DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Read the thread. Pretend it's a 9/11 thread and not devoted to nail a Democrat.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?
- Thread starter The Big Dog
- Start date
- Status
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Clinton Refuses to Schedule Separate Session to Discuss Emails
As avid readers of this thread know, the Select Committee to Investigate the Benghazi Attacks had requested that Clinton sit for two sessions, one devoted to the emails destruction and one related to the attacks and follow up.
Clinton has refused to sit for two sessions, apparently deciding to try to run out the clock on both investigations
The letter from Hillary's lawyer was released by her chief lap dog in the House, Elijah Cummings.
And Hillary said she was going to cooperate.
As avid readers of this thread know, the Select Committee to Investigate the Benghazi Attacks had requested that Clinton sit for two sessions, one devoted to the emails destruction and one related to the attacks and follow up.
Clinton has refused to sit for two sessions, apparently deciding to try to run out the clock on both investigations
The letter from Hillary's lawyer was released by her chief lap dog in the House, Elijah Cummings.
And Hillary said she was going to cooperate.
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
face palm.
Argument by bare assertion + Fallacious and specious labeling + switching the burden of proof =Hillary Clinton 2016!email conspiracy
You were so close .... (strikethrough and bold by me)
ETA: just to add, I would be happy to go through and give you examples where you have done all those things in this thread, if you would like ...
Last edited:
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
I see what you did there, while i was accurately describing the flaws in the post to which I was replying, you totally changed it by putting it through the Iamrubberyouareglue-itizer.
That is some next level skepticism.
Thanks for posting.
Any serious comment about the article I just posted?
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
As avid readers of this thread know, the Select Committee to Investigate the Benghazi Attacks had requested that Clinton sit for two sessions, one devoted to the emails destruction and one related to the attacks and follow up.
Clinton has refused to sit for two sessions, apparently deciding to try to run out the clock on both investigations
The letter from Hillary's lawyer was released by her chief lap dog in the House, Elijah Cummings.
And Hillary said she was going to cooperate.
"Respectfully, there is no basis, logic or precedent for such an unusual request," Kendall wrote. "The secretary is fully prepared to stay for the duration of the committee's questions on the day she appears."
The very definition of "non-cooperation"
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
"Respectfully, there is no basis, logic or precedent for such an unusual request," Kendall wrote. "The secretary is fully prepared to stay for the duration of the committee's questions on the day she appears."
The very definition of "non-cooperation"
You know that Kendall is her lawyer, and the reference to "duration" means she is going to run out the clock.
Curious that private citizen Clinton is dictating to Congress
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
Iamrubberyouareglueinator </phineasandferb>
It wasn't meant to be skepticism, but an accurate portrayal of your posts in this thread about some email conspiracy you seem to think exists.
You're welcome.
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
I know the former, but I am curious how you claim to know the latter ?
I am also curious how limiting her testimony to one session instead of two makes it possible to run out the clock in the former, but not the latter ?
Not so curious ... Congress works for the people, not vice-versa.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Oh Lord, she'll ******** and obfuscate and natter on and try to do it twice, we all know that, this will just make it harder, and she might actually let her guard down and some truth might accidentally slip out.
The People, not the Person (despite how unbelievably massive her IQ is)
Sherkeu
Illuminator
It's really all conjecture until Hillary speaks for herself.
If she was so confident that ALL of the relevant emails were turned over that she wiped them, and back-ups, clean, then she should be able to state that under oath. Of course, she wont because there's always the chance that her lawyers and aides missed a few. So maybe she could say THAT under oath. But she wont because there's a possibility that a chunk of them were accidentally deleted in the process of going through them. and on and on...
Then the question could go...So then, Hillary, why did you delete them and wipe it clean if you weren't super sure you got them all? Why not keep a single digital copy just in case? Did you know the info in them was the focus of several FOIA requests and investigations?
I think this all leads up to exposing emails that she did not turn over that subsequently surfaced elsewhere. Anyone else think Gowdy must have some of them? Perhaps a lot of them? If not, the whole thing is rather pointless.
She wont fall for the "under oath" trap but she will look bad for not doing it.
I'd still like to know how she sent and received classified info "conveniently" if she didnt do any of it on her email. Seems it would require another device or another person. Would also be good to know how many were sent vs received. That might explain why so many were personal if she was just receiving stuff (like for Chelseas wedding). Too bad she just won't answer some simple questions and we could move on!
If she was so confident that ALL of the relevant emails were turned over that she wiped them, and back-ups, clean, then she should be able to state that under oath. Of course, she wont because there's always the chance that her lawyers and aides missed a few. So maybe she could say THAT under oath. But she wont because there's a possibility that a chunk of them were accidentally deleted in the process of going through them. and on and on...
Then the question could go...So then, Hillary, why did you delete them and wipe it clean if you weren't super sure you got them all? Why not keep a single digital copy just in case? Did you know the info in them was the focus of several FOIA requests and investigations?
I think this all leads up to exposing emails that she did not turn over that subsequently surfaced elsewhere. Anyone else think Gowdy must have some of them? Perhaps a lot of them? If not, the whole thing is rather pointless.
She wont fall for the "under oath" trap but she will look bad for not doing it.
I'd still like to know how she sent and received classified info "conveniently" if she didnt do any of it on her email. Seems it would require another device or another person. Would also be good to know how many were sent vs received. That might explain why so many were personal if she was just receiving stuff (like for Chelseas wedding). Too bad she just won't answer some simple questions and we could move on!
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
You think getting answers to questions will stop the GOP outrage machine? How many Benghazi investigations have we had? Eight? And they're still trying to get that particular piece of poo to stick to the wall...
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
I've mentioned this at least half a dozen times...
the reason why the select committee was created was because it was discovered that the Administration was improperly withholding evidence (the Rhodes memo). Now we have discovered that the State Department withheld evidence (the Clinton emails) and that Hillary is refusing to turn over other evidence (the emails she destroyed and the server).
This is despite numerous representations that they were cooperating and had turned over everything.
The ARB documents were just turned over last week. 4000 pages that were never seen before by any committee. Last week jhunter. You knew that right?
Sure, blame "Republicans" not the people with sneering contempt for governmental transparency.
Oh yeah, Hillary's foundation filed false tax returns. No biggee
Hillary 2016!
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
Well, DavidJames gave the correct answer, so why press for an answer from me?
But to flesh that out a bit, from wikipedia:Conspiracy theoryWP
"A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful."
Two or more persons are the Clintons, and Eric Hoteham/Hothem and possibly "Obama's DoJ", having caused...well, we don't really know yet, but they covered it up, through secret planning (and secret spy networks!) and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal (according to sunmaster14) or harmful (according to 16.5).
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
Thank you for.........that.
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
My vote is for he has none, and it's rather pointless.
Doubt it. I think she'll have pretty solid answers, unless they have something more surprising.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
You noticed that is pretty close to the legal definition definition of conspiracy too, huh?
Not sure why he bothers....
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
I agree that he probably has none, but it's not pointless. The point is to keep smearing Clinton, to keep her name tied to some sleazy, sinister, but unproven allegation enough that they sway the independents. So far, it has not hurt her in the polls, and only energized those that already hate her and get excited at any trivial thing against her (like not tipping at a fast food restaurant). The hope appears to be that if they just keep doing it, it will stop failing and start working, any day now! Just like most conservative ideas, it seems.
Any day now!
Any
day
now
any?
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
let's not forget these common techniques:
Assume the perp is both deviously smart and yet does incredibly stupid things
Assumes missing "evidence" proves guilt.
Makes conspiratorial connections based on family or business relationships
Coins "clever" terms for common things
Gish Gallops when cornered
Every move the perp makes becomes part of the conspiracy
Connects random events, adding significance to bolster the conspiracy
Regularly posts "related" news to support the truth will soon emerge.
For starters.
Last edited:
- Status