Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[Meadmaker]

Do you have a citation? I read the report, and I remember criticism that classified information sometimes leaked over into the unclassified system, and that often work emails weren't archived properly, but I don't remember claims that the unclassified system was slow as molasses or didn't work with mobile devices.

They did not use the phrase "slow as molasses". I'm not even sure they said "slow". They did talk about difficulty using the system, and not when using classified data.

The IG report covered a long period of time, including the time that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were using the system, and were using it with private connections, outside of the official State Department system.

I think if you didn't notice those issues, it may have been due to selective attention on your part. It's all in the IG report.

ETA: I took a quick look through the IG report, but couldn't find the reference I had seen. Maybe it was in a different report that has been published recently? Anyway, it noted that many SD employees had used their private emails because of the issues with modernizing the government systems. That is a common problem in corporate America as well. The IG report contains numerous references to people using such accounts, but doesn't discuss their motivations. It also details recommendations, and later prohibitions, related to using those accounts.

 

[pgwenthold]

Something I don't quite understand. I keep hearing about 30000 deleted emails that the FBI can't find or something.

And?

For pete's sake, if the FBI can't find these emails because they were so effectively eliminated, then why are we concerned about whether they were on a private server in the first place? The FBI can't find them, and we are worried about hackers getting them?

From a security standpoint, it sounds like if there were anything in there that was classified material, it is gone. Completely gone. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[The Big Dog]

Something I don't quite understand. I keep hearing about 30000 deleted emails that the FBI can't find or something.

And?

For pete's sake, if the FBI can't find these emails because they were so effectively eliminated, then why are we concerned about whether they were on a private server in the first place? The FBI can't find them, and we are worried about hackers getting them?

From a security standpoint, it sounds like if there were anything in there that was classified material, it is gone. Completely gone. Isn't that a good thing?

well, they did find them

 

[wareyin]

well, they did find them

And they had the smoking gun in them that HDS sufferers just knew would be there?



Avid readers know how big a flop this was for the Clinton Conspiracy Theorist Brigade.

 

[sunmaster14]

They did not use the phrase "slow as molasses". I'm not even sure they said "slow". They did talk about difficulty using the system, and not when using classified data.

The IG report covered a long period of time, including the time that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were using the system, and were using it with private connections, outside of the official State Department system.

I think if you didn't notice those issues, it may have been due to selective attention on your part. It's all in the IG report.
ETA: I took a quick look through the IG report, but couldn't find the reference I had seen. Maybe it was in a different report that has been published recently? Anyway, it noted that many SD employees had used their private emails because of the issues with modernizing the government systems. That is a common problem in corporate America as well. The IG report contains numerous references to people using such accounts, but doesn't discuss their motivations. It also details recommendations, and later prohibitions, related to using those accounts.

I guess I won't hold my breath waiting for a retraction of this snide remark.

 

[The Big Dog]

And they had the smoking gun in them that HDS sufferers just knew would be there?

Avid readers know how big a flop this was for the Clinton Conspiracy Theorist Brigade.

yes, wareyin. there were thousands of work related emails. they will be released by state after the classified data is stripped from them

as such, your hero lied again.

 

[wareyin]

yes, wareyin. there were thousands of work related emails. they will be released by state after the retroactively classified data is stripped from them

as such, your hero lied again.

I'm sorry to inform you of this, but you are not my hero.



eta: also, ftfy in red. Avid readers remember how classified it was when Clinton asked when she would get to the Hamptons.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm sorry to inform you of this, but you are not my hero.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I guess I won't hold my breath waiting for a retraction of this snide remark.

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

OIG also reviewed an S/ES-IRM report prepared in 2010 showing that more than 9,200 emails were sent within one week from S/ES servers to 16 web-based email domains, including gmail.com, hotmail.com, and att.net.82 S/ES-IRM told OIG that it no longer has access to the tool used to generate this particular report. In another instance, in a June 3, 2011, email message to Secretary Clinton with the subject line “Google email hacking and woeful state of civilian technology,” a former Director of Policy Planning wrote: “State’s technology is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively.”
But don't let that stop the feigned outrage.

 

[Meadmaker]

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

OIG also reviewed an S/ES-IRM report prepared in 2010 showing that more than 9,200 emails were sent within one week from S/ES servers to 16 web-based email domains, including gmail.com, hotmail.com, and att.net.82 S/ES-IRM told OIG that it no longer has access to the tool used to generate this particular report. In another instance, in a June 3, 2011, email message to Secretary Clinton with the subject line “Google email hacking and woeful state of civilian technology,” a former Director of Policy Planning wrote: “State’s technology is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively.”
But don't let that stop the feigned outrage.

Yes. That was the quote I had been looking for.

 

[sunmaster14]

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

OIG also reviewed an S/ES-IRM report prepared in 2010 showing that more than 9,200 emails were sent within one week from S/ES servers to 16 web-based email domains, including gmail.com, hotmail.com, and att.net.82 S/ES-IRM told OIG that it no longer has access to the tool used to generate this particular report. In another instance, in a June 3, 2011, email message to Secretary Clinton with the subject line “Google email hacking and woeful state of civilian technology,” a former Director of Policy Planning wrote: “State’s technology is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively.”
But don't let that stop the feigned outrage.

That's one anonymous guy's casual assessment, made in an email to Clinton no less, to point out that the Google email hack was a serious issue for the State Department to address (which, of course, under Clinton's leadership, it never was). That was not a conclusion of the OIG, but rather it was provided as anecdotal evidence that many people were using outside email accounts from home.

Of course, even though it is hardly serious evidence, it does make sense. It is almost always far easier to use a private email account from home rather than login to a work system. Regardless, that doesn't say anything about whether it was more convenient to use a private email server for work even when you're at work. I doubt that was the case. The problem is with remote access to the State Department system, with all of its safeguards and protocols. And, in my experience, this could be said about accessing any corporate system remotely. It does not say anything about the systems people used at work.

 

[Meadmaker]

I guess I won't hold my breath waiting for a retraction of this snide remark.

Thanks to TheL8Elvis, I won't have to worry about it.

In my recent skimming of the document, I was searching on the word "private", but the text referred to "home" email accounts instead of "private" ones.

You seem pretty well versed in the contents of that document. However, you didn't remember the specific comment the TheL8Elvis found, even though it was a pretty significant reference to the overall problem of State Department emails. However, it had nothing to do with classified data or misconduct by any one specific official. Yes, I think there was some selective attention going on.


The overall report addressed numerous issues, not just the question of whether Hillary Clinton was a no good crook, but I think a lot of readers were especially interested in portions of the report that would have supported that narrative.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yes. That was the quote I had been looking for.

If that's it, then I claim that your claim is completely wrong:

The inadequacies of the State Department's email system were discussed in the report of the Inspector General on the subject.

It was not discussed in the report, but it was a quote from an anonymous policy director and used as anecdotal evidence that private email use was rampant in the department, not that the systems were antiquated.

 

[sunmaster14]

Thanks to TheL8Elvis, I won't have to worry about it.

In my recent skimming of the document, I was searching on the word "private", but the text referred to "home" email accounts instead of "private" ones.

You seem pretty well versed in the contents of that document. However, you didn't remember the specific comment the TheL8Elvis found, even though it was a pretty significant reference to the overall problem of State Department emails. However, it had nothing to do with classified data or misconduct by any one specific official. Yes, I think there was some selective attention going on.


The overall report addressed numerous issues, not just the question of whether Hillary Clinton was a no good crook, but I think a lot of readers were especially interested in portions of the report that would have supported that narrative.

Well, as I showed above, it simply is not evidence nor a discussion within, let alone a conclusion of, the OIG report. To say otherwise is dishonest.

 

[wareyin]

If that's it, then I claim that your claim is completely wrong:



It was not discussed in the report, but it was a quote from an anonymous policy director and used as anecdotal evidence that private email use was rampant in the department, not that the systems were antiquated.

Speaking of selective reading:

In another instance, in a June 3, 2011, email message to Secretary Clinton with the subject line “Google email hacking and woeful state of civilian technology,” a former Director of Policy Planning wrote: “State’s technology is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively.”

 

[Meadmaker]

And then there's this piece:

Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State.

Oh wait, that's not a performance issue, so it doesn't count.

And none of the other references would count.

And what counts is that Hillary is a bad person, and it's all her fault.

 

[sunmaster14]

And then there's this piece:




Oh wait, that's not a performance issue, so it doesn't count.

And none of the other references would count.

And what counts is that Hillary is a bad person, and it's all her fault.

I guess I was right not to hold my breath. Rigor Mortis would be setting in about now.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I guess I was right not to hold my breath. Rigor Mortis would be setting in about now.

It's still feigned outrage.

It's not (or at least, shouldn't be) in dispute that the state dept IT systems were a debacle, and that people used personal email and systems in order to get their work done effectively.

 

[sunmaster14]

It's still feigned outrage.

It's not (or at least, shouldn't be) in dispute that the state dept IT systems were a debacle, and that people used personal email and systems in order to get their work done effectively.

Once again, I ask for evidence of this. And I think it should go without saying, although I'll say it anyway, that an anonymous email to Hillary Clinton which is trying to emphasize a completely different point is rather thin as evidence goes.

 

[Tero]

Tens of thousands of emails sent by Hillary!

Let me take a guess what they find out after they read them all, including the missing ones: they will find that Hillary really was secretary of state. Though I blame the Libya thing on Obama.