Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[NoahFence]

Where does this come from?

So as to not derail, could you start a new thread to discuss?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

16.5, did you watch the interview ?

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/

 

[sunmaster14]

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.

Are you seriously implying that I have problems understanding the English language?

'Is there a sexual relationship between you?'

'Was there a sexual relationship between you?'

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

Those differences are irrelevant to the case. Monica Lewinsky, at Clinton's behest, filed an affidavit with the court attesting to the fact, and I quote:

I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship.

This affidavit was filed in order to allow Clinton's lawyers to argue that Lewinsky was irrelevant to the case and therefore should not be deposed by the Paula Jones lawyers. There was no question that Lewinsky's affidavit was a lie, given the context, but Lewinsky and Clinton later argued that a "sexual relationship" necessarily involved sexual intercourse.

During Clinton's deposition in the Paula Jones case, when Clinton was first asked about Monica Lewinsky, his lawyer Robert Bennett objected:

I question the good faith of counsel, the innuendo of the question. Counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed -- has an affidavit, which they are in possession of, saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form with President Clinton.

Clinton allowed that representation by his lawyer to stand. Given the context, the "is" is a trifle. I mean if we want to be super-literal, it's a lie because Clinton is of a particular sex. He thinks about sex. He had had sex before and was likely expecting to have more of it in the future. In fact, he was in all likelihood thinking about having sex at that very moment. More importantly, however, why would somebody point to an affidavit written 5 months before as proof of what is happening in the present? The clear message conveyed by Clinton's lawyer is that Lewinsky wasn't just denying that a sexual relationship with Clinton had ever existed, but also that the definition of sexual relationship she was using encompassed sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form.

I think I can say with high confidence that Clinton's lawyer would not have said what he said, if he knew the truth. It would have been a clear breach of his duty to the court as a lawyer. This news article from the time backs me up (my emphasis added):

In a new letter to Wright, Bennett in effect admitted that the Clinton team submitted a false statement, citing Lewinsky's August testimony "that portions of her affidavit were misleading and not true."

"Therefore, pursuant to our professional responsibility, we wanted to advise you that the Court should not rely on Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit or remarks of counsel characterizing that affidavit," Bennett wrote in the Sept. 30 letter, which was filed under seal and made public yesterday.

Sources have said that Clinton lied to Bennett and other attorneys about his relationship with Lewinsky and that they did not know her affidavit was untrue at the time. As an officer of the court, Bennett is obligated by legal ethics to correct the record once a falsehood becomes known. Jones's lawyers have cited the letter in trying to persuade the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse Wright and reinstate the case that she dismissed in April.

Clinton's first attempt to defend the representation (the meaning of is is stuff) was frivolous. His second attempt (which is that he hadn't been focusing on what his lawyer said) was reasonable enough to discourage any charge of perjury for that instance of lying.

 

[The Big Dog]

16.5, did you watch the interview ?

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/

Ok course I did, it was cringeworthy....

I did not hear "while facing." It sounds like Hillary said "personal email". Of course it does not matter: Hillary did not answer the question and said:

"You know, you're starting with so many assumptions that are - I've never had a subpoena. There is - again, let's take a deep breath here."

The hilite is a lie. Any further questions?

 

[johnny karate]

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!!!!!!!!

Yeah, I didn't take my transcript from a "pro-Hillary propaganda website" (whatever that means). I watched the video and transcribed it myself.

I can't speak for CNN or whoever incorrectly transcribed the interview, but when you watch the actual video - which apparently you have not - it's clear as day that Keilar says exactly what I transcribed.

So take a minute or two, and watch the video to which TheL8Elvis was kind enough to provide a link. And then come back here and make your apologies.

Because seriously, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[johnny karate]

did not hear "while facing."

In the link TheL8Elvis provided, select the clip along the bottom row of videos entitled "Hillary Clinton on how 33,000 emails got deleted". The full question is somewhere around the 53 second mark, and Keilar undeniably says "while facing".

And that you keep denying it isn't doing your credibility any favors.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yeah, I didn't take my transcript from a "pro-Hillary propaganda website" (whatever that means). I watched the video and transcribed it myself.

I can't speak for CNN or whoever incorrectly transcribed the interview, but when you watch the actual video - which apparently you have not - it's clear as day that Keilar says exactly what I transcribed.

So take a minute or two, and watch the video to which TheL8Elvis was kind enough to provide a link. And then come back here and make your apologies.

Because seriously, you're embarrassing yourself.

Wait, I cut and paste from the actual transcript on the actual website of CNN, and you accuse me of deleting something and using "a Partisan flack version."

You claim that you have the "Actual version." But it wasn't the actual version, it was something you typed up without disclosing.

And I'm the one embarrassing myself?

HEAD. DESK.

"You know, you're starting with so many assumptions that are - I've never had a subpoena. There is - again, let's take a deep breath here."

I hilited the lie.

 

[johnny karate]

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.

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.

Because she's a liar and Why does anyone do anything? aren't particularly compelling arguments.

That's perhaps why you told the lie that you were caught in, but you'll need to do a little better in your obviously partisan-motivated assertions about Hillary Clinton.

 

[johnny karate]

Wait, I cut and paste from the actual transcript on the actual website of CNN, and you accuse me of deleting something and using "a Partisan flack version."

The partisan flackery comes in when you repeatedly insist an incorrect transcript is correct, while denying what is clearly on the actual video.

You claim that you have the "Actual version." But it wasn't the actual version, it was something you typed up without disclosing.

First I'm "deleting" things from your posts, and now typing up things without "disclosing".

Honestly, I don't even know what the hell you're rambling about anymore. I feel like you're immersed in some fantasy role-play in which you imagine this is a Senate hearing, and you're some blustery firebrand of a chairman. I bet you have a gavel in your hand right now, don't you?

All that aside, you are flatly wrong about the transcript and the verbiage of the question, and the video proves it.

 

[The Big Dog]

By the way, to put this farce to bed:

In 2012, Clinton got a document hold letter from Jason Chaffetz
May 2013, State Department gets a subpoena from Oversight
August 2013, State Department gets a second subpoena from Oversight.
March 2015 Clinton gets a subpoena from the Select committee.

"I never had a subpoena. There is - again, let's take a deep breath here." H. Clinton, trying to convince herself, July 2015

Lie QED.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Ok course I did, it was cringeworthy....

I did not hear "while facing."

Wow. OK then.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wow. OK then.

By the way, you think adding "while facing" to a question that Hillary did not answer makes this:

"You know, you're starting with so many assumptions that are - I've never had a subpoena. There is - again, let's take a deep breath here"

true?

WOW, indeed. The documents in her possession were subject to three subpoenas. You'd think a lawyer would know that, huh?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

By the way, you think adding "while facing" to a question that Hillary did not answer makes this:

"You know, you're starting with so many assumptions that are - I've never had a subpoena. There is - again, let's take a deep breath here"

true?

Yes, she was never was facing a subpoena when she deleted her emails. That is true.

Context. You can keep ignoring it so you can gleefully shout "liar" but it doesn't change the fact that context is important.

Just like when she set up her server, she claims she carried one device.
Now of course, she had a laptop as well.
And as we all know, a laptop is a device.
So if you want to continue ignoring context, she was lying there as well.

WOW, indeed. The documents in here possession were subject to three subpoenas. You'd think a lawyer would know that, huh?

What makes you think she didn't know that ? Do you have some evidence she claimed there were never any subpoenas with regards to emails ?

 

[The Big Dog]

What makes you think she didn't know that ? Do you have some evidence she claimed there were never any subpoenas with regards to emails ?

"I never had a subpoena. There is - again, let's take a deep breath here." H. Clinton, trying to convince herself, July 2015

 

[johnny karate]

By the way, you think adding "while facing" to a question that Hillary did not answer makes this:

"You know, you're starting with so many assumptions that are - I've never had a subpoena. There is - again, let's take a deep breath here"

true?

You seem to, given how hard you're denying it.

 

[DavidJames]

Looks like the evil MSM is starting to respond to the lies claim. Poor right wing nut jobs, they can't seem to get anything right.

I'm sure just like the embarrassing fiasco surrounding when "someone" got all confused about HRC's announcement of her running, we'll soon see a retraction.

HA HA HA

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/9/8920687/hillary-clinton-subpoena
What that transcript missed was some of the cross-talk, in which Keilar clearly said Clinton was accused of having "while facing a subpoena, deleted emails."

Ok course I did, it was cringeworthy....

I did not hear "while facing."

This is my shocked face.

 

[The Big Dog]

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/9/8920687/hillary-clinton-subpoena
What that transcript missed was some of the cross-talk, in which Keilar clearly said Clinton was accused of having "while facing a subpoena, deleted emails."

This is my shocked face.

Lolz, so if we add words to a question that Hillary clearly did not answer, then the statement "I've never had a subpoena" means "I was not subject to a subpoena when I was destroying those documents."

Damn, I cannot tell which is worse, the Lie or the Spin about the Lie!

Fantastic!

 

[NoahFence]

 

[davefoc]

No, the critical thinking comes in when you look at something said in context, and then have to decide if an experienced politician running for president told a huge, ridiculous and easily demonstrable lie in a nationally televised interview, or perhaps inartfully responded to specifically framed question.

It's the same kind of critical thinking you would need to employ to decide if another experienced politician running for president made a public proclamation that implied the economy would improve if Americans weren't so lazy, or perhaps inartfully referred to his desire to see more part-time workers get full-time employment.

Warning: Partisan blinders will need to be removed for critical thinking to work properly.

I've gotten a little tired of the call-Clinton-bad-name threads and I think I'll take a break again. The logic of Karate's post is so obvious that any response to Karate's point will be the equivalent of posts about how one blurry image or another is evidence of bigfoot or posts about the super secret ninjas that installed the nano thermite in the WTC.

What's unfortunate with regard to the pursuit of truth here is that Clinton's actions with regard to her email server were on the sleazy side and certainly demonstrated some bad judgment on her part.

Fortunately for her, perhaps, partisans are attempting to work Clinton's email shenanigans into some sort of weird narrative of much greater significance thus turning what would be legitimate criticism of her actions into some sort of partisan nutjob set piece that will be ignored by everybody that isn't part of the partisan anti-Clinton true believer crowd.