Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

No, the critical thinking comes in when you look at something said in context....

Wow, I provided the exact quote from the very transcript, you delete it and accuse ME of not looking at things in context?

Holy crap.... that is extraordinary.....

You ignored my comments about subpoenas to State, Foia requests and previous court cases.

Guess ya got those partisan blinders on!!!

Hee hee!

 

[johnny karate]

Wow, I provided the exact quote from the very transcript, you delete it and accuse ME of not looking at things in context?

I deleted somethng? At what point did I delete something?

 

[wareyin]

I deleted somethng? At what point did I delete something?

I think you deleted the smoking gun. Otherwise why haven't those keen Republican researchers found it yet?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

First of all, Hillary flat out lied about never getting a subpoena.

Let's apply ockhams razor. Either:
a) an experienced politician/lawyer chose to tell an easily provable lie
b) an experienced politician/lawyer interpreted an ambiguous question in the best light possible for herself and answered "that question" honestly

I think the answer is pretty clearly B.

If someone believes it is A, they need to explain why they believe she would "flat out lie" about something that could be so easily demonstrated to be a lie ?

 

[sunmaster14]

Let's apply ockhams razor. Either:
a) an experienced politician/lawyer chose to tell an easily provable lie
b) an experienced politician/lawyer interpreted an ambiguous question in the best light possible for herself and answered "that question" honestly

I think the answer is pretty clearly B.

If someone believes it is A, they need to explain why they believe she would "flat out lie" about something that could be so easily demonstrated to be a lie ?

You forgot:
c) an experienced politician/lawyer chose to tell an easily provable lie, counting on her army of partisan flacks to defend her by pointing out that an experienced politician/lawyer would never tell an easily provable lie.

I go with c).

 

[The Big Dog]

Let's apply ockhams razor. Either:
a) an experienced politician/lawyer chose to tell an easily provable lie
b) an experienced politician/lawyer interpreted an ambiguous question in the best light possible for herself and answered "that question" honestly

I think the answer is pretty clearly B.

If someone believes it is A, they need to explain why they believe she would "flat out lie" about something that could be so easily demonstrated to be a lie ?

Further, I commend you on two completely loaded options! Ambiguous question, indeed!

"If someone believes it is A, they need to explain why they believe she would "flat out lie" about something that could be so easily demonstrated to be a lie." Because she does it all the time, she is a congenital liar after all.

She lies thoroughly, constantly and consistently.

Why did she lie about Sid Blumenthal, why did she lie about turning over all documents, why did she lie about the subpoena, why did she lie about the "convenience" in using one device.

She is terrible in interviews, and it seems clear to me now that she would rather dissemble, avoid answering a question, flat out lie, rather than telling the truth.

 

[johnny karate]

You forgot:
c) an experienced politician/lawyer chose to tell an easily provable lie, counting on her army of partisan flacks to defend her by pointing out that an experienced politician/lawyer would never tell an easily provable lie.

I go with c).

Okay... what's the upside to c) for the experienced politician in question?

Regardless of whether or not said politician's "army of partisan flacks" would offer defense, it's also still handing a huge opportunity to her opponents to make here look dishonest. So why do it?

I find your option c) about as compelling as your partisan flack defense of the "Death Panels" meme.

 

[DavidJames]

Further, I commend you on two completely loaded options! Ambiguous question, indeed!

"If someone believes it is A, they need to explain why they believe she would "flat out lie" about something that could be so easily demonstrated to be a lie." Because she does it all the time, she is a congenital liar after all.

She lies thoroughly, constantly and consistently.

Why did she lie about Sid Blumenthal, why did she lie about turning over all documents, why did she lie about the subpoena, why did she lie about the "convenience" in using one device.

She is terrible in interviews, and it seems clear to me now that she would rather dissemble, avoid answering a question, flat out lie, rather than telling the truth.

What crimes has she been officially charged with?

 

[johnny karate]

Wow, I provided the exact quote from the very transcript, you delete it and accuse ME of not looking at things in context?

I deleted somethng? At what point did I delete something?

And speaking of deleting... 16.5's transcript of the interview seemed to be... missing some context.

Partisan flack version:

KEILAR: But you said they - that they did the same thing, that they used a personal server and -

KEILAR: - subpoena deleted emails from them?

Actual version (portions deleted from partisan flack version in bold):

KEILAR: But you said they - that they did the same thing, that they used a personal server and while facing a subpoena deleted emails from them?

Now, that's what actual deleting looks like.

 

[sunmaster14]

Okay... what's the upside to c) for the experienced politician in question?

Well, there doesn't have to be an upside, since I think she lies by reflex. But I suppose there is some upside in that her flacks can make the news story about whether or not the vast right-wing conspiracy is being fair to her, rather than about whether she did something illegal.

Regardless of whether or not said politician's "army of partisan flacks" would offer defense, it's also still handing a huge opportunity to her opponents to make here look dishonest. So why do it?

Why did Bill get blow jobs from a chubby chatterbox in the Oval Office? I mean, do the risk vs reward calculation for that. It doesn't make sense. The truth is, he couldn't help himself. He has no self-control. Same for his wife when it comes to lying. Actually it's true for him too, when it comes to lying. They're compatible in every way, except for the sex part.

 

[The Big Dog]

And speaking of deleting... 16.5's transcript of the interview seemed to be... missing some context.

Partisan flack version:


Actual version (portions deleted from partisan flack version in bold):



Now, that's what actual deleting looks like.

Actual version?

Huh, y'all better take it up with CNN then, my friend:

KEILAR: But you said they - that they did the same thing, that they used a personal server and -

KEILAR: - subpoena deleted emails from them?

Oh wait, that is the actual CNN transcript from the actual CNN website.

Huh.

No need to apologize....

Let me guess, you got your transcript from pro-Hlllary propaganda website media matters, huh?

LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Further, I commend you on two completely loaded options! Ambiguous question, indeed!

"If someone believes it is A, they need to explain why they believe she would "flat out lie" about something that could be so easily demonstrated to be a lie." Because she does it all the time, she is a congenital liar after all.

She lies thoroughly, constantly and consistently.

Why did she lie about Sid Blumenthal, why did she lie about turning over all documents, why did she lie about the subpoena, why did she lie about the "convenience" in using one device.

She is terrible in interviews, and it seems clear to me now that she would rather dissemble, avoid answering a question, flat out lie, rather than telling the truth.

I don't accept your claim that HRC "lies thoroughly, constantly and consistently."

Your claim that she would lie simply for the sake of lying is laughable.

When is the indictment or the subpoena for the server coming ???? Avid readers want to know ...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Actual version?

Huh, y'all better take it up with CNN then, my friend:

KEILAR: But you said they - that they did the same thing, that they used a personal server and -

KEILAR: - subpoena deleted emails from them?

Oh wait, that is the actual CNN transcript from the actual CNN website.

Huh.

No need to apologize....

Let me guess, you got your transcript from pro-Hlllary propaganda website media matters, huh?

LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

Do you think this question makes sense in english ?

KEILAR: But you said they - that they did the same thing, that they used a personal server and subpoena deleted emails from them?

Becuase "they" wouldn't "subpoena deleted emails from them" , would they ? Or is that crystal clear for you ?

 

[DavidJames]

Further, I commend you on two completely loaded options! Ambiguous question, indeed!

"If someone believes it is A, they need to explain why they believe she would "flat out lie" about something that could be so easily demonstrated to be a lie." Because she does it all the time, she is a congenital liar after all.

She lies thoroughly, constantly and consistently.

Why did she lie about Sid Blumenthal, why did she lie about turning over all documents, why did she lie about the subpoena, why did she lie about the "convenience" in using one device.

She is terrible in interviews, and it seems clear to me now that she would rather dissemble, avoid answering a question, flat out lie, rather than telling the truth.

Well, there doesn't have to be an upside, since I think she lies by reflex. But I suppose there is some upside in that her flacks can make the news story about whether or not the vast right-wing conspiracy is being fair to her, rather than about whether she did something illegal.

Actual version?

Huh, y'all better take it up with CNN then, my friend:

KEILAR: But you said they - that they did the same thing, that they used a personal server and -

KEILAR: - subpoena deleted emails from them?

Oh wait, that is the actual CNN transcript from the actual CNN website.

Huh.

No need to apologize....

Let me guess, you got your transcript from pro-Hlllary propaganda website media matters, huh?

LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

What crimes has she been officially charged with?

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't accept your claim that HRC "lies thoroughly, constantly and consistently."

Your claim that she would lie simply for the sake of lying is laughable.

When is the indictment or the subpoena for the server coming ???? Avid readers want to know ...

which part do you quibble with, the thoroughly, constantly or the consistently?

Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar.

Judicial Watch has indeed filed a suit asking a federal judge to issue the subpoena for the server, I expect it will be a race between the House and the Judge.

Indictment? Lol, like Obama is going to let the stooges in the justice department indict her. Hilarious!

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you think this question makes sense in english ?

KEILAR: But you said they - that they did the same thing, that they used a personal server and subpoena deleted emails from them?

Becuase "they" wouldn't "subpoena deleted emails from them" , would they ? Or is that crystal clear for you ?

Sure it is clear, the interviewer was incredulous Hillary was lying about doing the same thing as her predecessors.

None of them had their own cowboy server and destroyed documents subject to subpoenas and requests from Congress.

Another lie from Hillary, great *********** catch!

 

[tyr_13]

First of all, Hillary flat out lied about never getting a subpoena.

Second, are you really trying to rationalize one of the most ridiculously dissembling comments in American History?

"oh it wasn't a lie because I wasn't actually having sex right that very second in the courtroom with 'that woman.'"

Technically true! Good job slick willy, too bad Hillary is as talented a liar as you!

Oh, please. It sounds ridiculous in context too. The English language is inherently ambiguous. It's possible to play games with it all day long, but reasonable people can usually agree on when somebody has crossed the line into deception. And Bill Clinton danced across that line often. This is a guy who once said that he was never alone in a hotel with Paula Jones and meant that only in its most literal sense because there were other people in the hotel. If the hotel had miraculously been vacant at the time, he probably would have claimed that they were accompanied by mice and bedbugs, so they weren't really alone in that case either.

I've spent a lot of time with people who speak English as a second language, Japanese speakers mostly. They have problems with this as well, because of past tense conjugations.

'Is there a sexual relationship between you?'

'Was there a sexual relationship between you?'

'Has there ever been a sexual relationship between you?'

These are different questions, and imply different things. Clarifying ambiguity is generally a good thing during sworn testimony, especially when the group you are testifying for have shown they are willing and eager to abuse the power to go after anything no matter how unrelated, including your own sex life. I don't trust either of your interpretations are correct, or made in good faith.

Really, I don't care to convince either of you because that's simply not going to happen (and to stop the incredibly lame and predictable retort, that's not because there isn't a good case but because you're inclined against it), but it doesn't matter how ridiculous it sounds or people think it is, as a matter of language it is an important point. I will note that at least one court clerk for Alito agrees with me on this point, so it really shouldn't be that partisan an issue.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Sure it is clear, the interviewer was incredulous Hillary was lying about doing the same thing as her predecessors.

None of them had their own cowboy server and destroyed documents subject to subpoenas and requests from Congress.

Another lie from Hillary, great *********** catch!

You're not even trying any more.

The question doesn't make sense in english. In the interview, Keilar clearly says "while facing" ... IOW:

KEILAR: But you said they - that they did the same thing, that they used a personal server and while facing a subpoena, deleted emails from them?

Which now magically makes perfect sense in English, and makes her answer true.

If you want to have an honest discussion ( and who knows if you do) then watch the interview, and then deny she says "while facing" and that was left out of the transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/politics/hillary-clinton-iowa-first-interview/

 

[DavidJames]

Indictment? Lol, like Obama is going to let the stooges in the justice department indict her. Hilarious!

Ah, you now admit it's a conspiracy. Thanks. I'll suggest the mods move this thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

You're not even trying any more.

The question doesn't make sense in english. In the interview, Keilar clearly says "while facing" ... IOW:

KEILAR: But you said they - that they did the same thing, that they used a personal server and while facing a subpoena, deleted emails from them?

Which now magically makes perfect sense in English, and makes her answer true.

If you want to have an honest discussion ( and who knows if you do) then watch the interview, and then deny she says "while facing" and that was left out of the transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/politics/hillary-clinton-iowa-first-interview/

It wasn't an answer. Take a gander at my sig. The question was how can you say that the predecessors did the same thing, when Hillary interrupts and (takes a deep breath) says:

l
l
l
v