Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Ziggurat]

That doesn't really address my point, and it's also an argument from incredulity.

Whether she got lots of classified emails, or whether she got lots of emails that had classified material, or whether she got lots of emails that had material that someone is now deciding should have been classifeid is still all rather up in the air.

First off, you're behind the times: there was email on her server that was classified at the time that information was created. So that material should never have been on her server at all. Second, the distinction you make between classified emails and emails with classified material is not relevant here.

Third, if your best defense of Hillary is that she's not a criminal, she just surrounds herself with criminals, well, that may be enough to keep her out of jail, but if you don't get why this should disqualify her from ever touching sensitive information again, then I can only conclude that you just don't care about national security.

The post-scandal handling of this was claiming there was no classified data and turning over a copy of it to her attorney. I don't think that casual disregard for security is a valid descriptor of events. YMMV.

Yes, actually, it is a valid descriptor, because the material her attorney had did in fact contain classified data, and he was not authorized to take custody of such classified data. The fact that Hillary falsely claimed there was no classified data in those emails when in fact there was doesn't absolve her, it damns her.

 

[Ziggurat]

So what you are saying is you were wrong, and it was never in the bathroom ?

Thanks, though - I just skimmed the article, it being the daily mail and all.

Usually when people don't understand facts because they don't read a source, they don't brag about that.

 

[The Big Dog]

The post-scandal handling of this was claiming there was no classified data and turning over a copy of it to her attorney. I don't think that casual disregard for security is a valid descriptor of events. YMMV.

I agree, it was an arrogant disregard for security.

 

[Beeyon]

To be fair, Zigs original statement could easily be interpreted as suggesting that Clinton's server was in a bathroom. To me the daily mail article clearly states that the management firm's servers were in a bathroom, not that Clinton's personal sever was in a bathroom.

I do not know enough about networking to know if that suggests that materials were routed through the bathroom sever or not. I'd appreciate a source supporting either conclusion.

It does make the firm sound unprofessional (a fact that woukd probably be of relevance in a negligence determination) but that's not necessarily a great indicator of quality when working with IT-types.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

First off, you're behind the times: there was email on her server that was classified at the time that information was created. So that material should never have been on her server at all. Second, the distinction you make between classified emails and emails with classified material is not relevant here..

I'm not behind the times. There are 2 emails. You emphasized lots. It remains to be seen if there are lots

And they shouldn't have been on her server, because they never should have left the classified network and been sent to her. Which goes to my point about the culpability of having someone else send you something that they stripped the classified markings from and sent to you on a non-classified network.

Third, if your best defense of Hillary is that she's not a criminal, she just surrounds herself with criminals, well, that may be enough to keep her out of jail, but if you don't get why this should disqualify her from ever touching sensitive information again, then I can only conclude that you just don't care about national security.

Again, not what I consider an accurate characterization of events.

As far as caring about national security .... meh ... I'm awaiting any evidence that this had any impact whatsoever on national security.

ZOMG your attorney saw a secret spy picture from 6 years ago !!!1!!

Yes, actually, it is a valid descriptor, because the material her attorney had did in fact contain classified data, and he was not authorized to take custody of such classified data. The fact that Hillary falsely claimed there was no classified data in those emails when in fact there was doesn't absolve her, it damns her.

So intent has no place in this discussion, I see.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

To be fair, Zigs original statement could easily be interpreted as suggesting that Clinton's server was in a bathroom.

Only because that's what he claimed:

Of course there's no evidence her server was hacked, because nobody has checked whether her server was hacked. And how much security do you actually expect on a system set up literally in a bathroom closet?

To me the daily mail article clearly states that the management firm's servers were in a bathroom, not that Clinton's personal sever was in a bathroom.

That's what I thought I read too.

I do not know enough about networking to know if that suggests that materials were routed through the bathroom sever or not. I'd appreciate a source supporting either conclusion.

I do, and they were not. As for a source, that's simply not how the Internet works.

It does make the firm sound unprofessional (a fact that woukd probably be of relevance in a negligence determination) but that's not necessarily a great indicator of quality when working with IT-types.

I can't see how the physical location being in a bathroom is relevant. *shrugs*

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Usually when people don't understand facts because they don't read a source, they don't brag about that.

It still doesn't say what you claimed it said.

 

[mgidm86]

To be fair, Zigs original statement could easily be interpreted as suggesting that Clinton's server was in a bathroom. To me the daily mail article clearly states that the management firm's servers were in a bathroom, not that Clinton's personal sever was in a bathroom.

I do not know enough about networking to know if that suggests that materials were routed through the bathroom sever or not. I'd appreciate a source supporting either conclusion.

It does make the firm sound unprofessional (a fact that woukd probably be of relevance in a negligence determination) but that's not necessarily a great indicator of quality when working with IT-types.

The companies servers would be the servers that are used for their clients...this all assumes that the Daily Mail article is factual...

The IT company Hilary Clinton chose to maintain her private email account was run from a loft apartment and its servers were housed in the bathroom closet, Daily Mail Online can reveal.

She would not bring her own physical server to them, she probably transferred her account from her own server to them.

One, Tera Dadiotis, called it 'a mom and pop shop' which was an excellent place to work, but hardly seemed likely to be used to secure state secrets. And Tom Welch, who helped found the company, confirmed the servers were in a bathroom closet.

'At the time I worked for them they wouldn't have been equipped to work for Hilary Clinton because I don't think they had the resources, they were based out of a loft, so [it was] not very high security, we didn't even have an alarm.

​

'I don't know how they run their operation now, but we literally had our server racks in the bathroom. I mean knowing how small Platte River Networks... I don't see how that would be secure [enough for Clinton].'

If this is all true it would constitute an amazing amount of negligence and stupidity. Unbelievable.

ETA: It is pretty clear that all of the companies servers were in a bathroom close, but even if the weren't in the actual bathroom, they were still in a highly unsecure location - according to the article which names multiple sources from within the company.
​

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not behind the times. There are 2 emails.

No, there are not just 2 emails. You just proved that you are indeed behind the times.

ETA: I think I misinterpreted you. If you're saying that only 2 emails so far are known to have been classified when they were created, yes, but people can get thrown in jail for just 1. Since only a fraction of her emails have been examined for classified material, this number is sure to rise. And it's not like we know all the other emails which contain classified information were only classified after the fact.

You emphasized lots. It remains to be seen if there are lots

The number will end up in the hundreds before this is over.

And they shouldn't have been on her server, because they never should have left the classified network and been sent to her. Which goes to my point about the culpability of having someone else send you something that they stripped the classified markings from and sent to you on a non-classified network.

Sticking with the defense that she's simply surrounded herself with criminals, I see.

As far as caring about national security .... meh ... I'm awaiting any evidence that this had any impact whatsoever on national security.

Classified material is classified for a reason. Improper handling of classified material can be a crime regardless of whether or not that does any harm. Just ask Petraeus. And it's a crime regardless of actual harm because of the potential for harm. Whether or not any harm was actually done (and you have no way to know that it wasn't), it is an absolute certainty that Hillary's actions created an unacceptable potential for harm.

ZOMG your attorney saw a secret spy picture from 6 years ago !!!1!!

Again, there are rules in place, and you have to follow the rules. Hillary didn't.

So intent has no place in this discussion, I see.

Of course it does. Hillary intended to hide her emails from her own government. Hillary intended to cover up what actually happened.

But intent is not the only thing that matters. It also matters that she did, in fact, break the rules. It matters that she is either a criminal herself, or has surrounded herself with criminals.

 

[mgidm86]

I can't see how the physical location being in a bathroom is relevant. *shrugs*

In a bathroom which is in a loft apartment, without so much as an alarm system. This does not seem like an appropriate location for government email, but maybe you didn't read the whole article. I wouldn't even want my own stupid little website at their place, what a joke.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

In a bathroom which is in a loft apartment, without so much as an alarm system. This does not seem like an appropriate location for government email, but maybe you didn't read the whole article. I wouldn't even want my own stupid little website at their place, what a joke.

I read the article.
Describing it as 'a great place to work, but kind of like a mom and pop shop', Tera reacted with disbelief that her former company was hired to manage the email system of Democratic juggernaut Hilary Clinton.

Manage != HOST

They were also talking to:
"spoke to former employees of the firm, including Tera Dadiotis, who was a customer relations consultant between 2007 and 2010."
"...I don't know how they run their operation now,..."
"Platte River Networks provided its services in mid-2013 according to Barbara Wells, the company's lawyer."

So - daily mail got thier info from someone who doesn't currently work there, and had last worked there 3 years prior. Reliable

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, there are not just 2 emails. You just proved that you are indeed behind the times.

ETA: I think I misinterpreted you. If you're saying that only 2 emails so far are known to have been classified when they were created, yes, but people can get thrown in jail for just 1. Since only a fraction of her emails have been examined for classified material, this number is sure to rise. And it's not like we know all the other emails which contain classified information were only classified after the fact.

The number will end up in the hundreds before this is over.

Yes, now we are on the same page. It may grow, it may not. We'll see.

Sticking with the defense that she's simply surrounded herself with criminals, I see.

Sure. Because she was SOS, any employee state dept who broke the law makes the claim " surrounded herself with criminals" true. And it makes it useless for deriving information from.

Classified material is classified for a reason. Improper handling of classified material can be a crime regardless of whether or not that does any harm. Just ask Petraeus. And it's a crime regardless of actual harm because of the potential for harm. Whether or not any harm was actually done (and you have no way to know that it wasn't), it is an absolute certainty that Hillary's actions created an unacceptable potential for harm.

Again, there are rules in place, and you have to follow the rules. Hillary didn't.

Sometime material is classified just because. Inertia, bureaucracy, etc. And none of us will likely know the actual impact, if any.

If there were rules she didn't follow, I am sure she will be reprimanded.

Of course it does. Hillary intended to hide her emails from her own government. Hillary intended to cover up what actually happened.

But intent is not the only thing that matters. It also matters that she did, in fact, break the rules. It matters that she is either a criminal herself, or has surrounded herself with criminals.

Out of curiosity, are there candidate who you think haven't broken rules, or surrounded themselves with criminals ?

 

[mgidm86]

I read the article.
Describing it as 'a great place to work, but kind of like a mom and pop shop', Tera reacted with disbelief that her former company was hired to manage the email system of Democratic juggernaut Hilary Clinton.

Manage != HOST

They were also talking to:
"spoke to former employees of the firm, including Tera Dadiotis, who was a customer relations consultant between 2007 and 2010."
"...I don't know how they run their operation now,..."
"Platte River Networks provided its services in mid-2013 according to Barbara Wells, the company's lawyer."

So - daily mail got thier info from someone who doesn't currenlty work there, and had last worked there 3 years prior. Reliable

They were, according to the article, operating out of the same location until 2015.

Founded in 2002 by entrepreneurs Treve Suazo, Brent Allshouse and Tom Welch, Platte River Networks worked out of a 1,858 square feet loft apartment in downtown Denver up until this earlier year when they moved to a much bigger 12,000 sq.ft space.

Up until this time, the company operated out of an apartment. Typically, a company like this would manage someone's email account on there own servers, which were located in the apartment.

And Tom Welch, who helped found the company, confirmed the servers were in a bathroom closet.

I will admit I can't prove that her email was there, but it is extremely unlikely that they would "manage her email" anywhere else but on their own servers. Nothing in the article suggests otherwise. I'm sure more facts will come soon.

 

[mgidm86]

I will concede that it is possible they were hired to build a server at another location. Not saying they did, but there is room for that possibility in the article:

Defending his ex-employers from criticism, Zimmerman added: 'I'm sure they didn't do anything wrong. They didn't write the emails, they didn't make the choice to tell her she was going to use that email server. They were just turning the wrenches... you make it as secure as possible.


'If she did stupid stuff on the email and sent out classified information, that's all on her, Platte River can't control what she does with it. In the end they can only build something to her requirements.

​

 

[Ziggurat]

I read the article.
Describing it as 'a great place to work, but kind of like a mom and pop shop', Tera reacted with disbelief that her former company was hired to manage the email system of Democratic juggernaut Hilary Clinton.

Manage != HOST

Except that they did host it. The old server which used to host the emails was warehoused, and Platte River took over hosting. The fact that a journalist isn't distinguishing between hosting and managing isn't relevant.

They were also talking to:
"spoke to former employees of the firm, including Tera Dadiotis, who was a customer relations consultant between 2007 and 2010."
"...I don't know how they run their operation now,..."
"Platte River Networks provided its services in mid-2013 according to Barbara Wells, the company's lawyer."

So - daily mail got thier info from someone who doesn't currenlty work there, and had last worked there 3 years prior. Reliable

That's not the only person they talked to or quoted. Which you would know if you actually read the article, instead of stopping at the first thing which you thought might discredit me.

"Jim Zimmerman, another ex-employee recalled the company being secretive about acquiring Clinton as a client."

That indicates Zimmerman was still an employee when Clinton became a client.

 

[Ziggurat]

Out of curiosity, are there candidate who you think haven't broken rules, or surrounded themselves with criminals ?

I would say most candidates don't surround themselves with criminals to the extent that Hillary does. For example, Bernie Sanders.

This email stuff isn't a conspiracy to get Hillary. It is a scandal entirely of her own making, and entirely her own fault. And it will get worse. And if she ever gets elected President, this is exactly the sort of stuff we can expect from her while in office, because this is who she is, and this is what she does.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Except that they did host it. The old server which used to host the emails was warehoused, and Platte River took over hosting. The fact that a journalist isn't distinguishing between hosting and managing isn't relevant.

It is relevant, because we only know what the journalist told us. Or do you have another source ?

"The IT company Hilary Clinton chose to maintain her private email account"

To me, the words manage and maintain do not mean host. There is nothing in the article that leads me to believe her email was being run from their servers.

HELL, even the title says:
"Hillary's email firm was run from a loft apartment with its servers in the BATHROOM"
(bolding mine)

It's pretty clear their job was as stated - managing the server.

I'm glad we settled that.

That's not the only person they talked to or quoted. Which you would know if you actually read the article, instead of stopping at the first thing which you thought might discredit me.

It's the only one they talked to about physical security, and quoted about security.

I'm not sure why you keep thinking I haven't subsequently read the article, because I have.

"Jim Zimmerman, another ex-employee recalled the company being secretive about acquiring Clinton as a client."

That indicates Zimmerman was still an employee when Clinton became a client.

And he just talked about how they may have acquired the contract, not about where they kep the servers. How is what he said germane to the conversation ?

ETA: Is this the quote of contention ??:
June 2013 – Hillary's team shifts control of the email domain to an outside IT contractor in Denver called Platte River Networks, and sends the original server hardware to a data center facility in New Jersey, where it is erased

Are you reading that to say the original server was both sent to NJ and erased in 2013, therefor after 2013 until some point in time, Platte River Networks controlled and hosted her email domain ?

 

[JohnnyG]

It is relevant, because we only know what the journalist told us. Or do you have another source ?

"The IT company Hilary Clinton chose to maintain her private email account"

To me, the words manage and maintain do not mean host. There is nothing in the article that leads me to believe her email was being run from their servers.

HELL, even the title says:
"Hillary's email firm was run from a loft apartment with its servers in the BATHROOM"
(bolding mine)

It's pretty clear their job was as stated - managing the server.

That would be even worse. If PRN were only hosting the email accounts, they might not have access to the emails stored in the server. However, if they were managing the mail server on HC owned hardware, they would have to have been given administrator access. I think the intelligence community would frown on someone without clearance having administrator access to anything they send to the Secretary of State.

 

[logger]

I can't see how the physical location being in a bathroom is relevant. *shrugs*

Because it shows she doesn't give a crap about security.

Leftist need to stop trying to polish this turd, just flush it down.

 

[mgidm86]

That would be even worse. If PRN were only hosting the email accounts, they might not have access to the emails stored in the server. However, if they were managing the mail server on HC owned hardware, they would have to have been given administrator access. I think the intelligence community would frown on someone without clearance having administrator access to anything they send to the Secretary of State.

Exactly, I was going to mention the same thing (this stuff gives me a headache though). If they are administering the account remotely at all, that is a pretty weak link in the chain of security. Even if they do it all onsite...oh man what a stupid thing to do.

With or without the "bathroom servers", why did she go through all this trouble just to have her own setup? I mean why not use the government server that is available with no cost or maintenance involved? It's either really stupid, really devious, or both. There has been no explanation other than the "two devices" excuse.