Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
plague311 said:
The problem with this new argument you're making is that you've been claiming she's guilty since the get go. You've had her tried, convicted and in jail within the first 5 pages. Go back and read it.

So this newly constructed "Non rocket surgery" post is complete crap. You didn't wait for the evidence to come in, and you didn't preach patience. Why you're contesting something so easily proven to be a lie, something you're so adamantly against when Clinton seems to do it, is beyond me. I guess that's just the soup you swim in.
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
You mean skeptics on a skeptic site would rather wait until the relevant legal authorities weigh in on a matter than just believe anonymous internet commentators? Say it ain't so!
Click to expand...

DavidJames said:
String 'um up. Tried and convicted on the Internet. We don't need no stinkin charges, much less trial. String 'um up.

We can add Due Process denial to Science Denial as the cornerstone of conservative thinking.
Click to expand...

Look what the left has been reduced to.


Ed Henry of Fox asked her
"Did you wipe the server"?

Hillary's response
"With what, a cloth"?
 
Hillary sent her home brew server to an obscure IT company, who partnered with a data recycling/destruction company run by a felon.

I wonder how he got a security clearance....

just joshing, no one who handled Hillary's server had a security clearance.
 
Rendell, who ran the Democratic National Committee while Bill Clinton was President, said she should have turned over her server months ago instead of waiting for the FBI to force her, admitted Clinton’s testy press conference in North Las Vegas didn’t help things and called her joke that she loves Snapchat because "those messages disappear all by themselves" last week in Iowa “incredibly tone-deaf.”

“It made light of something people are taking a serious look at,” he said. “There's no question the way the campaign has handled this has exacerbated the problem.”

Pretty good wrap up of the week that was on the HRC Sinking Ship.

Now the geniuses behind the campaign are attacking the Federal Court Judge (appointed by her husband) and claiming that because the Benghazi committee has copies of her emails on an "unsecured" server, they should be looking at them.

Message to Hillary: your campaign is being run by *********** morons.
 
More headlines from this non-story...

Joe Biden is strongly considering running for President and right after suggesting that Obama might endorse a candidate, CNN wrote:

Clinton, who worked alongside Biden in Obama's first term as secretary of state, has struggled in recent weeks to overcome the controversy surrounding her use of a personal email address on a private server during her tenure as America's top diplomat.
Click to expand...

But, I was told it was a partisan non-story that only wing nuts care about....:D

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/24/politics/joe-biden-president-campaign-2016-election-run/
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
A thorough review of the relevant laws applied to this case - NPR - April 2015
Click to expand...

SNERK!

"The bottom line is this: No one will likely ever know what was deleted from Clinton's server. Barring one of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department being deemed "classified," it's also unlikely she will ever be found to have violated the letter of the law."

You know a bunch of emails have classified data in them, right? I think you hilighted the wrong part....


Hilary 2016, Still Not a Convicted Felon Yet
 
I'd just point out that as of July 30,2015 Hillary was rated by polls as about as trustworthy as Donald Trump.

The bottom line, whether she's actually committed a crime remains unproven (let's be frank, she ain't in court yet). On the other hand, she's not well regarded either because of the scandal.

Knowing what the Russians and Chinese have been doing lately with all of their hacks, you have to ask why the hell she did it as Secretary of State... that in of itself is a case for wonder and stupidity... it's enough to derail her campaign... maybe.

As for criminal... innocent until proven guilty AFAIC. Though I hold my suspicions still, the most proof there is, is that she did a boneheaded move as a high ranking US official to think it was safe to have the private server
 
Last edited:
Well this thread and this topic is really annoying in davefoc land. I think that people that I might not usually agree with, especially on international topics, seem to be mostly right.

The person who I thought would be the first woman president of the US and who I thought would prevent anti-science, anti-gay, pro-life, pro war Republicans from winning the White House now looks to have done some things that are incredibly stupid and probably illegal.

There remains the possibility that some combination of technicalities and political power will prevent criminal prosecutions, but how important is that? What the hell was this woman thinking? Unfortunately the Obama administration can't be seen to be completely guiltless in this mess. Why did it put up with this HS?

At least the situation is vaguely interesting, the Republicans have spent years bashing away on the Benghazi witch hunt and now they've got some real stuff to go after. How will they play it? After years of making up Benghazi crap, what will they do when they have a scandal where they don't need to make up stuff because the truth is bad enough?

How will this play out in the electorate? Almost all Democrats will vote for her regardless of the scandal and almost no Republicans will vote for her even without the scandal, so it's left up to us moderates to sort this out. Well, I'm a moderate that isn't happy with the notion of having to vote for somebody that has done something this stupid. My hope right now is that she resigns from the race and gives her support to somebody else. My second hope is that she steels herself and brilliantly convinces her Democratic flock and enough moderates to vote for her that she gets elected. And if she does get elected I really hope that she is not as stupid as this incident makes her look.

Lastly, I'd like to thank all the Clinton defenders in this thread. It is hard slogging and you have done well given the tough hand you hold. I'd like to believe that Clinton is not as stupid as she seems on this and maybe you will convince me that I have taken too negative a view of Clinton over this.
 
Last edited:
Not you too, davefoc.? Put it in perspective, notice the news media selling you a scandal and not information. Of course the news media is telling you this is a big deal, they are selling scandal. The news media wants to tell you Biden is going to run (maybe he is, he's certainly being encouraged to) because the media sells controversy.

Notice the skewed polls, you are told on an hourly basis people don't trust Clinton. Is anyone reporting on the other questions in the same polls where Hillary does well? I'd expect that from Fox News, but it's frustrating to see the same distortions on CNN & MSNBC. Want the news media to pick our next President based on their business model of selling scandal and controversy?

That's the most worrisome thing I see here.

It's hard to find the other poll questions, Rasmusson wants you to pay to play.
Among likely Democratic voters, 74% think Clinton is likely to be their party’s nominee, but that’s down from 87% in the previous survey and 93% earlier in July. Eighteen percent (18%) of Democrats think Clinton is unlikely to be the nominee. The latest findings include 35% who say Clinton is Very Likely to be the nominee, down from 53% a month ago, but still just four percent (4%) who say that scenario is Not At All Likely.
Click to expand...

But with a little digging:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 40% of Likely Democratic Voters believe Biden should run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. Slightly more (45%) think the vice president should sit this one out. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided....

Among Democrats, however, the numbers are reversed. Forty-four percent (44%) of these voters believe Clinton would be the better president, while 32% say Biden would do a better job. Twenty-four percent (24%) are not sure.
Click to expand...

So why does the news media tell you over and over people don't trust Clinton while failing to mention any of these other measures?

I'm not saying CNN and MSNBC want Trump or another GOP candidate to be President. I'm saying they do the country a real disservice by this constant marketing of scandal and controversy.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Not you too, davefoc.? Put it in perspective, notice the news media selling you a scandal and not information. Of course the news media is telling you this is a big deal, they are selling scandal. The news media wants to tell you Biden is going to run (maybe he is, he's certainly being encouraged to) because the media sells controversy.

Notice the skewed polls, you are told on an hourly basis people don't trust Clinton. Is anyone reporting on the other questions in the same polls where Hillary does well? I'd expect that from Fox News, but it's frustrating to see the same distortions on CNN & MSNBC. Want the news media to pick our next President based on their business model of selling scandal and controversy?

That's the most worrisome thing I see here.

It's hard to find the other poll questions, Rasmusson wants you to pay to play.


But with a little digging:


So why does the news media tell you over and over people don't trust Clinton while failing to mention any of these other measures?

I'm not saying CNN and MSNBC want Trump or another GOP candidate to be President. I'm saying they do the country a real disservice by this constant marketing of scandal and controversy.
Click to expand...

Wow.. Those are some first class blinders you got yourself there. Top shelf quality for sure. :thumbsup:;)
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Not you too, davefoc.? Put it in perspective, notice the news media selling you a scandal and not information. ...
Click to expand...

Yes, I can feel myself slipping over to the dark side on this.

Was Slate selling me a scandal and not information with this article:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/20/hillary_clinton_email_scandal_explained.html

The problem is that there are so many things that make it seem like Clinton using her own server was stupid that it is hard to see how she wasn't stupid and by extension she isn't stupid.

And even if you can some how explain why she wasn't unrelentingly stupid on this it still looks like she has some sort of elitist notion going that rules are only for the little people and she gets to do her own thing.

As a practical matter, what Democratic partisans think about this isn't of much interest as far as figuring out how this will effect her chances of winning the general election. This scandal is going to get more Republicans out to vote against her because they will use this scandal to validate their general dislike of her, moderates that are somewhat more on the edge than I am may very well vote against her over this issue and not looking too bright may even discourage a few Democratic partisans from voting for her. If this was my decision and I really didn't want a Republican president (I might vote for Kasich but he's the only one) I'd force her out of the race right now and ask her to support somebody else. But the scandal can also be seen as a kind of tester. How well is she going to handle a tough situation and if she does well maybe that's a sign she'll do OK as president. Right now it looks like she's not doing well on that test, but maybe she can do better in the future.
 
applecorped said:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...6/should_hillary_clinton_suspend_her_campaign

"the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters believe Clinton should suspend her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination until all of the legal questions about her use of the private e-mail server are resolved."
Click to expand...

*shrug* makes sense, but that's pretty much what she's doing. She isn't hitting the road too hard now. In fact, 16.5 was bitching that she wasn't addressing the media for awhile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom