RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
davefoc said:
If it was up to the Democrats would the public know that Clinton thumbed her nose at regulations and took ridiculous risks with sensitive SoS communications? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Well...it's a good thing none of it is in the NEWS!:rolleyes::D:rolleyes:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
16.5 is falsely claiming "Vice, Gawker, the AP and breaking news on these issues (as shown yesterday) by CBS, WaPo and the New York Times...." initiated an investigation, when it was the Benghazi witch hunters behind the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Wow, what a nasty attack, par for the course tho...

Your claim is that "it was the Benghazi witch hunters behind the whole thing."

Lets check that out:

AP: Issued FOIA requests beginning in 2010(two years before Benghazi)These requests sought (i)Secretary Clinton’s calendars and schedules (two requests); (ii) records concerning the designation of Special Government Employee status given to Secretary Clinton’s former Deputy
Chief of Staff Huma Abedin; (iii) records concerning the raid in Pakistan in which Osama binLaden was killed; (iv) records concerning surveillance and other anti-terrorism programs conducted by the U.S. government; and (v) records concerning the State Department’s dealings with defense contractor BAE Systems, with whom it reached a settlement in 2011 over violations
of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

Ap files suit against the State Department in March of 2015

Gawker: Issued two Foia requests: 1. FOIA request seeking Hillary's emails with Sid Blumenthal following the 2013 Guccifer Hack; 2. Gawker files a FOIA request seeking Phillipe Reines emails after he sends this to BuzzFeed:

I now understand why the official investigation by the Department of the Defense as reported by The Army Times The Washington Post concluded beyond a doubt that you’re an unmitigated *******.

How’s that for a non-******** response?

Now that we’ve gotten that out of our systems, have a good day.

And by good day, I mean **** Off
Click to expand...

Gawker files suit against the State Department in March of 2015

Vice: November 14, 2014, Vice reporter Jason Leopold issues FOIA request to State Department seeking all of Hillay's emails from Janaury 2009 to 2013.

Vice/Leopold files against the State department in january 2015.

Any other question Skeptic Ginger, or just going to continue a grossly uninformed partisan attack?
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Wow, what a nasty attack, par for the course tho...

Your claim is that "it was the Benghazi witch hunters behind the whole thing."

Lets check that out:
Click to expand...

This post of yours was completely unfair. If SG didn't even know who was being sued, how can you possibly expect her to know what the lawsuits were about?
 
Ziggurat said:
This post of yours was completely unfair. If SG didn't even know who was being sued, how can you possibly expect her to know what the lawsuits were about?
Click to expand...

Well she certainly has no hesitation claiming that I was making false claims, and it is the "right wing droolers" who are behind everything that is bad that happens to Hillary.

Cripes, she had no idea what the AP suit was all about despite the fact I mentioned it at least a half dozen times.
 
wareyin said:
Hmmm, this seems at odds with those Clinton Obsession sufferer's claims that it was Clinton herself being investigated.
Click to expand...
"The buck stops one layer below Hillary".

:boggled:
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
This post of yours was completely unfair. If SG didn't even know who was being sued, how can you possibly expect her to know what the lawsuits were about?
Click to expand...

You guys had better watch out for those low information voters!:D:rolleyes::D
 
wareyin said:
I gave you credit for finding an article which points out yet again that Clinton is not being investigated.
Click to expand...

Huma Abedin's potential mishandling of classified documents on her clintonemail.com account doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton couldn't also mishandle documents on the clintonemail.com account.

In fact, the more likely that her top aide mishandled and shared documents with her, the more likely that she mishandled those very same documents as well. Because we know, as Clinton said so herself, she didn't handle any documents as classified on her server.
 
davefoc said:
There seem to be two claims here:
1. 16.5 said something that a reasonable person would interpret to mean that Clinton was being sued.

I didn't notice that, but if he did it seems that he was wrong. Did you have a particular post in mind where he said something like that?
Click to expand...
Yes and I quoted it, and actually he said it more than once. Also I asked, if that wasn't what he meant, what did he mean? To which he predictably dodged the question with a red herring. No surprise there.

davefoc said:
2. The various news agencies that are suing the State Department based on FOIA claims were instigated to do so by the GOP Benghazi witch hunters.

Is this a defense of Clinton? If the GOP did initiate the media interest in CLinton's server and the emails that weren't available to the Benghazi panels, is this the fault of the GOP, the media or Clinton for not following the rules with regard to providing her emails for archiving? I agree that the Benghazi stuff is all about partisan politics and the exploitation of a tragedy for partisan political purposes, but does that mean everything that they happen to uncover is not a real issue. Did they happen to stumble on a real issue here? I think it's obvious that this is a real issue and it is more a point in favor of partisan politics than against it. If it was up to the Democrats would the public know that Clinton thumbed her nose at regulations and took ridiculous risks with sensitive SoS communications? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
You and I still disagree as to the relevance of this faux outrageous incident.

From the POV there is nothing sensational here, and as it stands there isn't, (let me know when Clinton is actually charged with something), what you have is the Benghazi witch hunters having found nothing so far, wishfully hoping to find, if they go fishing, some incriminating email despite having no evidence such an email exists.

What 16.5 would have us believe is the news media went after Clinton for the supposed outrageous crime of hiding her emails and that the witch hunters were not behind the investigation.

Colin Powell didn't save or disclose any of his emails while in office. The idea that the office of Secretary of State's day to day communications should be open to fine tooth combing is a new thing. No one asked, let alone claimed it was a crime for any past Secretary of State receiving emails to prove nothing classified passed through their hands outside of the government system.

Do you think GW Bush and Cheney exchanged any classified material when they went completely outside the government email system as it was disclosed they had done?
Bush White House email controversy
Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government.

The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose.
Click to expand...
Absolutely everything Clinton is being vilified for, the Bush administration did a thousand-fold worse.

Scooter Libby was prosecuted for leaking classified information to the press. Were Bush, Cheney or any of the rest of them investigated, let alone prosecuted, for having classified information on the private server they were using?

Of course not.

And yet now when something much less serious occurred, [and again, Clinton has some very legitimate reasons to keep things close to the vest that have nothing to do with unethical conduct like firing attorneys who won't do the GOP's political bidding or lying us into a war)] the hypocrites would have everyone believe Clinton stepped way out of bounds.

IOW eight years ago it was business as usual. Now suddenly it's an outrage, criminal misconduct, and negligent handling of classified material.

Think about it.

So back to your question, hiding one's witch hunt behind the faux legitimacy of a press investigation reminds me of Dick Cheney leaking a story to the NYTs then going on the talk shows and telling the public, the NYTs story backed him up.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes and I quoted it, and actually he said it more than once.
Click to expand...
I think you made a mistake and quoted something other than what you meant to quote. Could you try again, more carefully this time? And maybe hilite the part where he says Clinton was sued?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes and I quoted it, and actually he said it more than once. Also I asked, if that wasn't what he meant, what did he mean? To which he predictably dodged the question with a red herring. No surprise there.
Click to expand...

False. You quoted nothing

Everything you have posted regarding the lawsuits is utterly false.

You catch up with the post where I explained the information the vice, gawker and the AP was seeking yet?
 
WildCat said:
I think you made a mistake and quoted something other than what you meant to quote. Could you try again, more carefully this time? And maybe hilite the part where he says Clinton was sued?
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
False. You quoted nothing
Everything you have posted regarding the lawsuits is utterly false....
Click to expand...
If you want to discuss the relevant issues, feel free. Your red herring is a fail.
[imgw=400]http://i.imgur.com/r1Kkb1I.png?1[/imgw]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Skeptic Ginger said:
If you want to discuss the relevant issues, feel free. Your red herring is a fail.
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/r1Kkb1I.png?1[/qimg]
Click to expand...

wow, huge picture. why don't you tell everyone what the red herring is?

Is is vice, ap and gawker?

c'mon skeptic ginger...
 
Last edited:
Dog Town said:
So you got nothing, but a large cartoon. Just like Slick Hilly. No evidence...noted!
Click to expand...

her response to an expertly detailed post regarding vice, gawker, ap lawsuits was to post an insipid cartoon and write about scooter libby.

that is the type of "skeptical" support Hillary Clinton gets around here.

lolz.

I wish she would post more. :D:D
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Meanwhile, 16.5 still hasn't clarified whether when he claimed clinton was being investigated by the FBI, he really meant other people ....
Click to expand...

Oh, my bad: Hillary's top aides are being investigated by the FBI, Hillary's emails are being investigated by the the FBI, Hillary's server is being investigated by the FBI, the fact that Hillary gave copies of her emails to her law firm is being investigated by the FBI, ergo Hillary is being investigated by the FBI.

I think it is delightfully naive that people think Hillary is not the subject of the investigation by the FBI!

Keep on BELIEVING! hee hee!
 
wareyin said:
Hey, look, the NYT is talking about the email investigation: (my highlighting)

That email, which included an update from the Africa Command of the Department of Defense detailing Libyan military movements, is part of the evidence that law enforcement officials say the F.B.I. is now examining as it tries to determine whether aides to Mrs. Clinton mishandled delicate national security information when they communicated with their boss.

also

There is no evidence that any of the emails — a small portion of some 60,000 that Mrs. Clinton sent or received as secretary of state — were hacked or caused any harm to American interests, and law enforcement officials have said she is not a target of their investigation. But one of the questions they are seeking to answer is whether her aides or other State Department officials broke federal rules or laws when they sent her information. And arriving at an answer will not be simple, given the complex and often conflicting views of just how diplomatically fragile the information conveyed in the emails actually was.

Hmmm, this seems at odds with those Clinton Obsession sufferer's claims that it was Clinton herself being investigated.

Hat tip to 16.5 for pointing out this article in another thread.
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
Oh, my bad: Hillary's top aides are being investigated by the FBI, Hillary's emails are being investigated by the the FBI, Hillary's server is being investigated by the FBI, the fact that Hillary gave copies of her emails to her law firm is being investigated by the FBI, ergo Hillary is being investigated by the FBI. I think it is delightfully naive that people think Hillary is not the subject of the investigation by the FBI!

Keep on BELIEVING! hee hee!
Click to expand...

Some serious cognitive dissonance. :eek:

ETA: perhaps it's just plain old denial
 
16.5 said:
her response to an expertly detailed post regarding vice, gawker, ap lawsuits was to post an insipid cartoon and write about scooter libby.

that is the type of "skeptical" support Hillary Clinton gets around here.

lolz.

I wish she would post more. :D:D
Click to expand...
Her next post will be a long rant about Colin Powell, Bush, Iraq, Repugnicans... but nothing on topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom