RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
From an actual letter from the actual FBI:

the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

This has been settled for two weeks....
Click to expand...

It would be settled if they had said:
the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton and her use of a private email server.”
Then we would know they are actually investigating her.

But they didn't say that - they talked about the use of the server of Secretary Clinton, which is perfectly consistent with investigating her server, not her.

If they were investigating her they would be doing things like interviewing her, right ?

Also , you should tell the american thinker they are wrong, as they disagree with you:
TheL8Elvis said:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...l_chain_exposed_cia_asset_in_afghanistan.html

As these revelations keep dribbling out, you can sense the noose tightening around Clinton. But there is still no indication that Clinton herself is the target of an FBI investigation, although the use of her unsecure server is
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Trillions to one is extremely unlikely, but not impossible. Anything else?

Man defies 1 in 2.6 trillion odds of winning lottery and getting struck by lightning
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-...nning-lottery-and-getting-struck-by-lightning
Click to expand...

There are so many logical fallacies involved in that claim that it would take me several paragraphs to untangle them. I'll just note that if somebody buys a crapload of lottery tickets, his probability of winning the lottery is higher than the probability of any one ticket being a winner. Also, for each lottery winner, you could find some other unlikely event that happened to him, since there are millions of potential unlikely events. For another lottery winner, you might find that he didn't get struck by lightening, but he did have a rare disease (one of the many thousands that only strike 1 out of a million people). Or perhaps he was bitten by a shark. Or got his dick caught in a blender.

I would bet that the probability you can find a lottery winner who had some other 1 in a million event happen to him is somewhere between 99% and 100%.
 
sunmaster14 said:
There are so many logical fallacies involved in that claim that it would take me several paragraphs to untangle them. I'll just note that if somebody buys a crapload of lottery tickets, his probability of winning the lottery is higher than the probability of any one ticket being a winner. Also, for each lottery winner, you could find some other unlikely event that happened to him, since there are millions of potential unlikely events. For another lottery winner, you might find that he didn't get struck by lightening, but he did have a rare disease (one of the many thousands that only strike 1 out of a million people). Or perhaps he was bitten by a shark. Or got his dick caught in a blender.

I would bet that the probability you can find a lottery winner who had some other 1 in a million event happen to him is somewhere between 99% and 100%.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but it was you who exaggerated 1 in trillions odds of a series of events having a certain outcome into statistically impossible. The example of a series of events having a different outcome that is also 1 in trillions, but actually happened, disproves your "impossible" claim.
Do you have any actual evidence, or only more accusations that you believe based solely on personal animosity?
 
Heads will roll! Someone...up there in bureaucracy...allowed federal employees to use unsecure computers for years and years. Was nobody in charge? Surely the secretary of state is responsible for setting up her department computers. And sending someone to Home Depot to buy paper shredders!

/sarcasm
 
wareyin said:
I'm sorry, but it was you who exaggerated 1 in trillions odds of a series of events having a certain outcome into statistically impossible. The example of a series of events having a different outcome that is also 1 in trillions, but actually happened, disproves your "impossible" claim.
Do you have any actual evidence, or only more accusations that you believe based solely on personal animosity?
Click to expand...

My claims are based on the mathematics of probability which you clearly don't understand. Take my post to somebody who has taken a course in probability. They'll explain that you're embarrassing yourself.
 
sunmaster14 said:
My claims are based on the mathematics of probability which you clearly don't understand. Take my post to somebody who has taken a course in probability. They'll explain that you're embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

So, here is a previous person asking a couple of phd's the question "Can An Event Be Statistically Impossible?"
The answer: "An event is impossible when its probability is zero. If the
probability is greater than zero then it might occur."
and: "As Dr. George said, if the probability is anything other than zero,
then mathematically speaking it IS possible."

Are they also embarrassing themselves?
 
wareyin said:
So, here is a previous person asking a couple of phd's the question "Can An Event Be Statistically Impossible?"
The answer: "An event is impossible when its probability is zero. If the
probability is greater than zero then it might occur."
and: "As Dr. George said, if the probability is anything other than zero,
then mathematically speaking it IS possible."

Are they also embarrassing themselves?
Click to expand...

No, Dr. George is completely correct. You just don't understand what he wrote. The next post in your link actually explains it. There is a difference between mathematically possible and practically possibly.

For example, there is some probability that all of the oxygen moves to the other side of the room you're in for two minutes, and then you die of hypoxia. It's mathematically possible. However, it is absurdly unlikely. To the point that it makes no sense to waste time worrying about it. Likewise, it makes no sense to waste time worrying that Hillary Clinton is an honest, law-abiding person.
 
Leftus said:
Not until the very end of the investigation process.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/05/465688707/hillary-clintons-emails-5-questions-answered

Clinton told a CNN interviewer last month that she had not yet been interviewed by FBI agents. That step typically comes near the end of an investigation.

The longer it goes, the more likely she is the target.
Click to expand...
Yes, but only partly. Let me admit up front that I am not a Hillary fan, but I learn more to the defending-her side on this than not in that I think many of the Hillary bashers attempt to turn every morsel into a feast regardless if it is even edible. Conversely, many of the Hillary defenders attempt to turn every suspicion into exculpation.

Targets of secret investigations are not interviewed until all or nearly all other information is gathered. Targets of non-secret investigations will frequently be among the first interviewed and then be interviewed again at the end and possibly a few times in between. This investigation is certainly not secret, but it is also not not-secret in that since it is politically tinged the bureau will make allowances in appearance (one hopes, though, that they will not do so in substance) and withhold interviews until absolutely necessary.

On the one hand, the fact that she has not been interviewed is damning, as a non-target with relevant information -- which she certainly has -- could expect to be interviewed early on almost without exception. But this may be the exception since it's a politically tinged investigation.

I'll close with a nitpick: the way the bit I highlighted is worded is too absolute. By that standard, the longer it goes then the more likely that I and everyone else on this thread is likely to be the target. Of course, that's taking it out of context, but you get the point.
 
Last thought: I find the argumentation over whether or not she is the target to be highly tedious and equivalent to grasping semantic straws. Officially and technically she may very well not be the target of the investigation, but that changes absolutely nothing about the conduct of the investigation in this instance. All findings will be weighed in regard to her actions, both taken and not taken, regardless if she is called the target of the investigation or not. There is simply no non-political way around that.

It's like saying that when the FBI starts investigating all the deposits to and withdrawals from my bank account that they are not investigating me. Maybe they aren't; maybe I'm the unwitting conduit for a bunch of international money-launderers, but that is a determination after the fact, not during.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I've already explained that it's more than simply taking someones word as truth:
​

and I've already provided what evidence we have to date that it was a likely a newspaper article:

​



Because that's what has been stated:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-form...hillary-clintons-email-server?cid=sm_fb_msnbc

"FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server"

and I also quoted from yesterday a very right-wing-critical-of-clinton site that also concurs with this:

​


So you can feel free to explain why it's in Clintons benefit to lie about something that can and has been easily verified, or provide some evidence that the FBI is actually investing Clinton - perhpas the date when they interviewed her ?

Or I guess you can simply handwave it all away ...
Click to expand...

I've already seen your arguments and the explanations were already given to you by others in past posts. No amount of repeating them will accomplish anything.

Also contrary to the assertions of some I've never claimed she is guilty, only being investigated as part of the server investigation. Investigated does not equal guilty.
 
sunmaster14 said:
No, Dr. George is completely correct. You just don't understand what he wrote. The next post in your link actually explains it. There is a difference between mathematically possible and practically possibly.

For example, there is some probability that all of the oxygen moves to the other side of the room you're in for two minutes, and then you die of hypoxia. It's mathematically possible. However, it is absurdly unlikely. To the point that it makes no sense to waste time worrying about it. Likewise, it makes no sense to waste time worrying that Hillary Clinton is an honest, law-abiding person.
Click to expand...

I always enjoy reading your posts, so dripping with condescending snark, especially when you agree with both what I wrote, and the link I posted to support it, while still claiming I'm wrong.

Odds of 1 in trillions are not statistically impossible, nor are they mathematically impossible. Odds of turning $1000 into $100,000 over 10 months in cattle futures are nowhere near the odds of all the oxygen in a room spontaneously moving to one side of the room.

You don't like Clinton. That's not uncommon in this thread. Your personal bias leads you to accept every accusation against Clinton, no matter the lack of evidence. That's fine, for you. Others need evidence. Your statistical tomfoolery is not evidence.
 
Garrette said:
Last thought: I find the argumentation over whether or not she is the target to be highly tedious and equivalent to grasping semantic straws. Officially and technically she may very well not be the target of the investigation, but that changes absolutely nothing about the conduct of the investigation in this instance. All findings will be weighed in regard to her actions, both taken and not taken, regardless if she is called the target of the investigation or not. There is simply no non-political way around that.

It's like saying that when the FBI starts investigating all the deposits to and withdrawals from my bank account that they are not investigating me. Maybe they aren't; maybe I'm the unwitting conduit for a bunch of international money-launderers, but that is a determination after the fact, not during.
Click to expand...

Agreed:thumbsup:
 
wareyin said:
I always enjoy reading your posts, so dripping with condescending snark, especially when you agree with both what I wrote, and the link I posted to support it, while still claiming I'm wrong.

Odds of 1 in trillions are not statistically impossible, nor are they mathematically impossible. Odds of turning $1000 into $100,000 over 10 months in cattle futures are nowhere near the odds of all the oxygen in a room spontaneously moving to one side of the room.

You don't like Clinton. That's not uncommon in this thread. Your personal bias leads you to accept every accusation against Clinton, no matter the lack of evidence. That's fine, for you. Others need evidence. Your statistical tomfoolery is not evidence.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between evidence and absolute proof. There is evidence on every page of this thread - evidence of a lot of things.

Hillary is the Trillion-To-One-Kid. Trillary!
 
Garrette said:
Last thought: I find the argumentation over whether or not she is the target to be highly tedious and equivalent to grasping semantic straws. Officially and technically she may very well not be the target of the investigation, but that changes absolutely nothing about the conduct of the investigation in this instance. All findings will be weighed in regard to her actions, both taken and not taken, regardless if she is called the target of the investigation or not. There is simply no non-political way around that.

It's like saying that when the FBI starts investigating all the deposits to and withdrawals from my bank account that they are not investigating me. Maybe they aren't; maybe I'm the unwitting conduit for a bunch of international money-launderers, but that is a determination after the fact, not during.
Click to expand...

Hey.... rational thought is not allowed around these parts. Your post will cause partisan heads to asplode from the overload of logic.

*ducks and runs for dear life*
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Trillions to one is extremely unlikely, but not impossible. Anything else?

Man defies 1 in 2.6 trillion odds of winning lottery and getting struck by lightning
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-...nning-lottery-and-getting-struck-by-lightning
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
Garrette said:
I'll close with a nitpick: the way the bit I highlighted is worded is too absolute. By that standard, the longer it goes then the more likely that I and everyone else on this thread is likely to be the target. Of course, that's taking it out of context, but you get the point.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how saying that her odds of being the target of the investigation increases over time without an interview is an absolute statement. I did not say that because she has not been interviewed by now that she is the target, just that the odds of being the target increase. However, I would say that if she hasn't been interviewed by now she is not on the witness list. If you aren't on that list by now, I would suggest that you might be wise to consider yourself a potential target.

What odds would you put on Clinton not being interviewed? I have it fairly close to zero. If the reports that Huma, Mills and Sullivan have been served with notices from the FBI about an interview, then the fact that Clinton doesn't have one of this lowers the chances that she isn't the target.

The investigation has a target and it's not an inanimate object.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom