of the email would have been irrelevant.

I did ?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/06/10/banda-email/
(C) Purpose of Call: To offer condolences on the passing of President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.

Holy ****, that could totally endanger national security !!

TBH, I didn't even know Malawi was a country.

There are no other markings, as there should be according to the manual Fox news linked.

Lying requires intent, it doesn't seem likely there was some intent to lie and try to cover up these so-called "markings" , or that any reasonable person would see that information should be "confidential".

Weak sauce, non-issue.

Nope, I don't think I did.

There is no basis for this opinion, however.We do not know what was redacted, but the redacted information is part of what was marked as classified, and is sensitive enough that it is still not being released, so it might indeed have been significant if it had been compromised.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, oh what a Christmas we'd have.

Would you care to address where all the rest of the required markings are, and intent ? Or no... let's just dismiss those and pretned and email about condolences and congratulations was full of sooper-sekrit govtinfo.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Let me paraphrase your paraphrase so it actually fits:

There are signs someone tried to jimmy your car door open. A notorious car thief, who got into your friend, Sydney's, car is on the phone bragging that he got into yours.

Evidence that someone was in your car? Yes.

LOL. No.

I work in IT security. If I say no one got into Clintons server, that would appear to count as "evidence" in your world.

Somethings wrong in your world.

 

[Fudbucker]

LOL. No.

I work in IT security. If I say no one got into Clintons server, that would appear to count as "evidence" in your world.

Somethings wrong in your world.

If you were the IT person in charge of Clinton's server, you might have a point, but you're not, so there isn't one. And you wouldn't be talking anyway, cause you would have plead the 5th.

The person claiming to have hacked Clinton has also hacked Bush and Clinton's friend, Sydney Blumenthal. He certainly is not just "any old hacker".

And of course there are the reported hacking attempts (at least two). If a person tries to hack into your system, there's a chance they did hack into your system.

Oh, and the IT guy in charge of Clinton just happens to plead the 5th, because IT guys do that all the time.

But no evidence, none at all. Nothing to see here!

 

[Fudbucker]

Thank you for that. Sounds like it's not quite the smoking gun that conservatives have been hoping for, what with "we do not know..." and "might".

Except it was marked classified (That little C in parantheses) at the time Clinton received and forwarded it and I seem to recall something Clinton said about sending/receiving info that was marked classified.

No doubt yet another honest mistake on her part. I'm a little leery about this story, so I'm waiting until a less partisan outlet goes with it.

 

[wareyin]

Except it was marked classified (That little C in parantheses) at the time Clinton received and forwarded it and I seem to recall something Clinton said about sending/receiving info that was marked classified.

No doubt yet another honest mistake on her part. I'm a little leery about this story, so I'm waiting until a less partisan outlet goes with it.

It's refreshing to see you doubt Fox news, for once.

Eta: According to the manual TheL8Elvis linked, the document should have been marked according to the highest classification, yet this email was marked unclassified. Any thoughts on this, or am I reading something wrong?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If you were the IT person in charge of Clinton's server, you might have a point, but you're not, so there isn't one. And you wouldn't be talking anyway, cause you would have plead the 5th.

The person claiming to have hacked Clinton has also hacked Bush and Clinton's friend, Sydney Blumenthal. He certainly is not just "any old hacker".

And of course there are the reported hacking attempts (at least two). If a person tries to hack into your system, there's a chance they did hack into your system.

Oh, and the IT guy in charge of Clinton just happens to plead the 5th, because IT guys do that all the time.

But no evidence, none at all. Nothing to see here!

Are we just talking past each other ?

I agree, some of the things you pointed out make it more likely (to X degree, TBD) that her email server was compromised.

I disagree that any of it is evidence her server actually was compromised.

Please explain to me how you believe increased likelihood is evidence of actuality, because that's where I keep stumbling.

 

[Ziggurat]

I did ?

Yes, you did. "Holy ****, that could totally endanger national security !!" This was obviously said with sarcasm. Except you don't know what threat any possible leak posed, because you don't know what was in it, because the classified material was redacted.

Would you care to address where all the rest of the required markings are

There don't need to be any additional markings in order for Hillary to treat it as classified. Any failure on the part of her subordinates to include more markings doesn't make this any better for her, since that just means there were more problems she should have been aware of that she never corrected.

and intent ?

Every time Hillary has offered a defense of her email habits, her statements were later proven wrong. There's a pattern here. She's either unbelievably stupid AND unlucky to get it so consistently wrong, or she was lying. The obviously more likely explanation is that she has been lying.

Or no... let's just dismiss those and pretned and email about condolences and congratulations was full of sooper-sekrit govtinfo.

It contained classified information. It was marked as classified. She claimed she never received anything that was marked classified. Like all her previous excuses, this one was a lie. And you are in no position to evaluate the sensitivity of that information.

 

[Ziggurat]

Thank you for that. Sounds like it's not quite the smoking gun that conservatives have been hoping for, what with "we do not know..." and "might".

But we DO know. We know she received classified information that was marked as classified. We know that she denied having received information marked as classified. We don't know what that information was, but the relevant laws and regulations don't depend upon those particulars. She had a duty in regards to such information, and she failed that duty.

 

[Fudbucker]

Are we just talking past each other ?

I agree, some of the things you pointed out make it more likely (to X degree, TBD) that her email server was compromised.

I disagree that any of it is evidence her server actually was compromised.

Please explain to me how you believe increased likelihood is evidence of actuality, because that's where I keep stumbling.

OK, just imagine that instead of 2 hacking attempts and one hacker claiming to have successfully gotten into her system, there were 200 hacking attempts and 20 hackers all saying the same thing. Or 2,000 attempts and 200 people.

If the 2 attacks and one person's claim isn't evidence that her server was compromised, then it wouldn't matter how many hacking attempts were made or how many people claim to have gotten in. Adding/Multiplying by zero gets you zero. But it does matter. Unless you want to make the claim that hundreds of hacking attempts wouldn't be evidence that her server was compromised, and that's ludicrous.

Every time there's a hacking attempt, there's a chance that the attempt was successful. Who are you going to believe that the attack wasn't successful? The IT guy who plead the 5th? Clinton? And every time someone claims to have hacked her, there's a chance they're telling the truth.

 

[Fudbucker]

It's refreshing to see you doubt Fox news, for once.

Eta: According to the manual TheL8Elvis linked, the document should have been marked according to the highest classification, yet this email was marked unclassified. Any thoughts on this, or am I reading something wrong?

Catherine Herridge isn't a nut job. I'm inclined to believe her article.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

OK, just imagine that instead of 2 hacking attempts and one hacker claiming to have successfully gotten into her system, there were 200 hacking attempts and 20 hackers all saying the same thing. Or 2,000 attempts and 200 people.

If the 2 attacks and one person's claim isn't evidence that her server was compromised, then it wouldn't matter how many hacking attempts were made or how many people claim to have gotten in. Adding/Multiplying by zero gets you zero. But it does matter. Unless you want to make the claim that hundreds of hacking attempts wouldn't be evidence that her server was compromised, and that's ludicrous.

IMO, no, it wouldn't.
Attempts are not evidence of success, no matter how much you want it to be so.

I'd be curious if someone else agrees with you, and could try to explain it in a different way.

Every time there's a hacking attempt, there's a chance that the attempt was successful. Who are you going to believe that the attack wasn't successful? The IT guy who plead the 5th? Clinton? And every time someone claims to have hacked her, there's a chance they're telling the truth.

You mean the IT guy who cooperated with the FBI ?

I'm believing the leak that claimed there was no evidence of compromise:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/u...said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html?_r=0
A former aide to Hillary Clinton has turned over to the F.B.I. computer security logs from Mrs. Clinton’s private server, records that showed no evidence of foreign hacking, according to people close to a federal investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails.


That, and the lack of any leak or evidence to the contrary.

Again, Guccifers self-serving claim, by itself, is not evidence he hacked anything.

 

[wareyin]

OK, just imagine that instead of 2 hacking attempts and one hacker claiming to have successfully gotten into her system, there were 200 hacking attempts and 20 hackers all saying the same thing. Or 2,000 attempts and 200 people.

If the 2 attacks and one person's claim isn't evidence that her server was compromised, then it wouldn't matter how many hacking attempts were made or how many people claim to have gotten in. Adding/Multiplying by zero gets you zero. But it does matter. Unless you want to make the claim that hundreds of hacking attempts wouldn't be evidence that her server was compromised, and that's ludicrous.
Every time there's a hacking attempt, there's a chance that the attempt was successful. Who are you going to believe that the attack wasn't successful? The IT guy who plead the 5th? Clinton? And every time someone claims to have hacked her, there's a chance they're telling the truth.

Wait, are you really claiming that the number of attempts made to do something is evidence that it was done? For instance, if I can show that enough attempts were made to claim Randi's MDC, that is evidence of a successful MDC claim?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It's refreshing to see you doubt Fox news, for once.

Eta: According to the manual TheL8Elvis linked, the document should have been marked according to the highest classification, yet this email was marked unclassified. Any thoughts on this, or am I reading something wrong?

The unclassified markings are from the redacted email release of clintons emails.

 

[wareyin]

But we DO know. We know she received classified information that was marked as classified. We know that she denied having received information marked as classified. We don't know what that information was, but the relevant laws and regulations don't depend upon those particulars. She had a duty in regards to such information, and she failed that duty.

We know that it wasn't properly marked classified, at least according to the manual TheL8Elvis linked on classifications markings.

 

[Fudbucker]

Wait, are you really claiming that the number of attempts made to do something is evidence that it was done? For instance, if I can show that enough attempts were made to claim Randi's MDC, that is evidence of a successful MDC claim?

Of course not because every attempt has been a failure, and there's no evidence the paranormal exists. Has every hacking attempt been a failure? Is hacking paranormal?

 

[wareyin]

The unclassified markings are from the redacted email release of clintons emails.

Ok, then I am misunderstanding the situation. What markings are missing?

 

[wareyin]

Of course not because every attempt has been a failure, and there's no evidence the paranormal exists. Has every hacking attempt been a failure? Is hacking paranormal?

And there's no evidence that a successful hack exists, and all evidence points to every attempt being a failure. Which is why claiming that the number of attempts is evidence of a successful attempt is just wrong.