Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Grizzly Bear]

For clarification, I don't think this is some sort of great scandal. This is a tiny thing compared to undermining executive branch international negotiations for partisan political purposes.*

I hate agreeing, but I agree with this... there are non-partisan angles to the problems with this scandal, and while the attention to it has its merits, there's a point where too much media attention by partisan pundits makes this into a media circus.

My concerns with this thing aren't as much whether her server was "secure" or who her IT guys was so much as she broke policy. And part of that seems to be a lack of enforcement internally. I might blame her for exploiting that, and I may hold it against her in a national election, but the lack of defined enforcement and the issues it causes for basic govt. transparency requirements/obligations are more than just a "Hillary" problem. It's a general politics problem.

If anything gets lost in partisan noise that's probably it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited quote of moderated content

Wrong forum, Dave.

 

[The Big Dog]

Justice Department agrees to reopen court case due to Clinton email disclosures.

 

[The Big Dog]

Meh, nobody is wishing this wasn't a mess. Seriously, that you have to lump everyone who isn't "outraged" by this non-scandal into a "partisan Clinton supporter" does more harm to your point than good. As has been repeatedly pointed out, when even partisan witchhunters like Issa think this isn't a big deal, all the faux outrage in the world won't engage those who don't already hate/dislike Clinton.

Irony.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hillary Clinton visited Israel using unencrypted email in 2009.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

How do you visit anywhere with email, encrypted or not?

 

[DavidJames]

Hillary Clinton visited Israel using unencrypted email in 2009.

You have no evidence her email was encrypted.

 

[The Big Dog]

How do you visit anywhere with email, encrypted or not?

Hillary did it with a blackberry. A second one would have been inconvinient.



Thanks for the softball!

 

[The Big Dog]

You have no evidence her email was encrypted.

True

 

[The Big Dog]

ABC News is adding a little more detail regarding the fact that Hillary Clinton did not have her team of lawyers personally review all of the emails before she went ahead and destroyed them:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-team-decided-throw-31830-emails/story?id=29587746

ABC News better watch itself lest it become a "chew toy" for emoji wielding posters!

 

[sunmaster14]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited quote of moderated content

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited response to moderated content.

 

[DavidJames]

You have no evidence her email was encrypted.

True

Sigh, my typo.

Let's try again. You have no evidence her mail was encrypted.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sigh, my typo.

Let's try again. You have no evidence her mail was encrypted.

True

 

[DavidJames]

True

LOL -this is getting silly.

You have no evidence her email was not encrypted. (there, screw you spell check)

Edit - you would have got 25 Internet points had you answered the question both us knew I meant, your loss

 

[The Big Dog]

LOL -this is getting silly.

You have no evidence her email was not encrypted. (there, screw you spell check)

(emphasis added)

well it certainly never occurred to me that you would be asking anyone to prove a negative under the circumstances where:

1. Hillary has refused to allow independent experts to examine the server;

2. Hillary has refused to produce evidence that the server was encrypted;

3. Hillary refused to turn over electronic copies of the emails she did deign to produce;

4. Hillary withheld the production for over 2 years after she departed State, in violation of express rules regarding same;

5. Hillary destroyed over 50% of the emails without looking at them.

Hilary has the burden of proof, production and persuasion, and she has utterly failed to meet any of them.

 

[DavidJames]

(emphasis added)

well it certainly never occurred to me that you would be asking anyone to prove a negative under the circumstances where:

1. Hillary has refused to allow independent experts to examine the server;

2. Hillary has refused to produce evidence that the server was encrypted;

3. Hillary refused to turn over electronic copies of the emails she did deign to produce;

4. Hillary withheld the production for over 2 years after she departed State, in violation of express rules regarding same;

5. Hillary destroyed over 50% of the emails without looking at them.

Hilary has the burden of proof, production and persuasion, and she has utterly failed to meet any of them.

In other words your statement:

Hillary Clinton visited Israel using unencrypted email in 2009.

is conjecture, a guess, speculation and not supported by evidence,

Thanks for finally admitting that.

 

[The Big Dog]

In other words your statement:is conjecture, a guess, speculation and not supported by evidence,

Thanks for finally admitting that.

Please do not put words in my mouth.

It appears that you do not have a firm grasp on the related concepts of burden of proof in the law and in logic.

It is Hillary's burden, and anyone (such as yourself) who argues on her behalf to prove that the emails were encrypted. Hillary has not only failed to prove it, she has intentionally declared her intention to block anyone from investigating it.

Therefore, in logic and certainly in the law, her failure establishes the fact that they were not encrypted.

Simply denying it is not really a response at this point.

 

[DavidJames]

Please do not put words in my mouth.

It appears that you do not have a firm grasp on the related concepts of burden of proof in the law and in logic.

It is Hillary's burden, and anyone (such as yourself) who argues on her behalf to prove that the emails were encrypted. Hillary has not only failed to prove it, she has intentionally declared her intention to block anyone from investigating it.

Therefore, in logic and certainly in the law, her failure establishes the fact that they were not encrypted.

Simply denying it is not really a response at this point.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I'll do this one more time as it seems a difficult challenge for you. This is your claim

Hillary Clinton visited Israel using unencrypted email in 2009.

The burden of proof is on you. Please provide evidence of that claim.

It would be very simple for you to escape this and turn it around. Simply say, I'm sorry, I don't have any evidence for that claim. However, I would like to see evidence that HC was using encrypted email during that trip.

Are you able to do that?

 

[The Big Dog]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I'll do this one more time as it seems a difficult challenge for you. This is your claimThe burden of proof is on you. Please provide evidence of that claim.

I already have. In fact, I note that you do not (because you cannot) rebut any of the five points I have made. Further, the evidence shows that the first time a certificate was registered and encryption was put in place was AFTER the trip to Israel.

Furthermore, even if the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (which is not actually true) the burden has shifted irrevocably.

That is where we are, I understand that Hillary sycophants do not like it, yet will seemingly content themselves with the belief that Hillary has successfully immunized herself from "proof" by prohibiting access to the server and destroying emails.

 

[DavidJames]

I already have. In fact, I note that you do not (because you cannot) rebut any of the five points I have made

None of those points provide evidence of your claim.

That is where we are, I understand that Hillary sycophants do not like it, yet will seemingly content themselves with the belief that Hillary has successfully immunized herself from "proof" by prohibiting access to the server and destroying emails.

This emotional tirade is inappropriate in a skeptical forum. At no point have I expressed support for what she's done. In fact I've expressed disappointed. I've simply asked for evidence from you for your claim. It's clear you have only speculation. Have a Benghazi day.