• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
Because Obama vetoed Blumenthal's appointment to the State department.

Look it up, I am very busy reading her emails.
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain why it matters that he sent her emails, or that she distributed information that came from him.

That doesn't explain why it matters that she sent emails with SBU information.

If you claim it matters, it's on you to explain why. *shrugs*
 
TheL8Elvis said:
That doesn't explain why it matters that he sent her emails, or that she distributed information that came from him.

That doesn't explain why it matters that she sent emails with SBU information.

If you claim it matters, it's on you to explain why. *shrugs*
Click to expand...

Not really, I can only lead a horse to water
 
TheL8Elvis said:
That doesn't explain why it matters that he sent her emails, or that she distributed information that came from him.

That doesn't explain why it matters that she sent emails with SBU information.

If you claim it matters, it's on you to explain why. *shrugs*
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
Not really, I can only lead a horse to water
Click to expand...

In other words, he's going to reverse the burden of proof. Isn't that some form of fallacy? Props for trying to heavily disguise it as "I can't be bothered", it was a nice try.

You make a claim, it's on you to support it. If you don't or are unable to do so, then just admit it and move on.
 
Bogative said:
Sorry to jump in the middle of the thread without reading all the prior posts.

Hillary Clinton: No classified material sent via her personal email

If none of these emails are classified as claimed, why are they being so heavily redacted?
Click to expand...

The people doing the redaction of FOI requests are often unaware of what has already been released to the public. For example, the entire text of a Clinton speech was redacted in one of the emails just released. A speech that anyone can watch at this link:

https://vimeo.com/51319154
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I see I missed this:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...t-call-clinton-to-testify-next-week/27331815/

WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya, will not call former secretary of State Hillary Clinton to testify next week, as recently proposed.

So we can all continue to wait with bated breath ...
Click to expand...

Must be some tough decisions here for politicians trying to make some political hay out of this non-scandal.

Do you call Clinton with the hope of embarrassing her and winning some cred among your political buddies or do you just try to drag it out indefinitely with the hope of wounding her with the constant patter of unfounded accusations.

Tough choices here for sure. Don't do it right and Clinton benefits from the free national exposure more than she is harmed by the bogus partisan inquisition. What to do? What to do?

As a partisan hack you're in too deep now. You've got the gazillionth investigation going on this thing and from the outside it looks like what it is, partisan political shenanigans wasting money. If you fold your tent at this point it will be obvious that this is what it was all along. But if you don't fold your tent, you've got nothing to embarrass Clinton with on Benghazi except the tenuous email scandal. So can you parlay a real, but minor email scandal into a basis for embarrassing Clinton with the major, but bogus Benghazi scandal while not giving Clinton the win with the resulting national attention?

Who will play this right? Ah, the fun of being a partisan political hack.
 
davefoc said:
You've got the gazillionth investigation going on this thing and from the outside it looks like what it is, partisan political shenanigans wasting money.....
Click to expand...

Wow, Hillary's emails are finally being released after being withheld from every single previous group investigating the fiasco, including her hand picked ARB, can her fans please finally drop their previous investigation talking point, it was nonsense then and now it is simply embarrassing.

although I did giggle when a partisan political person claims to be an objective outsider!:D

applecorped said:
Having fun?
Click to expand...

Nailed it!:D
 
applecorped said:
Having fun?
Click to expand...

If this is meant to mean I'm a partisan political hack, I'm not by what I intended the term to mean. I was referring to political elites who work to advance the interests of their party, particularly by attempting to make members of the opposite party look bad.

I'm just a guy pontificating away on the internet.

If it was meant to mean that I am a political partisan in that I tend to support one party, vote for one party and argue for one party, I am a weak political partisan at best. I am a registered Republican voter, that tends to vote Republican for state offices and Democratic for national offices.

My general view is that both parties are cynical and corrupt but that is mitigated on occasion by some sort of genuine effort to do what is in the best interest of the country. I suspect that long term rule by either party would destroy the US. The disastrous consequences of long term Democratic rule can be seen in Baltimore and especially Detroit. For the disastrous effect of long term Republican rule just look to the Bush administration. Unnecessary wars disastrously pursued with incompetence and corruption. Disastrous bank failures, real estate bubbles and mammoth wall street fraud and corruption.

In this case, I think the Republicans are doing everything they can to embarrass Clinton with legitimate or illegitimate means. They don't care about truth or the interests of the country just as they didn't when the pursued her husband over the Monica Lewinsky episode.

But I think Clinton has helped them in their efforts with bogus explanations for clearly improper behavior with regard to her email account.
 
davefoc said:
In this case, I think the Republicans are doing everything they can to embarrass Clinton with legitimate or illegitimate means. They don't care about truth or the interests of the country just as they didn't when the pursued her husband over the Monica Lewinsky episode.

But I think Clinton has helped them in their efforts with bogus explanations for clearly improper behavior with regard to her email account.
Click to expand...

So, politics as usual?
 
Kestrel said:
The people doing the redaction of FOI requests are often unaware of what has already been released to the public. For example, the entire text of a Clinton speech was redacted in one of the emails just released. A speech that anyone can watch at this link:

https://vimeo.com/51319154
Click to expand...
Okay, thanks for that. I've read elsewhere that the reasons for the redactions are the State Department believes that what is redacted could be harmful to relationships we have with other countries. This tells me that there is no objective metric for the redactions.
 
applecorped said:
So, politics as usual?
Click to expand...
Exactly

Bogative said:
Okay, thanks for that. I've read elsewhere that the reasons for the redactions are the State Department believes that what is redacted could be harmful to relationships we have with other countries. This tells me that there is no objective metric for the redactions.
Click to expand...

That seems a little harsh. I'd expect them to lean a little bit towards redacting too much than too little and I'd expect that they wouldn't be perfect. It seems like they met my expectations, but I haven't seen the emails so my opinion is subject to change in the face of actual facts.
 
16.5 said:
Because Obama vetoed Blumenthal's appointment to the State department.

Look it up, I am very busy reading her emails.
Click to expand...

And.....? Avid readers are on tenterhooks! Is she the one who revealed the recipe for McDonald's "Secret Sauce", or not. You've been reading emails for three days.

I'll be assuming they conned you, right? They know there's nothing in that first batch and are hiding the really juicy stuff.
 
Foolmewunz said:
And.....? Avid readers are on tenterhooks! Is she the one who revealed the recipe for McDonald's "Secret Sauce", or not. You've been reading emails for three days.

I'll be assuming they conned you, right? They know there's nothing in that first batch and are hiding the really juicy stuff.
Click to expand...

look for my update in the Benghazithread.

I take it the irony of saying they are hiding the juicy stuff escaped you in light of Hillary's destruction of documents.

:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom