Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[The Big Dog]

I'm done here. I think anyone that reads this will have the intelligence to know that you're just being ridiculous in hopes of not losing face.

I never said that deleting it was best practices. That's the dumbest interpretation someone could make. I said going from 30 days to 60 days isn't strange.

Anyway, if anyone else wants to have a real conversation instead of twisting things to try and win some internet points. I'll be around. This is 9/11 truther type stuff, and I have a limit on that.

Later Dog

Well, bye!

 

[NoahFence]

Do we know who Eric Hoteham is yet?

 

[NoahFence]

The heroes at Judicial watch are keeping Americans up to date and have released another tranche of documents from Hillary's cowboy server.

Are there classified documents? Oh you know there are

Are there work documents that Hillary did not turn over to State? Oh hells yes.

The documents included 97 email exchanges with Clinton not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 627 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over, and further contradicting a statement by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails had been turned over to department.

Thank you Judicial Watch!

Not to get off topic, but wouldn't it be prudent of us all to concentrate on the classified information our current administration divvies out like candy to foreign governments, rather than waste our time re-litigating everything a failed candidate may or may not have done during her time as Sec Of State?
I understand the obsession part, sort of. It's like a hobby or something.

But it should take a back seat to current affairs, no?

 

[The Big Dog]

Not to get off topic, but wouldn't it be prudent of us all to concentrate on the classified information our current administration divvies out like candy to foreign governments, rather than waste our time re-litigating everything a failed candidate may or may not have done during her time as Sec Of State?
I understand the obsession part, sort of. It's like a hobby or something.

But it should take a back seat to current affairs, no?

why not both?

I look forward to you starting a thread regarding such subject and it is my promise to you that I will add as much value to that thread as you have added here, on that you have my word!

 

[NoahFence]

why not both?

I look forward to you starting a thread regarding such subject and it is my promise to you that I will add as much value to that thread as you have added here, on that you have my word!

Well, one has already been done to death. Kept alive by people obsessed with all things Hillary only.

 

[GodMark2]

Not to get off topic, but wouldn't it be prudent of us all to concentrate on the classified information our current administration divvies out like candy to foreign governments, rather than waste our time re-litigating everything a failed candidate may or may not have done during her time as Sec Of State?
I understand the obsession part, sort of. It's like a hobby or something.

But it should take a back seat to current affairs, no?

Silly boy. It's not illegal when the president does it and admits he did it. It's only illegal when the secretary of state doesn't actually do it, but might have sorta maybe have done something that looks a bit similar but doesn't have any evidence for other than "well, she's shifty, ya know".

Can't you tell the difference?

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, one has already been done to death. Kept alive by people obsessed with all things Hillary only.

and their admirers, amiright??

 

[The Big Dog]

Silly boy. It's not illegal when the president does it and admits he did it. It's only illegal when the secretary of state doesn't actually do it, but might have sorta maybe have done something that looks a bit similar but doesn't have any evidence for other than "well, she's shifty, ya know".

Can't you tell the difference?

whataboutism ROCKS!!!!!!!!

whataboutism are so groovy
whataboutism are so tough
Every time that they're near me
I just can't get enough
whataboutism are so pretty
whataboutism are so sweet
whataboutism drive me crazy
Drive me indiscreet

 

[NoahFence]

Silly boy. It's not illegal when the president does it and admits he did it. It's only illegal when the secretary of state doesn't actually do it, but might have sorta maybe have done something that looks a bit similar but doesn't have any evidence for other than "well, she's shifty, ya know".

Can't you tell the difference?

Hawt Dawg!
I do get it. Clear as a pane of glass.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

Datto/Platte were contracted to do local backups/screenshots of the server. They were not contracted, requested, or told to put those backups from the local storage to cloud storage. That's where it became illegal. They took data that wasn't theirs and put it somewhere they shouldn't, and then held on to it without any permission at all. That's why they required Hillary (the end user) to give permission to turn it over. She could have fought it, and honestly, had a pretty good case.

Do you know who else took data that wasn't hers and put it somewhere she shouldn't, and then held on to it without any permission at all? Do ya?

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you know who else took data that wasn't hers and put it somewhere she shouldn't, and then held on to it without any permission at all? Do ya?

 

[plague311]

Do you know who else took data that wasn't hers and put it somewhere she shouldn't, and then held on to it without any permission at all? Do ya?

Every Secretary of State, and the majority of government employees previous to 2009?

In true Truther style, we're back to cherry picking single statements to try and score internet coolness points. Want me to walk circles around you like I did with The Big Dog too? Or will it probably continue to be arguing about petty semantics while trying to not to look and sound completely uneducated about a topic you know nothing at all about? A or B, you can pick. I already took The Big Dog for a walk, I can do the same with you.


...er wait, I mean. Sick burn bro. It totally doesn't ring hollow with you Trump guys.

 

[plague311]

Do you know who else took data that wasn't hers and put it somewhere she shouldn't, and then held on to it without any permission at all? Do ya?

Oh, sorry I mean:

It's teh HillzDawg dat onlee duz i t lozl sheez teh waurst

 

[The Big Dog]

Danth's law, huh? ....while personifying Danth's law, and being smug about it. Keep it up. You're a hoot.

Thanks to all those personifying Danth's law

Danth's Law: If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly.

Want me to walk circles around you like I did with The Big Dog too? ..... I already took The Big Dog for a walk, I can do the same with you.

laughing dog here! Oh mercy

 

[sunmaster14]

Every Secretary of State, and the majority of government employees previous to 2009?

No, that would be quite incorrect. Maybe Colin Powell was guilty of it to a very limited extent, but there has been no credible evidence that anybody else was.

In true Truther style, we're back to cherry picking single statements to try and score internet coolness points.

If I had a nickel for every internet point I've earned, I'd have a whole ******** of nickels. Regardless, I'm merely pointing out that you accused Datto of doing something illegal, when it was far more likely they unintentionally breached a contract. The likely result of a court action would be monetary damages paid to Clinton.

But in this thread, or earlier versions, you have insisted that Clinton did nothing illegal. How do you square those two claims? Either you need to retract your claim that Datto broke the law, or you need to admit that Clinton broke the law. Or you could continue to live with the contradiction and hypocrisy. I suppose that's the prerogative of a liberal these days.

Want me to walk circles around you like I did with The Big Dog too? Or will it probably continue to be arguing about petty semantics while trying to not to look and sound completely uneducated about a topic you know nothing at all about? A or B, you can pick. I already took The Big Dog for a walk, I can do the same with you.

Oh please don't. I'm afraid I would be thoroughly outgunned rhetorically by somebody working on his degree in IT from an esteemed college in North Dakota. I know it's not just a coincidence that North Dakota sits atop all of those other states.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh please don't. I'm afraid I would be thoroughly outgunned rhetorically by somebody working on his degree in IT from an esteemed college in North Dakota. I know it's not just a coincidence that North Dakota sits atop all of those other states.

https://youtu.be/6fIp-OuUAxU

 

[plague311]

No, that would be quite incorrect. Maybe Colin Powell was guilty of it to a very limited extent, but there has been no credible evidence that anybody else was.

Prove it, you're making a claim the no one other than Hillary (or possibly Powell) has done it. Back it up, I'll wait.

Regardless, I'm merely pointing out that you accused Datto of doing something illegal, when it was far more likely they unintentionally breached a contract.

It can be both, breaching a contract and illegal. Just letting you know that. Being a civil issue doesn't stop it from being illegal as well.

The likely result of a court action would be monetary damages paid to Clinton.

"Likely". Back to sunmasters "might be's, maybe's, could be's, and possiblies". Ok If that's what you're going to cling to, you knock yourself out.

But in this thread, or earlier versions, you have insisted that Clinton did nothing illegal.

Uh, not just me little buddy. You might remember the FBI saying something to the same effect. Maybe? No? Convenient.

How do you square those two claims? Either you need to retract your claim that Datto broke the law, or you need to admit that Clinton broke the law. Or you could continue to live with the contradiction and hypocrisy. I suppose that's the prerogative of a liberal these days.

Oooo you said "liberal", that makes you better than me!

Point out the contradiction, because there isn't one. There WAS no law at the time saying she was required to use the government servers, which has been pointed out in this thread numerous times. Just like the SOS before her didn't use it.

To flip that, there are laws and policies in place to protect people's data.

Oh please don't. I'm afraid I would be thoroughly outgunned rhetorically by somebody working on his degree in IT from an esteemed college in North Dakota. I know it's not just a coincidence that North Dakota sits atop all of those other states.

I'm not going to college in North Dakota fella. Nice ad hom on the colleges up here. Because we all know what a joke UND and NDSU are when it comes to education. UND doesn't have one of the best engineering courses available.

What a *********** joke LoL. Because I live here I have to go to school here? You should catch up with the times.

 

[The Big Dog]

It can be both, breaching a contract and illegal. Just letting you know that. Being a civil issue doesn't stop it from being illegal as well.

The suggestion that keeping a backup copy of data longer than a company was supposed to is "illegal' a/k/a criminal is unbelievably ridiculous and therefore hilarious!

 

[phiwum]

The server was not at fault. In fact, the server did its assigned task quite well, and calling it a cowboy does not denigrate its efforts. It is Hillary's fault for using a cowboy server for official correspondence, and even classified information. I think that is what TBD was getting at.

Also, I think Hillary's treatment of such an efficient and faithful server was atrocious. First, it had its memory wiped; then it was sent to the FBI to be torn apart. I hope, in the end, it got a proper burial at least.

Ignoring the second paragraph, yes, I agree that Clinton should not have used a private email server. It was a poor choice on her part, one likely influenced by a desire to have more control over her emails than indeed a government official ought to have. We might speculate over why she has this desire, but it really doesn't matter.

She used a private server. She shouldn't have done so. Far as I know, the private server was secure enough, but she shouldn'ta oughta had it.

 

[plague311]

The suggestion that keeping a backup copy of data longer than a company was supposed to is "illegal' a/k/a criminal is unbelievably ridiculous and therefore hilarious!

They didn't keep it longer than they should have fella. They shouldn't have made it at all. It shouldn't have existed. It's ridiculous because, much like everything else on this topic, you have 0 understanding of it at all. Even a little.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk