Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[TheL8Elvis]

Well, for starters, intent isn't relevant to the law in question,

The context wasn't the law in question, but in putting pressure on comey (somehow).

but more importantly, it isn't the truth that national security wasn't harmed (nor is that a requirement for a crime to have occurred). We do not know if national security was harmed, and probably never will.

You have no evidence national security was harmed.
The president says nationally security was not harmed.
That's evidence that national security wasn't harmed.

And it was doubly unknown when the investigation was incomplete and Obama had not been briefed on the investigation either.

You have no evidence to support that assertion , it's simply wishful thinking.

It was not known to be truth at the time. And in fact, to this day it is not known to be truth. Actually, it is known to be false. Her actions clearly damaged national security because even if hostile actors did not gain access to her emails, the government has to assume that they did and act accordingly.

And you have no evidence to support that assertion , it's simply wishful thinking. Even if they did take some actions based on assumptions, that's still not demonstrating actual harm.

Talking about "pressure" on Comey and "blatant corruption" with no evidence is just JAQing off.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. My position based on overwhelming evidence is that pressure was applied to him. See, for example, Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton. That put pressure on Comey. ....

How?

 

[Ziggurat]

You have no evidence national security was harmed.

Good thing, then, that I never claimed it was.

The president says nationally security was not harmed.
That's evidence that national security wasn't harmed.

No, it isn't. Obama had (and still has) no way of knowing that national security was not harmed.

You have no evidence to support that assertion , it's simply wishful thinking.

Yes, I do have evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-ca...ng&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

Oh look, another Pubbie (Republican Jason Chaffetz) looking to get his name in the news.

 

[Ziggurat]

How?

It sends a clear message that Comey's boss is friendly with the husband of the woman Comey was investigating. Given that relationship, is it not obvious which conclusion Lynch would prefer the investigation to reach?

 

[Meadmaker]

Your boss can usually do more than that. And your potential future boss can as well.



Threats do not need to be explicit to be effective.

If the FBI director were fired after recommending indictment of Hillary Clinton, he would be set for life based on speaking fees and book contracts alone.


And if you think there is some other non-explicit threat he could activate, you are off in CT-ville.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It sends a clear message that Comey's boss is friendly with the husband of the woman Comey was investigating. Given that relationship, is it not obvious which conclusion Lynch would prefer the investigation to reach?

Because Comey wouldn't have already known Lynch's preference?

Unless you think Comey was outright lying, he made it very clear he was being as politically neutral as he could and he made it clear Lynch put no pressure on him.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because Comey wouldn't have already known Lynch's preference?

You don't get it. Her actions don't merely indicate what her preference is, they provide information about the magnitude of the preference. She values the Clinton connection more than she values even the appearance of impartiality.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the FBI director were fired after recommending indictment of Hillary Clinton

You think that's the only leverage here? Of course it isn't.

And if you think there is some other non-explicit threat he could activate, you are off in CT-ville.

Threats are not the only way to exert influence. What do you think Comey's job prospects are like if Hillary is elected president? They're pretty damn good.

 

[Tony Stark]

You think that's the only leverage here? Of course it isn't.



Threats are not the only way to exert influence. What do you think Comey's job prospects are like if Hillary is elected president? They're pretty damn good.

Oh so now the Republican FBI Director is corrupt and in Hillary's pocket.

LOL

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Good thing, then, that I never claimed it was.

You're quibbling:
it isn't the truth that national security wasn't harmed

No, it isn't. Obama had (and still has) no way of knowing that national security was not harmed.

That's...

Yes, I do have evidence.

So you aren't claiming national security was harmed, but you have evidence it was ?

And the source of that evidence is .... James Comey !

President Obama does not receive briefings about the FBI’s investigation into the personal email setup Hillary Clinton used as secretary of State, bureau Director James Comey said on Wednesday.

He could have simply been lying, because he was influenced by outside pressure - you can't believe him !!!

 

[Ziggurat]

That's...

How would Obama possibly know if national security had been harmed? He would have to know whether or not Hillary's server had been hacked. But as we know (and as anyone paying attention should have expected), there's no way to tell. Security and logging on the servers was not sufficient to be able to detect a skilled intrusion. If, say, the Russian or Chinese intelligence services had penetrated Hillary's server, there would no longer be any remaining trace. So Obama cannot know that Hillary's server was never hacked. And without that knowledge (which he doesn't have), and without knowledge of what was on the server (which he didn't have at the time, and which even now the FBI admits it may not have), how can Obama have possibly reached the conclusion that national security was not harmed?

You express surprise at this conclusion, and yet, how can anyone reach any other conclusion? You offer nothing.

So you aren't claiming national security was harmed, but you have evidence it was ? [/quote]

No. I'm saying nobody has any idea if national security is harmed. Claims that it was are not the truth. Claims that it was not are not the truth. I never claimed it was harmed, but you claimed that it wasn't harmed, and you have no evidence of that. Obama saying so does not constitute evidence, because Obama cannot know.

He could have simply been lying

Sure, it's theoretically possible. But unlike the question of whether or not he was influenced by outside pressure, Comey isn't the only one in a position to know if Obama was briefed on the investigation. Since no one has contradicted Comey, despite multiple other people (including Obama) being in a position to do so if Comey is wrong, we do not face nearly the same problem, and his uncontradicted testimony can indeed be taken as evidence.

Surely such elementary considerations did not escape your attention. Oh, who am I kidding, of course they did.

 

[plague311]

How would Obama possibly know if national security had been harmed? He would have to know whether or not Hillary's server had been hacked. But as we know (and as anyone paying attention should have expected), there's no way to tell. Security and logging on the servers was not sufficient to be able to detect a skilled intrusion. If, say, the Russian or Chinese intelligence services had penetrated Hillary's server, there would no longer be any remaining trace. So Obama cannot know that Hillary's server was never hacked. And without that knowledge (which he doesn't have), and without knowledge of what was on the server (which he didn't have at the time, and which even now the FBI admits it may not have), how can Obama have possibly reached the conclusion that national security was not harmed?

You express surprise at this conclusion, and yet, how can anyone reach any other conclusion? You offer nothing.

So you aren't claiming national security was harmed, but you have evidence it was ?

No. I'm saying nobody has any idea if national security is harmed. Claims that it was are not the truth. Claims that it was not are not the truth. I never claimed it was harmed, but you claimed that it wasn't harmed, and you have no evidence of that. Obama saying so does not constitute evidence, because Obama cannot know.



Sure, it's theoretically possible. But unlike the question of whether or not he was influenced by outside pressure, Comey isn't the only one in a position to know if Obama was briefed on the investigation. Since no one has contradicted Comey, despite multiple other people (including Obama) being in a position to do so if Comey is wrong, we do not face nearly the same problem, and his uncontradicted testimony can indeed be taken as evidence.

Surely such elementary considerations did not escape your attention. Oh, who am I kidding, of course they did.

The FBI didn't find any evidence that her system was breached, and you have no idea that her security wouldn't detect a hack. You have no idea what security she used, neither do I. So you're complaining is completely and entirely useless. There's nothing at all to show that her server was compromised. We can let that **** go.

 

[Meadmaker]

You think that's the only leverage here? Of course it isn't.



Threats are not the only way to exert influence. What do you think Comey's job prospects are like if Hillary is elected president? They're pretty damn good.

Regardless of what happens in the next election, I don't think Comey's going to have to get in line for Food Stamps.


And there isn't very far up to go from FBI director. I suppose it is conceivable he could go to the cabinet or even DCI, but not likely. I'm guessing he has hit the peak of his career.

 

[Ziggurat]

The FBI didn't find any evidence that her system was breached, and you have no idea that her security wouldn't detect a hack.

The point isn't whether or not her security would have detected it, the point is whether or not the FBI would now be able to tell whether her system was breached. And they say that they cannot.

"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[plague311]

The point isn't whether or not her security would have detected it, the point is whether or not the FBI would now be able to tell whether her system was breached. And they say that they cannot.

"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

LoL people should stop using it as such. There's nothing to say that the server was breached, there is absolutely no evidence at all to say that anyone got in the server at all. They've had the virtual and physical servers that she used for the last 3 years.

It's a game of maybe's, but at this point unless someone can show it was hacked, it needs to be dropped. People can't claim that **** unless there is something, anything at all, that shows she's had an issue.

 

[Ziggurat]

LoL people should stop using it as such.

Had Obama not stepped into an ongoing investigation to make a claim for which there was no evidence in an attempt to excuse Hillary's actions, we wouldn't be having this exchange.

There's nothing to say that the server was breached, there is absolutely no evidence at all to say that anyone got in the server at all.

If her server was breached, why would you expect any evidence to be left behind? The FBI explicitly stated that they think no evidence would remain from a successful hack.

They've had the virtual and physical servers that she used for the last 3 years.

And? What relevance does this have?

It's a game of maybe's, but at this point unless someone can show it was hacked, it needs to be dropped.

I'm willing to drop it, if people stop using it as an excuse for her actions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How would Obama possibly know if national security had been harmed? ....

But you know?

 

[plague311]

Had Obama not stepped into an ongoing investigation to make a claim for which there was no evidence in an attempt to excuse Hillary's actions, we wouldn't be having this exchange.

As you've said, he wasn't wrong. He might not have been completely right, but it wasn't wrong. As Comey said, there's no evidence.

If her server was breached, why would you expect any evidence to be left behind? The FBI explicitly stated that they think no evidence would remain from a successful hack.

Hacking a computer is just like hacking bank accounts in the old days. There's generally some form of "paper trail." Getting hacked generally causes things to happen. The hackers make their own admin account to freely move around the system. They create root or system folders to try and bypass operating system security. "Hacking" isn't some magical thing that happens and no one sees. Plus the email chain that was linked to earlier showed that there was active security that alerted people in real time when there was an attack. This leads me to believe that there wasn't.

And? What relevance does this have?

The longer and more complete information, the better to look back through logs and confirm their suspicions or not. Pretty standard stuff.

I'm willing to drop it, if people stop using it as an excuse for her actions.

I haven't been one to excuse her actions, I just don't think it happened.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

How would Obama possibly know if national security had been harmed? He would have to know whether or not Hillary's server had been hacked.

I must be misunderstanding ... you are claiming the only way for the president to know if national security had been harmed is to know if her server had been compromised.

That's ludicrous.

But as we know (and as anyone paying attention should have expected), there's no way to tell. Security and logging on the servers was not sufficient to be able to detect a skilled intrusion. If, say, the Russian or Chinese intelligence services had penetrated Hillary's server, there would no longer be any remaining trace. So Obama cannot know that Hillary's server was never hacked. And without that knowledge (which he doesn't have), and without knowledge of what was on the server (which he didn't have at the time, and which even now the FBI admits it may not have), how can Obama have possibly reached the conclusion that national security was not harmed?

Schrodingers server

There are other ways to detect a compromise, aside from forensics of the compromised host itself. ALso see plague311's post regarding.

You express surprise at this conclusion, and yet, how can anyone reach any other conclusion? You offer nothing.

Law enforcement could review these "top secret" emails for content, and then see if there were any actual security incidents related to the content. We know some of these emails were time sensitive discussions on drone attacks. For example, if the claim is a particular asset was disclosed, they could check to see if anything related to that asset happened during Clintons tenure, or the period in question when it would have had an effect.

Additionally, the FBI would certainly be able to determine if any of Clintons email had been identified in any of the foreign assets the FBI/CIA spies on.

No. I'm saying nobody has any idea if national security is harmed. Claims that it was are not the truth. Claims that it was not are not the truth. I never claimed it was harmed, but you claimed that it wasn't harmed, and you have no evidence of that. Obama saying so does not constitute evidence, because Obama cannot know.

But then again, I'm not making a claim - the president made the claim that national security wasn't harmed. You are claiming there's no way for him to know that. And clearly there are ways for him to know.

Sure, it's theoretically possible. But unlike the question of whether or not he was influenced by outside pressure, Comey isn't the only one in a position to know if Obama was briefed on the investigation. Since no one has contradicted Comey, despite multiple other people (including Obama) being in a position to do so if Comey is wrong, we do not face nearly the same problem, and his uncontradicted testimony can indeed be taken as evidence.

Surely such elementary considerations did not escape your attention. Oh, who am I kidding, of course they did.

Thanks for the little added personalisation at the end. I guess if that's all you got...