Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is the kind of "story" that I wouldn't find problematic regardless of party affiliation.
There's no "there" here, it's sizzle with no steak.
 
logger said:
This is the Clintons, it is what they do. Whether she broke the law, time will tell. The point is the Clintons operate this way, they feel they are above the normal procedure of doing things. It will get much worse if she is nominated or elected. They are corrupt people and you libs know it.
Click to expand...

Actually as it turns out it's much more prevalent than just the Clintons. D's, R's and probably Independants do this as well.

At least if you're not in Congress - because they're exempt from reporting their emails. Funny that.
 
16.5 said:
Oh gee, Noahfence is angry we are talking about Hillary again, so is actively trying to another thread jack with a b-bu-bu-BUSH!

Say, Noah, your post is a false dichotomy. We can talk about both things!

Why don't you go post an Iraq war thread in...... History, and the rest of us will be there shortly.

Leave Hillary alone! Check!
Click to expand...

Angry about Hillary? Hardly. She ain't getting my vote. I'm not a fan of Hillary. I'm more of an enemy of stupidity.
 
Sherkeu said:
That is what this thread is about.

"But she isn't as bad as xxx" is just such a terrible argument. (Moral equivalence anyone?)
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that - I'm asking why the subject of this thread is more important than some other historical gaffes in an effort to understand it better.

It's all about context.
 
NoahFence said:
I'm not saying that - I'm asking why the subject of this thread is more important than some other historical gaffes in an effort to understand it better.

It's all about context.
Click to expand...

You want to understand it better? What changed? a couple of days ago you were saying:

"I'm sick to death of the constant barrage against Hillary."

In that "context" it would appear that your Bu-But-BUSH! was an intentional derail.

Ya see, It is all about the context.
 
logger said:
This is what I'm getting at.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414835/did-hillary-commit-felony-shannen-coffin
Click to expand...

apparently maintained on a server in the Clintons’ New York home.

links back to :
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b78b...-ran-homebrew-computer-system-official-emails

and also used a computer email server now traced back to her family's New York home.

I'm getting tired of seeing this quote interpreted as meaning the server was physically located in her house.

The domain name registrant used that physical address to register the domain name. It in no way implies that the server was physically located at that physical address.

ZERO evidence has been provided as to the servers actual physical location.

And as far as security:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/

There’s no evidence, of course, that Clintonemail.com was ever actually compromised. University of Pennsylvania computer science professor Matt Blaze says judging its security versus the State Department’s own email servers would require more information.

Because the only information we have is the registrar. And they tried to scare readers with some FUD:
nyone who hacked Network Solutions would be able to quietly hijack the Clintonemail.com domain, intercepting, redirecting, and even spoofing email from Clinton’s account.

Then they go one to list actual incidents with state.gove email.
But no evidence that anything actually happened to clintonemails.com.

So, to recap:

No matter where it was located (and we don't know where it was located) , HRCs cowboy/homebrew email server could easily have been more secure than state.govs email server. Without any evidence, it's difficult to say.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Really - you mean all those people she emailed during her entire tenure as secratary of state from @clintonemails ... and we just now realized she was using .gov addresss ?

No one realized it 2 years ago when “Guccifer” hacked blumenthals emails ?
<snip>
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
I find extremely odd the claim that no one knew the email address that they used to email Hillary, or that she replied to them with.
Click to expand...

Sherkeu said:
Very odd. Obama stated he didn't know either. Of course, he must have known but why say he did not?
<snip>
Click to expand...

Been waiting for a week for someone to reasonably explain how her email domain name was so unknown by everyone....
 
16.5 said:
You want to understand it better? What changed? a couple of days ago you were saying:

"I'm sick to death of the constant barrage against Hillary."

In that "context" it would appear that your Bu-But-BUSH! was an intentional derail.

Ya see, It is all about the context.
Click to expand...

Hillary is merely the subject. I believe if it were anyone else there wouldn't be the outrage, hence the comparison.
 
NoahFence said:
Hillary is merely the subject. I believe if it were anyone else there wouldn't be the outrage, hence the comparison.
Click to expand...

Well I'm sure there was a thread about the Bush White House email controversy right?

I'm sure avid readers will remember the outrage the conservatives had over that one.

The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million emails may have been lost or deleted.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove lost emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been deleted.[5]
Click to expand...

I'll go see if I can find the thread. May take awhile.
 
In catching up with this thread I would like to take responsibility for speaking incorrectly. While locking down is a term it wasn't used in the proper context in the report that 16.5 gave that I replied to, and in my haste I posted something that was incorrect. I apologize for that, and thank Omega for pointing out my error. I completely stand by everything else I have said in regards to this situation; however, I try to make factual posts. In this regards I made an error.

My point with the "can't delete emails" comment was\is still factual. Once anything is sent on the internet it leaves a "paper trail". The recipient gets a copy, it passes through any number of servers before getting to that recipient, etc. My clarification is even if Hillary had physical access to the server itself, deleting them off the server would not delete them in their entirety. I hope this clarification helps. I don't want to "smack of inexperience", especially in a field I work in, and have an education in.
 
What is the policy here? Are public officials now expected to release all of their emails for public review or when someone files a request? What that would mean is that they cannot transact any meaningful business by email, because all kinds of discussions entail a need for discretion. And the privacy considerations will invariably extend to many people, far beyond the individual under scrutiny.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
What is the policy here? Are public officials now expected to release all of their emails for public review or when someone files a request? What that would mean is that they cannot transact any meaningful business by email, because all kinds of discussions entail a need for discretion. And the privacy considerations will invariably extend to many people, far beyond the individual under scrutiny.
Click to expand...

The policy seems to be if you're thinking of running for President, and happen to be in the crosshairs of the right, you're required to release whatever they deem relevant. Or everything, whichever comes first.

If you don't fall into that category, you're all set.
 
NoahFence said:
The policy seems to be if you're thinking of running for President, and happen to be in the crosshairs of the right, you're required to release whatever they deem relevant. Or everything, whichever comes first.

If you don't fall into that category, you're all set.
Click to expand...

Not understanding the whole Freedom of Information Act, are we?

The cool news, tho, is that Hillary Clinton got around those pesky transparency in government principles by whipping up her own cowboy/homebrew server and then going mute about it for almost a week.
 
wareyin said:
As this was done by every Secretary of State before Hillary with the exception of one, where was the outrage when they all did the same?



Is it really reasonable to question why a Hillary did it, when every previous Secretary of State with the exception of one used personal email without anyone batting an eye? It seems to be grasping at straws, to me.



Indeed, a politician following the same standards as their predecessors with regard to personal email is obviously going to appear sneaky and cause controversy.
Click to expand...


Other conservatives have been attacked by the left for using outside email accounts. There is a thread here that I already linked to that shows this.

Hillary Clinton has her own private server that can be administered only by her or whatever aides she gave that permission to. If anybody wants or needs that information the request must go through her.

She has given no reason for having a private email server.

Some argue that the government run servers may be less secure than some private email services. This does not mean that hers was. If a government server is hacked, it's their problem and they are to blame. Why would she put that responsibility upon herself? It makes no sense that security has anything to do with it.

Convenience? There is nothing convenient about administering her own accounts when the government system that is already in place can handle that without a finger lifted from her.

Politically, how could she think this wouldn't be used against her?

What was her reason for wanting her own email server? So far she has said nothing. If she has a good explanation it would be easy for her to say so and fire back at her accusers.

The best reason I can think of for having a private server is that she wanted control over her email records, who could see them, and when. Why she would want that is anyone's guess, but I can't think of a valid reason for it.
 
mgidm86 said:
Other conservatives have been attacked by the left for using outside email accounts. There is a thread here that I already linked to that shows this.

Hillary Clinton has her own private server that can be administered only by her or whatever aides she gave that permission to. If anybody wants or needs that information the request must go through her.

She has given no reason for having a private email server.

Some argue that the government run servers may be less secure than some private email services. This does not mean that hers was. If a government server is hacked, it's their problem and they are to blame. Why would she put that responsibility upon herself? It makes no sense that security has anything to do with it.

Convenience? There is nothing convenient about administering her own accounts when the government system that is already in place can handle that without a finger lifted from her.

Politically, how could she think this wouldn't be used against her?

What was her reason for wanting her own email server? So far she has said nothing. If she has a good explanation it would be easy for her to say so and fire back at her accusers.

The best reason I can think of for having a private server is that she wanted control over her email records, who could see them, and when. Why she would want that is anyone's guess, but I can't think of a valid reason for it.
Click to expand...
Even though conservatives do it too, Hillary must have sinister motives for using personal email?
 
NoahFence said:
The policy seems to be if you're thinking of running for President, and happen to be in the crosshairs of the right, you're required to release whatever they deem relevant. Or everything, whichever comes first.
Click to expand...

Be sure everything is released in long form.
 
wareyin said:
Even though conservatives do it too, Hillary must have sinister motives for using personal email?
Click to expand...
You didn't read the part about her having her own private server? That is a big difference.

My point with the other thread was that the lefties here sure raised a storm about it when it was a conservative. Is there a double standard? Having your own server though brings it to new levels.



wareyin said:
Because, she is a Democrat, and her name is Hillary! Isn't that reason enough?
Click to expand...


So you have no answer. Nobody does.

We pay these idiots, Repub and Dem, to run our country and they are supposed to answer to us, not hide their deeds and information behind personal firewalls. "Transparency" was one of Obama's buzzwords with his campaign. With every administration, left or right, we are progressively being kept out of the loop.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom