RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
:eye-poppi

the actual emails that was accurately described is in the actual link.

Oh well, the "konspiracy!!!" dodge, the refuge of the hand waver.

I was referring, of course, to the made up parts:

<snip>

Hillary replied "pls print" because she is old.

This might explain why google news serves up pro-hillary, garbage propaganda like "media matters" without mentioning that it is propaganda.
 
EXPERTS SEE LITTLE CHANCE OF CHARGES IN CLINTON EMAIL CASE
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-22-12-25-26

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Asked earlier this month whether she'd be indicted over her use of a private email server as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton responded, "It's not going to happen."

Though Republicans characterized her response as hubris, several legal experts interviewed by The Associated Press agreed with the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.


Of course, avid readers of this thread will know that knowledgeable posters in this thread have been saying that for quite a while, now...
 
EXPERTS SEE LITTLE CHANCE OF CHARGES IN CLINTON EMAIL CASE
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-22-12-25-26

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Asked earlier this month whether she'd be indicted over her use of a private email server as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton responded, "It's not going to happen."

Though Republicans characterized her response as hubris, several legal experts interviewed by The Associated Press agreed with the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.


Of course, avid readers of this thread will know that knowledgeable posters in this thread have been saying that for quite a while, now...

Avid readers also know that one of the experts said it was a jury question, hmmmm.... I did enjoy how you bolded the Dear leaders' self serving claim that it isn't going to happen.:rolleyes:

Plus, lets not kid ourselves, we have only seen the emails that Hillary chose not to destroy. The FBI has their hands on those goodies.

And I bet not all of them concern Hillary's yoga class.
 
EXPERTS SEE LITTLE CHANCE OF CHARGES IN CLINTON EMAIL CASE
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-22-12-25-26

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Asked earlier this month whether she'd be indicted over her use of a private email server as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton responded, "It's not going to happen."

Though Republicans characterized her response as hubris, several legal experts interviewed by The Associated Press agreed with the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.


Of course, avid readers of this thread will know that knowledgeable posters in this thread have been saying that for quite a while, now...

What Hillary says about that matter is kind of irrelevant. She's going to spin it positively regardless since she's a running candidate and that message has to be delivered as such to avoid bad publicity. She's not teflon the way a certain Republican candidate seems to be. Even I'd do that in her position. She could be correct about whether she gets charged with anything, but we don't know that definitely until they stop investigating her email set up.

I'd go as far to point out that there are several scenarios where she doesn't get indicted for varying reasons with some of the more cynical ones being that she's an influential politician with enough connections to potentially stave off an indictment provided it doesn't cross the threshold sufficiently hard enough. In the best case scenario she still used a loophole to dodge FOIA regulations, whether that was intentional or not. That's a pretty forgettable offense to the majority of the electorate given how most people vote. But it's also a problem that a lot of voters complain about, and one that congress has not seen fit to address overall.
 
Last edited:
What Hillary says about that matter is kind of irrelevant. She's going to spin it positively regardless since she's a running candidate and that message has to be delivered as such to avoid bad publicity. She's not teflon the way a certain Republican candidate seems to be. Even I'd do that in her position. She could be correct about whether she gets charged with anything, but we don't know that definitely until they stop investigating her email set up.

It wasn't really about what she said, though, was it ?

"It's not going to happen."
Though Republicans characterized her response as hubris, several legal experts interviewed by The Associated Press agreed

Better?

I'd go as far to point out that there are several scenarios where she doesn't get indicted for varying reasons with some of the more cynical ones being that she's an influential politician with enough connections to potentially stave off an indictment provided it doesn't cross the threshold sufficiently hard enough.

That could certainly be true. There has always been a different set of rules for those in power.

In the best case scenario she still used a loophole to dodge FOIA regulations, whether that was intentional or not. That's a pretty forgettable offense to the majority of the electorate given how most people vote. But it's also a problem that a lot of voters complain about, and one that congress has not seen fit to address overall.

No, You would think with all the outrage in the House, the republicans might have even made the smallest attempt to fix things, instead of just playing "let's get Hillary"
 
Avid readers also know that one of the experts said it was a jury question, hmmmm.... I did enjoy how you bolded the Dear leaders' self serving claim that it isn't going to happen.:rolleyes:

You get one too ...

It wasn't really about what she said, though, was it ?

"It's not going to happen."
Though Republicans characterized her response as hubris, several legal experts interviewed by The Associated Press agreed


Sorry I didn't spell it out for you earlier, it appears to have confused you...

Plus, lets not kid ourselves, we have only seen the emails that Hillary chose not to destroy. The FBI has their hands on those goodies.

And I bet not all of them concern Hillary's yoga class.

Oh goody, mind reading or prognostication ?

Why don't you enlighten us as to their contents, and what the FBI and DOJ will do about ?
 
Last edited:
You get one too ...

It wasn't really about what she said, though, was it ?

"It's not going to happen."
Though Republicans characterized her response as hubris, several legal experts interviewed by The Associated Press agreed


Sorry I didn't spell it out for you earlier, it appears to have confused you...

No reason to get in a huff, you just cherry picked my post again. We get it it, it is what you do.

Avid readers also know that one of the experts said it was a jury question, hmmmm....

That is the part you missed. Cool post otherwise.

Oh goody, mind reading or prognostication ?

Why don't you enlighten us as to their contents, and what the FBI and DOJ will do about ?

I said that I bet they were not all about yoga. You disagree? Oh goody, mind reading or prognostication ? Why don't you enlighten us as to their contents.
 
It wasn't really about what she said, though, was it ?
No difference... it's standard practice when dealing with public image. Not that I find anything inherently wrong with it to begin with.

No, You would think with all the outrage in the House, the republicans might have even made the smallest attempt to fix things, instead of just playing "let's get Hillary"
On the same token Democrats have had plenty of opportunity to raise this issue since their republican counterparts did anything similar in the Bush administration. Complaining about who did what about the the issue is a fun mental exercise of "he did, she did" but at the end of the day nobody got that resolved - end of story. That's my point.

You or others can hang tip your hats at what a Hillary hater I or someone else must be for criticizing this email issue.... I'm sorry, but as I've said before it's rather hard to talk about the problem in overall abstract while staying on-topic in a Hillary-centric discussion where everybody else is focusing their criticisms on the one person. I've said before that what I say regarding Hillary has no exceptions... I will apply that standard to the Republicans and anyone else in a public office that sees fit to do as Hillary did. If you think I'm stepping away from that principal, feel free to point it out, but I don't think this view is out of touch.
 
Last edited:
No difference... it's standard practice when dealing with public image. Not that I find anything inherently wrong with it to begin with.

I don't understand. There seems to be this giant elephant in the discussion of yet more legal experts who say that clinton won't be charged...

THAT was the point, not what she said. Unless you are claiming that they are simply there to bolster her public image ?

On the same token Democrats have had plenty of opportunity to raise this issue since their republican counterparts did anything similar in the Bush administration. Complaining about who did what about the the issue is a fun mental exercise of "he did, she did" but at the end of the day nobody got that resolved - end of story. That's my point.

Sure, but we are talking about now, not then.

You or others can hang tip your hats at what a Hillary hater I or someone else must be for criticizing this email issue.... I'm sorry, but as I've said before it's rather hard to talk about the problem in overall abstract while staying on-topic in a Hillary-centric discussion where everybody else is focusing their criticisms on the one person. I've said before that what I say regarding Hillary has no exceptions... I will apply that standard to the Republicans and anyone else in a public office that sees fit to do as Hillary did. If you think I'm stepping away from that principal, feel free to point it out, but I don't think this view is out of touch.

I'm not sure who or what you are arguing against.
 
No reason to get in a huff, you just cherry picked my post again. We get it it, it is what you do.

How did I do that, by quoting it in full ? :rolleyes:

That is the part you missed. Cool post otherwise.

I didn't miss that part.

I said that I bet they were not all about yoga. You disagree? Oh goody, mind reading or prognostication ? Why don't you enlighten us as to their contents.

I agree. They were all probably not about black swans either.

If that was the only point you wanted to make, that they were all probably not about yoga, why bother ?

Seriously, why would you bother making such a trivially obvious point ?
 
How did I do that, by quoting it in full ? :rolleyes:



I didn't miss that part.



I agree. They were all probably not about black swans either.

If that was the only point you wanted to make, that they were all probably not about yoga, why bother ?

Seriously, why would you bother making such a trivially obvious point ?

didn't miss it? Just ignored it, eh?

Trivially? That is your bag, man.

I know that they are not all about yoga, because we have proof that Hillary was using the clintonemails address for government business before March of 2009. Despite her and her teams lie that she was not. We also know those were not produced to State.

Post something else trivial about mindreading, I need a chuckle.
 
didn't miss it? Just ignored it, eh?

Yes , it was clearly an outlier.

Trivially? That is your bag, man.

You have resorted to "I know you are, but what am I ?"

Sad....

I know that they are not all about yoga, because we have proof that Hillary was using the clintonemails address for government business before March of 2009. Despite her and her teams lie that she was not. We also know those were not produced to State.

Congratulations. That info and three dollars will get you a coffee.

Post something else trivial about mindreading, I need a chuckle.

But you are so good at it ...
 
Yes , it was clearly an outlier.



You have resorted to "I know you are, but what am I ?"

Sad....



Congratulations. That info and three dollars will get you a coffee.



But you are so good at it ...

Whoa, that is some trivial ****.

Hillary lied, you don't care. But you'll be back dutifully carrying Hillary's water, again.
 
Whoa, that is some trivial ****.

Hillary lied, you don't care. But you'll be back dutifully carrying Hillary's water, again.

I don't care about her supposed lie exactly because it's "some trivial ****" :rolleyes:

Provide specific details proving what she lied about, and a good argument why anyone should care about it. Then we can come from there instead of this vague non-sourced hand waving ********
 
I don't care about her supposed lie exactly because it's "some trivial ****" :rolleyes:

Provide specific details proving what she lied about, and a good argument why anyone should care about it. Then we can come from there instead of this vague non-sourced hand waving ********

And there you go, the guy basically admits that he did zero research before hand waving it away with the utterly flippant statement "Congratulations. That info and three dollars will get you a coffee." Now after that he changes gear and pretends to have interest. Not enough to do anything to actually look it up using basic internet sources.

Now we all know I will produce a link, and we will receive an equally flippant reply.

Hillary caught lying again: More evidence of documents withheld from the State Department.

Hand waving below
 
16.5 said:
And there you go, the guy basically admits that he did zero research before hand waving it away with the utterly flippant statement "Congratulations. That info and three dollars will get you a coffee." Now after that he changes gear and pretends to have interest. Not enough to do anything to actually look it up using basic internet sources.

In your world , asking someone to provide evidence for a claim is the same as admitting doing zero research ?? What a strange world you live in.

16.5 said:
Now we all know I will produce a link, and we will receive an equally flippant reply.

Hillary caught lying again: More evidence of documents withheld from the State Department.

Hand waving below

You supplied a link, not an argument.

I read the link. I don't see a lie. Be specific if you want to have a discussion
 
In your world , asking someone to provide evidence for a claim is the same as admitting doing zero research ?? What a strange world you live in.

You supplied a link, not an argument.

I read the link. I don't see a lie. Be specific if you want to have a discussion

You don't see a lie. The guy who hand waved it away before even doing the slightest bit of research? Now you have read the link and see the February 2009 date on the clintonemails.com email that Hillary sent, and the following:

On December 5, 2014, 30,490 copies of work or potentially work-related emails sent and received by Clinton from March 18, 2009, to February 1, 2013, were provided to the State Department. This totaled roughly 55,000 pages. More than 90% of her work or potentially work-related emails provided to the Department were already in the State Department’s record-keeping system because those e-mails were sent to or received by “state.gov” accounts.

Early in her term, Clinton continued using an att.blackberry.net account that she had used during her Senate service. Given her practice from the beginning of emailing State Department officials on their state.gov accounts, her work-related emails during these initial weeks would have been captured and preserved in the State Department’s record-keeping system. She, however, no longer had access to these emails once she transitioned from this account.

Oh gee, the above quoted section is false = lie.

Can I spoon feed you anymore, guy who handwaved it away before doing any research at all?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom