Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Newtons Bit said:
And yet there's no other reasonable explanation other than her House that she could possibly have meant. You guys are really tying yourselves into knots here.
Click to expand...

I don't know if there is another reasonable explanation. You certainly haven't proven that there's no other reasonable explanation. What you are doing is making an argument from incredulity.
 
Why can't you simply admit what is obvious, she lied when she said it was protected by the secret service. Is it really that hard? That doesn't mean she's guilty of something, doesn't mean she's a sleaze ball.... well actually it does.

It's simply being honest.

Is it really that hard?

/concern troll mode off.

Hillary clearly gave the impression that the server was located in her home, protected by the Secret Service. It turns out that was not true for the entire time and she lied about the secret service.

And we are the bad guys? Lolz!
 
Newtons Bit said:
And yet there's no other reasonable explanation other than her House that she could possibly have meant. You guys are really tying yourselves into knots here.
Click to expand...

I agree, it was a reasonable inference that she had the server at her house based on the SS reference.

Although running it out of her house on residential DSL or fiber line isn't necessarily a reasonable inference. ( I realize she could pay for a t1, or other business level access)

It's still a reasonable inference that she had it at her house when it was being used.

But let's be clear - she never stated where it was kept. And I am sure she chose her words very carefully, being a lawyer, knowing they would be thrown back at her. And that's why it's worth paying attention to what she actually said, not what you think she meant.

BTW, It's also a reasonable inference at some point she moved it from her house (if it was there) , and into the data center in NJ. Perhaps after she deleted all her emails. Why is this scenario being overlooked, especially since no one in this thread has any actual knowledge of where it was kept ?
 
16.5 said:
Why can't you simply admit what is obvious, she lied when she said it was protected by the secret service. Is it really that hard? That doesn't mean she's guilty of something, doesn't mean she's a sleaze ball.... well actually it does.
Click to expand...

Because, as I posted above, nobody in this thread knows where the server was kept through the years, and if it was moved.

Despite your claim that HRC said it was in her home, she never said where it was kept at all.

And ... how is it you know what the secret service guards and doesn't guard ? Do they run it by you first ?

How do you know the server wasn't in her home, then moved at a later data, after it was wiped, to the NJ location ?Do they run it by you first ?
 
uke2se said:
I don't know if there is another reasonable explanation. You certainly haven't proven that there's no other reasonable explanation. What you are doing is making an argument from incredulity.
Click to expand...

:eek:

I'm certain that is not how critical thinking works.

why don't you give us a reasonable explanation for where the homebrew cowboy server was before it showed up in a data center in Jersey?

Hey, here's a thought: maybe in the Clinton Family Foundation offices! That way the people that work there potentially had access to it. Genius!

That would be Soooo much better! LOLZ!

protip: the best case scenario for Hillary is that it was sitting next to Bill's penthouse collection in the basement, for reasons that should be obvious.
 
JohnnyG said:
Are you referring to this?
Click to expand...

Yes, among other things in the article.

JohnnyG said:
I think it is rather clear now that she did violate the rules regarding classified information. Lacking the intelligence ability to identify classified information is not a defense.
Click to expand...

It does seem that way. Although, as I pointed out, if she was sent the email, and it was not marked as classified, and that was all that happened, I am not sure what exactly she is guilty of.

Nor do I think most people will view it in a way that will materially change their opinions of her, but I guess that will remain to be seen.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
But let's be clear - she never stated where it was kept. And I am sure she chose her words very carefully, being a lawyer, knowing they would be thrown back at her. And that's why it's worth paying attention to what she actually said, not what you think she meant.
Click to expand...

So rather than, you know, the truth, she used weaselly lawyer words so that, you know, the truth could not be thrown back at her.

That is sooooo much better.

Maybe I was all wet about this Hillary, she's not a "scumball." She's a "shyster."
 
16.5 said:
So rather than, you know, the truth, she used weaselly lawyer words so that, you know, the truth could not be thrown back at her.

That is sooooo much better.

Maybe I was all wet about this Hillary, she's not a "scumball." She's a "shyster."
Click to expand...
Breaking news: Lawyer and politician uses weasel words! In other news, water is wet.
 
NoahFence said:
So what's so fascinating about this particular witch hunt anyway?
Click to expand...

I wish it were a witch hunt. It is a witch hunt in that every fact is being interpreted in the most anti-Clinton way possible. I think it's too early to see how this shakes out, but it may not be for a long time because the anti-Clinton forces have such a strong interest in bringing her down by any means possible.

But for those of us who are probably going to end up voting for Clinton because of our general dislike of the views and actions of almost the entire Republican field it is an unhappy situation. Clinton's actions seem to have been dishonest and stupid and I'd rather not vote for somebody that has shown themselves to be this stupid.

For me this discussion has become a bit uninteresting because the case against Clinton is being presented by self acknowledged Clinton haters and as such I tend not to completely believe them. But it is also very difficult to come up with plausible scenarios where Clinton doesn't look amazingly stupid. It also looks like Clinton had some sort of giant elitist notion that she was above rules and laws that applied to everybody else but herself.

I'd root for Bernie Sanders except that it sounds like he might be to the left of Clinton on economic issues and Clinton is already too far left on economic issues for my taste. I'd root for Biden but really Biden? Not really the brightest bulb and if I don't like Clinton for that is Biden really an alternative? Kasich seems interesting but that could be just because I don't know anything about him. I think I'll be stuck voting for Clinton unless this thing really blows up and she is forced to resign from the race.
 
NoahFence said:
Just curious. Out of all the scandals plaguing seemingly every politician, it's as if nobody but Hilliary even exists.

I'm just trying to figure out if she ran over his dog... whatever.
Click to expand...

Well, this is the thread for it.
 
It might be interesting to non-Clinton witch hunters because it hits home to people who have held clearances. I feel pretty confident that classified materials entered my gmail account because I gave a coworker an external email address, both me and the coworker would lose our jobs and be dangled on an ankle bracelet for a few years while they considered prosecution.
 
NoahFence said:
Just curious. Out of all the scandals plaguing seemingly every politician, it's as if nobody but Hilliary even exists.

I'm just trying to figure out if she ran over his dog... whatever.
Click to expand...
I suspect the hubub over hillary is in part thanks to the magnitude of the potential breach. Anthony pervert wiener for example was a sleasebag affair magnet, of course he was neither in a top position of the administration or in the same level of access as clinton.

I suppose if you're worried Bout priorities among scandals it may be helpful to know of the ones that have equal or greater implications to potentially exposing materials of national security interests
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Nothing. It it wasn't this it would just be something else.
Click to expand...

While I agree that Hillary ********** up enough that we will find something else, her sneering contempt for governmental transparency has led to a series of disclosures regarding just how incompetent she is coupled with her pathetic lies designed to cover it up.

I wonder if her billion dollar bank roll is enough to save her from her own incompetence.
 
Last edited:
Why does she and Bill hire such incompetent people?

Its incredible the stupid mistakes they make.
 
F.B.I. Tracking Path of Classified Email From State Dept. to Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON — F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server are seeking to determine who at the State Department passed highly classified information from secure networks to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, according to law enforcement and diplomatic officials and others briefed on the investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/u...hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html?_r=0

secure networks? hmmm.... Say who mentioned that the data was properly marked when it got the the State Department? Oh right

any word from mediamatters? Maybe press releases from the Campaign that any "skeptics" want to post?
 
16.5 said:
WASHINGTON — F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server are seeking to determine who at the State Department passed highly classified information from secure networks to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, according to law enforcement and diplomatic officials and others briefed on the investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/u...hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html?_r=0

secure networks? hmmm.... Say who mentioned that the data was properly marked when it got the the State Department? Oh right

any word from mediamatters? Maybe press releases from the Campaign that any "skeptics" want to post?
Click to expand...

Would quotes from your own source also be sneered at? For instance "Law enforcement officials have said that Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, is not a target of the investigation, and she has said there is no evidence that her account was hacked. There has also been no evidence that she broke the law, and many specialists believe the occasional appearance of classified information in her account was probably of marginal consequence."

and

"State Department employees apparently circulated the emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and some were ultimately forwarded to Mrs. Clinton."

Huh, sure sounds like Clinton is not the focus of the FBI investigation, is not suspected to be at fault for some unmarked classified material being forwarded to her, and there is no evidence she broke the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom