Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

Clinton's lawyer has stated there's no evidence a breach occurred. But her campaign declined to provide NPR with any details about how the server was protected.

Aitel says Clinton's server was more vulnerable to attack than ones in the State Department because the private server didn't have access to a major federal program called Einstein. It can't stop all attacks, but the cyber-defense effort has blocked a lot of them by looking for intrusions and sending alerts to public agencies.

"There's reasons you don't hire FedEx to move your top secret material around. They don't have the capability to protect it," Aitel says.

The conclusion, given all the hacks that have taken place: "the next president needs to understand cybersecurity issues, not shrug at the difference between deleting and wiping."

And LORD KNOWS that ain't Hillary!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/state-department-hack-worst-ever/

Federal law enforcement, intelligence and congressional officials briefed on the investigation say the hack of the State email system is the "worst ever" cyberattack intrusion against a federal agency. The attackers who breached State are also believed to be behind hacks on the White House's email system, and against several other federal agencies, the officials say.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/u...s-unclassified-emails-officials-say.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — Some of President Obama’s email correspondence was swept up by Russian hackers last year in a breach of the White House’s unclassified computer system that was far more intrusive and worrisome than has been publicly acknowledged, according to senior American officials briefed on the investigation.

But yeah, let's pretend it was Hillary who potentially cost us billions of dollars

This the new talking point? Hillary is off the hook because we can't put a dollar figure on her lies?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This the new talking point? Hillary is off the hook because we can't put a dollar figure on her lies?

Since I said nothing resembling that, no.

 

[The Big Dog]

Since this is all so obvious, it should be easy to enumerate the real costs we paid in US assets, investments & lives directly attributed to having a private email server. So can you do that please ?

\

But yeah, let's pretend it was Hillary who potentially cost us billions of dollars

Since I said nothing resembling that, no.

'k.

 

[NoahFence]

So who's Eric Hoteham?

 

[Mike!]

Need to work on that anger, maybe less caffeine?

I understand why you would be so angry at your Hero Shillary! She screwed the pooch on knowing anything about the internet, servers, etc...
Or did she?

They need to just get it over with.
http://assets.amuniversal.com/39313ae0281e0133ff04005056a9545d

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, who cares if Clinton can't be bothered to put national security above personal convenience. "No scandal here, derp, derp."

Which didn't happen.

 

[The Big Dog]

Which didn't happen.

Of course it did, she admitted it. Sure it was not true (she did it because of her sneering contempt of governmental transparency)

I'm not sure this is any better, tho:

Yeah, who cares if Clinton can't be bothered to put national security above her sneering contempt of governmental transparency.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Clinton usually gets flack from the left because she voted for the war. I disagree. At the time, nobody realized that Cheney was leading a shadow government that had pulled the case for war out of their ass. I tend to think it is patriotic when a politician overcomes partisan proclivities and supports the president in these kind of situations.

Actually, a lot of people realized it. I think Clinton caved to the public sentiment about the 911 attacks and the Pascal's Wager problem, what if Cheney was right.

But it comes down to nobody's perfect, how bad was that vote given the circumstances and who is the best candidate now.

Secondly, I think it's pretty reasonable to compare the massive disaster of the Iraq war with this little kerfuffle and think this is pretty small potatoes. The Bush administration not only got the country involved in a war under false pretenses, it proceeded to treat the occupation like some giant pork barrel project. While Iraq floundered with unemployed people the US embarked on contracting with giant crony corporations for massive blivets that Iraq didn't need constructed with highly paid Americans instead of the much cheaper local Iraqis who desperately needed jobs as part of the effort to stabilize the country.

This was corruption on the highest scale and the consequences of it will continue to cost Americans for generations to come.

The consequences of Clinton's email scandal are of the tiniest import compared to that.

Although, it would be nice to be able to dismiss the missteps by Clinton as much ado about nothing as many partisans do. Unfortunately the facts of the situation don't allow for such an easy dismissal of this scandal. The problem is that there are no explanations for the scandal that don't involve substantial arrogance, incompetence and perhaps corruption on the part of Clinton.And while the consequences of this scandal are tiny compared to the actions of the Bush administration with regard to the Iraq war it isn't clear to me that the arrogance, incompetence and corruption that Clinton displayed with regard to this scandal won't cause much worse problems if she actually becomes president. Something very bad went on inside the Clinton camp with regard to the decision making that led to the scandal and the decision making as the scandal unfolded and nobody on the inside is talking right now about how the decisions got made that led to this mess, but however it happened Clinton is the one that is ultimately responsible.

Arrogance implies you know Clinton's motives. If not being transparent is arrogant, incompetent and corrupt, it's a rare legislator that doesn't apply to.

It's perfectly understandable Clinton technically acted within the law to be less transparent than we'd like our government to be. Given the history of harassment of the Clintons, it's not so hard to understand.

Her excuse was probably the most incompetent action taken here.

If it wasn't this 'scandal' the right wing would have drummed up another one.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Snerk! If it is, why don't you start with the costs associated with the dozens of lawsuits that were filed due to Hillary's cowboy server, and the costs associated with hundreds of FOIA requests that were answered falsely due to her connivance.

Further, how the hell does one put a price on Hillary's lies?

Hillary Clinton is a congenital liar, the same is true today as it was the "last century" when it was first written.

Lawsuits filed? You mean the FOIA requests?

What costs would those be that aren't a fraction of the money wasted endlessly investigating Benghazi?

 

[The Big Dog]

Lawsuits filed? You mean the FOIA requests?

What costs would those be that aren't a fraction of the money wasted endlessly investigating Benghazi?

Yes, skeptic ginger, the dozens of lawsuits filed which have been mentioned repeatedly in this thread.

 

[wareyin]

Evidence that they were "frivolous lawsuits."

protip: Gawker, the AP and a host of other entities have filed FOIA lawsuits and Courts have entered orders granting relief including the rolling production of emails that avid readers of this thread are very familiar with.

I understand that you are a big, big fan of Hillary but please try not to give out bad information.

Wait, now evidence matters to you? After how many pages of evidence free accusations made by the GOPers?

Any indictments, yet? Any relevant official statement of wrongdoing by Clinton, yet? Oh, right, no evidence.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

At the time, nobody realized that Cheney was leading a shadow government that had pulled the case for war out of their ass.

Pffft. Talk about a whopper.

But I understand the strategy. Back then we were demonized as terrorist sympathizers and shouted down by the bloodlusting empire-mongers of both parties. That's the one thing both parties agree on.

So after we were demonized and bullied, some within government to the extent of ending or ruining their careers, we are told now by the people who demonized us that we did not even exist. They pretend not to be the people who shouted us down before.

They can't say we were right. That would mean saying we are right now too - with not only Iraq but with Libya, Syria, and dozens of other countries where we are "projecting power", regime-changing, and empire building.

Both parties, as usual, need to conceal their own bad character with Benghazi and the emails, both related.

The republicans need to conceal their whole-hearted support for the overthrow of Assad in Syria by funneling arms through Benghazi to Syrian rebels. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey were all involved and the major result was that incredible sweep of ISIS across Syria and Iraq where they accumulated a staggering arsenal of US heavy weapons.

So these emails Clinton is concealing have, among other things, data pertaining to assisting Al Qaeda in Libya and then later using the same people to arm what is now called ISIS in Syria/Iraq.

Republicans and Democrats alike need to conceal their role in this continuing series of catastrophic foreign policy disasters - McCain personally met with what became ISIS commanders in order to arrange money and equipment transfers. They did just what democrats and republicans alike wanted: jihadis fighting Assad. What could go wrong?

Sure, no doubt all of these war criminals are evading scrutiny by their employers (we, the people) with private servers, cell phones, and whatnot. Right now Clinton is the one under scrutiny and I am all for making every email public ASAP so we can demonstrate the kind of lying crooks we have in both parties running our government.

 

[shuize]

Which didn't happen.

Clinton chose personal convenience over national security when she set up an unsecure, cowboy server and then used it to conduct business as Secretary of State.

As I mentioned above, when I asked a friend working in the State Department what would happen to him if he did the same, he was unequivocal: "Prison."

 

[Dog Town]

Yes, skeptic ginger, the dozens of lawsuits filed which have been mentioned repeatedly in this thread.

It's almost as if some people have no idea what they are talking about, much less defending!

 

[The Big Dog]

Wait, now evidence matters to you? After how many pages of evidence free accusations made by the GOPers?

Any indictments, yet? Any relevant official statement of wrongdoing by Clinton, yet? Oh, right, no evidence.

you gave bad, completely uninformed information, got caught and are trying to make me the bad guy by wildly moving the goalposts?



No indictment yet, her aide is taking the 5th tomorrow tho.

I know, we know, Hilary 2016, Not a Convicted Felon Yet.

 

[wareyin]

you gave bad, completely uninformed information, got caught and are trying to make me the bad guy by wildly moving the goalposts?



No indictment yet, her aide is taking the 5th tomorrow tho.

I know, we know, Hilary 2016, Not a Convicted Felon Yet.

Bad, completely uninformed information, such as all the accusations made against Clinton in this thread, including those by you?

I know, you know, no chance of an indictment. The best you can do is falsely imply give bad, completely uninformed information that one is coming.

 

[Dog Town]

you gave bad, completely uninformed information, got caught and are trying to make me the bad guy by wildly moving the goalposts?



No indictment yet, her aide is taking the 5th tomorrow tho.

I know, we know, Hilary 2016, Not a Convicted Felon Yet.

 

[The Big Dog]

Bad, completely uninformed information, such as all the accusations made against Clinton in this thread, including those by you?

I know, you know, no chance of an indictment. The best you can do is falsely imply give bad, completely uninformed information that one is coming.

I'm guessing you are not going to provide evidence of your claim that the lawsuits were frivolous and that rather than doing that you are going to brag that she has not been indicted, yet?

Check.

 

[wareyin]

I'm guessing you are not going to provide evidence of your claim that the lawsuits were frivolous and that rather than doing that you are going to brag that she has not been indicted, yet?

Check.

Are you going to cling to the lawsuits not having been dismissed yet?

Frivolous lawsuits not dismissed yet. Check.

 

[The Big Dog]

Are you going to cling to the lawsuits not having been dismissed yet?

Frivolous lawsuits not dismissed yet. Check.

Yeah, you were supposed to show that they were frivolous, wareyin, something that you have singularly failed to do.

In fact, wareyin, the evidence posted in this thread repeatedly is that courts have ordered relief to the plaintiffs, including requiring the rolling production of documents from Hillary's cowboy server. I know you don't know what that means.