RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[wareyin]

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:



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?

The claim that on Dec 5, 2014, 30,490 emails were turned over is a lie? Which part, the date, or the amount, or both?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You don't see a lie.

No.

The guy who hand waved it away?

To paraphrase, that which is asserted without evidence may be handwaved away.

If you don't understand why, I can explain further....

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:


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

I still don't see a lie Clinton told.

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.

Which part of that is false ?

Can I spoon feed you anymore, guy who handwaved it away before doing any research at all?

I don't see you spoon feeding anything, just your usual shoveling of ********.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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...

I take what they say at face value, but they are opinions based on their current understanding of the circumstances and the investigation. Happy? Doesn't change that Hillary taking a positive spin on the investigation is something she has to do though. It's SOP. Once again I'm not suggesting anything bad in of itself, it's just something I'd expect her to be doing while running a campaign.

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

OK. What is the DNC doing about the issue of external email communications right now? What are democrats in congress doing right now to curb this in the future? Will they do anything to show the Republicans how this should be handled? Because clearly the house Republicans have not done anything yet besides elevating the issue atop a platform of election year play. I think this is an opportunity to show the party howto properly close loopholes.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

oopsie. Hillary clean forgot to release the emails from February, at the beginning of her term, showing how well she knew what she was doing.

The FBI has the ones she tried to delete. Wikileaks is already putting out plenty showing that Syria and Libya were based on lies.

Nothing new here, Carter was arming the Jihadis in Afghanistan and he is held out as a very anti-war president. We just never learn our lesson. Blowback, and in this case ISIS.

Trump has Hillary by her balls on this the way none of the republicans could because of their duplicity. McCain - that establishment dinosaur needs to go as well. Syria was Hillary Clinton and John McCain's bipartisan war crime. They personally vetted our team of Jihadis.

 

[The Big Dog]

No.



To paraphrase, that which is asserted without evidence may be handwaved away.

If you don't understand why, I can explain further....



I still don't see a lie Clinton told.

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.

Which part of that is false ?



I don't see you spoon feeding anything, just your usual shoveling of ********.

The march date and the entire following paragraph that you deleted, obviously.

Spoon feeding? I forget I have to treat Hillary fans like children.

 

[wareyin]

The march date and the entire following paragraph that you deleted, obviously.

Spoon feeding? I forget I have to treat Hillary fans like children.

Are you claiming that on Dec 5, 2014, Clinton gave emails dating from Feb, rather than March? I thought you just claimed that those February emails were just discovered, not that they had been in State's possession since Dec of 14.

 

[WildCat]

Though Republicans characterized her response as hubris, several legal experts interviewed by The Associated Press agreed

Do the legal experts have access to the emails that were recovered by the FBI from Hillary's server that was "wiped with a cloth or something"? Do they have access to her tech guy's statements to the FBI after he was granted immunity to prosecution? The rest of the FBI investigation?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The march date and the entire following paragraph that you deleted, obviously.

The entire following paragraph is a lie ???

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.

She didn't turn over 30490 emails ?

She didn't turn over emails from march 18 ?

You are not making any sense.

Try again.

Spoon feeding? I forget I have to treat Hillary fans like children.

Perhaps HDS makes it difficult to communicate effectively....

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Do the legal experts have access to the emails that were recovered by the FBI from Hillary's server that was "wiped with a cloth or something"? Do they have access to her tech guy's statements to the FBI after he was granted immunity to prosecution? The rest of the FBI investigation?

I don't know, the article didn't say.

Do these questions have a point ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I take what they say at face value, but they are opinions based on their current understanding of the circumstances and the investigation. Happy? Doesn't change that Hillary taking a positive spin on the investigation is something she has to do though. It's SOP. Once again I'm not suggesting anything bad in of itself, it's just something I'd expect her to be doing while running a campaign.


OK. What is the DNC doing about the issue of external email communications right now? What are democrats in congress doing right now to curb this in the future? Will they do anything to show the Republicans how this should be handled? Because clearly the house Republicans have not done anything yet besides elevating the issue atop a platform of election year play. I think this is an opportunity to show the party howto properly close loopholes.

I agree, I hope they do something to fix the loopholes.

 

[sunmaster14]

I agree, I hope they do something to fix the loopholes.

There are no loopholes. There are only criminals who haven't been brought to justice.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Also, just let me throw this 6 months old news out there ...

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f80a...als-more-work-emails-clintons-private-account

The Petraeus emails, first discovered by the Defense Department and then passed to the State Department's inspector general, challenge that claim. They start on Jan. 10, 2009, with Clinton using the older email account. But by Jan. 28 — a week after her swearing in — she switched to using the private email address on a homebrew server that she would rely on for the rest of her tenure. There are less than 10 emails back and forth in total, officials said, and the chain ends on Feb. 1.


IOW, it's been know for over 6 months when she started using her clintonemail address.

You can hear her discuss it with Chuck todd here on MTP:
https://archive.org/details/WRC_20150927_143000_Meet_the_Press

Is this old news what you are so excited about, 16.5 ?

 

[WildCat]

I don't know, the article didn't say.

Do these questions have a point ?

Of course you know, and playing dumb is not an argument.

 

[The Big Dog]

You are not making any sense.

curious, you were able to figure out similar evidence of Hillary lying based on what I wrote )and the numerous links that made it plain as day)

Also, just let me throw this 6 months old news out there ...

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f80a...als-more-work-emails-clintons-private-account

The Petraeus emails, first discovered by the Defense Department and then passed to the State Department's inspector general, challenge that claim. They start on Jan. 10, 2009, with Clinton using the older email account. But by Jan. 28 — a week after her swearing in — she switched to using the private email address on a homebrew server that she would rely on for the rest of her tenure. There are less than 10 emails back and forth in total, officials said, and the chain ends on Feb. 1.


IOW, it's been know for over 6 months when she started using her clintonemail address.

You can hear her discuss it with Chuck todd here on MTP:
https://archive.org/details/WRC_20150927_143000_Meet_the_Press

Is this old news what you are so excited about, 16.5 ?

Hee hee! You were so obsessed with "one upping" me you actually managed to post more evidence that your hero Hillary is a dirty sneaking fraud.

Fantastic!

 

[davefoc]

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.

I mostly agree and you may be more quick witted than I am, but I thought that was a real think on her feet moment for Clinton. I thought about the question before I heard Clinton's answer and nothing I came up with remotely as effective as what Clinton said and I still haven't come up with anything more effective. Of course, like you said that would have been her answer was regardless of the probabilities of an indictment.

Perhaps the Clinton bashers* in this thread could take a break for a moment and give Clinton some profs on her quick wit there. My guess is they can't or won't. Once you're deeply invested in the Clinton is the devil meme, it's hard to pull back even for a moment.

On a different subject: One of the things I have been curious about since the beginning of this scandal is why the heck she did it. It was deeply hypocritical given her earlier castigation of the Republicans for doing essentially the same thing and it flaunted the rules in a couple of significant ways for great risk and very little to gain. I doubted that it was to cover up some nefarious communications because I doubt she would be having those via emails, because high level corruption often does not include explicit quid pro quos and I thought there was a reasonable chance she wasn't engaged in criminal shenanigans with respect to her foundation.

So why did she do it? I believe the answer was that she liked her blackberry, she wanted to keep using it and the NSA told her she couldn't have a secure one. So she just thought she'd be cute and have her own server set up so she could use whatever devices she felt like. It seems a bit ludicrous to take the chances she did for so little gain, but we've all made stupid decisions in our lives and this just happened to be one of hers. I'm a bit concerned that he management style creates an environment where she surrounds herself with sycophants that don't challenge her, but for me, she's the best choice available this time around.

On the other hand some of the other candidates do offer even more opportunities for humor:
http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/trump_the_laughingstock_20151228

* please feel free to substitute your own noun if you object to this characterization.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Of course you know, and playing dumb is not an argument.

Neither is JAQing off. If you have a point to make, just make it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

curious, you were able to figure out similar evidence of Hillary lying based on what I wrote )and the numerous links that made it plain as day)

No, I still don't see what this big "lie" is. She already admitted she was using her email prior to march, but the record she had started then. Where is the "lie" and why is it important ?

(I'll give you a hint, it's not)

Hee hee! You were so obsessed with "one upping" me you actually managed to post more evidence that your hero Hillary is a dirty sneaking fraud.

Fantastic!

It's not evidence of anything except your excitement over mis-understanding 6 month old news that's irrelevant.

If your ignorance of the facts makes you feel like you've "one upped" me, enjoy.

 

[WildCat]

Neither is JAQing off. If you have a point to make, just make it.

The point is that no one but the FBI has all the relevant information at the moment, so anyone else saying there is or isn't enough to bring charges is full of bovine excrement.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I mostly agree and you may be more quick witted than I am, but I thought that was a real think on her feet moment for Clinton. I thought about the question before I heard Clinton's answer and nothing I came up with remotely as effective as what Clinton said and I still haven't come up with anything more effective. Of course, like you said that would have been her answer was regardless of the probabilities of an indictment.

Perhaps the Clinton bashers* in this thread could take a break for a moment and give Clinton some profs on her quick wit there. My guess is they can't or won't. Once you're deeply invested in the Clinton is the devil meme, it's hard to pull back even for a moment.

On a different subject: One of the things I have been curious about since the beginning of this scandal is why the heck she did it. It was deeply hypocritical given her earlier castigation of the Republicans for doing essentially the same thing and it flaunted the rules in a couple of significant ways for great risk and very little to gain. I doubted that it was to cover up some nefarious communications because I doubt she would be having those via emails, because high level corruption often does not include explicit quid pro quos and I thought there was a reasonable chance she wasn't engaged in criminal shenanigans with respect to her foundation.

So why did she do it? I believe the answer was that she liked her blackberry, she wanted to keep using it and the NSA told her she couldn't have a secure one. So she just thought she'd be cute and have her own server set up so she could use whatever devices she felt like. It seems a bit ludicrous to take the chances she did for so little gain, but we've all made stupid decisions in our lives and this just happened to be one of hers. I'm a bit concerned that he management style creates an environment where she surrounds herself with sycophants that don't challenge her, but for me, she's the best choice available this time around.

On the other hand some of the other candidates do offer even more opportunities for humor:
http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/trump_the_laughingstock_20151228

* please feel free to substitute your own noun if you object to this characterization.

I see nothing wrong with a woman who has every detail of her life scrutinized by her political enemies wanting some control over her emails.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The point is that no one but the FBI has all the relevant information at the moment, so anyone else saying there is or isn't enough to bring charges is full of bovine excrement.

This should be pointed out more often.