RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[mgidm86]

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.

Rest of post is here for brevity.

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.

Are we talking about her "It's not going to happen" quote regarding a possible indictment?

I don't get the big deal, what else should she have said? If people here think it's stupid to fault her for that, I agree. What a stupid complaint. That's a bit too obsessive for me.

* I wouldn't say I'm a basher, I would say that I genuinely can't stand her. Bashing, to me, implies needless or over the top picking on someone. I personally have not reached that point

Thanks, Davefoc for letting us choose our own term. "Anti Clinton" maybe? I don't like Bill either, although I'd probably party with him haha. Sounds so negative though.

Maybe "I like almost everyone in the world better than the Clintons". That has a more positive ring to it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This should be pointed out more often.

Do you think if we went through this thread we'd find Wildcat never once said she's probably or clearly committed a crime?

I have my doubts but I'm open to seeing the evidence.

 

[mgidm86]

Davefoc
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.

Extremely ludicrous. I think it's bull and I think she could have explained that loooong ago.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Do you think if we went through this thread we'd find Wildcat never once said she's probably or clearly committed a crime?

I have my doubts but I'm open to seeing the evidence.

And you'd probably have little difficulty in finding posts of mine that claim there's POSITIVELY nothing here worth investigating, much less prosecuting.

But it's all opinion. In spite of our virtual attorneys, virtual prosecutors and virtual witch-burner-in-chief there's nothing from the actual parties who would have to prosecute this. That'd be the DoJ.

My personal opinion (and in this spirit of this little diversion that means nothing, of course) is that unless one assumes that Obama would gleefully hand the GOP the next 8 years on Pennsylvania Avenue, that there's no indictment, not even of the teensiest nitpickingest level coming. If there was even a remote possibility of such, he'd have the charges brought forward before it wrecks the nominating process and/or general election. Yeah, yeah... I know... "The FBI and DoJ are independent of the POTUS...". In your dreams HDSers.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And you'd probably have little difficulty in finding posts of mine that claim there's POSITIVELY nothing here worth investigating, much less prosecuting.

But it's all opinion. In spite of our virtual attorneys, virtual prosecutors and virtual witch-burner-in-chief there's nothing from the actual parties who would have to prosecute this. That'd be the DoJ.

My personal opinion (and in this spirit of this little diversion that means nothing, of course) is that unless one assumes that Obama would gleefully hand the GOP the next 8 years on Pennsylvania Avenue, that there's no indictment, not even of the teensiest nitpickingest level coming. If there was even a remote possibility of such, he'd have the charges brought forward before it wrecks the nominating process and/or general election. Yeah, yeah... I know... "The FBI and DoJ are independent of the POTUS...". In your dreams HDSers.

I'm there with you. As a consultant I see people screwing up work policies all the time including policies mandated by law. It's not criminal. So I've come out firmly on the side that there is no indictment here.

But WildCat made the statement:

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.

So I was simply calling him on it asking if he'd been so neutral in this entire thread because I found that hard to believe. But I could be wrong.

 

[Foolmewunz]

But WildCat made the statement:

So I was simply calling him on it asking if he'd been so neutral in this entire thread because I found that hard to believe. But I could be wrong.

Oh, I gathered that. I kinda figure WC also knows that that was what I was pointing out. If the HDS sufferers would follow his advice, after all, this and the Hillary is Done threads would have tumbleweeds blowing through them.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

if we waited until we had all the "facts" to discus things on this board, there would be little to discuss around here

If we just preface the discussion with "based on what has been made public so far" many legal experts don't forsee any charges against Clinton, it's still relevant to the discussion. We have had many posters who are vehement that Clinton seriously broke the law regarding classified information, and have posted such, based on the information that has been released so far. So the disagreement from legal experts is relevant in that regard. Ditto with violations regarding FOIA laws.

I also agree that if there was going to be a reccomendation of charges, it would have come much earlier in the process. Despite the claim of independence of the FBI and DOJ, there's too much at stake to not have let it be known which way the winds were blowing, so to speak, much earlier if they were blowing towards charges. How long could it have possibly taken to read her emails and do some forensics on her server and come to the conclusion that she must be charged ??? Weeks, maybe. So at this point, it's clear she won't be charged, and Comey and his men are t going to walk off the job or anything similar despite ridiculous FOX news rumors and wishing.

There may be a few staffers from her time as SOS charged to try throw a few bones to the FBI/DOJ and house republicans - Sullivan comes to mind, but idk. Certainly possible , not sure if likely.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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.

Fact of the matter is while I have my own thoughts on why Hillary made her little set up, none of which are all positive, there could be scores of reasons for her decision that are different than what I think. My opinion at this point is her primary purpose was to avoid FOIA under the radar, but not try so hard as to try and avoid releasing the emails if it was found out. But that's speculation based on what I "think" I would have done if I were in her shoes. There could be other reasons extrapolated from the known implications, but I can't deny election year politics are a component of the scandal - for good or for bad.

The challenge is separating the election politics and backstabbing from the actual issues. Someone posted a nice "cracked.com" article in the 2016 elections section that does a real nice job at brutally explaining some of these things.

 

[varwoche]

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.

I rather enjoy(?) how Judicial Watch quotes one word from a critic of Clinton -- "Amazing" -- as if that's supposed to inform readers of something or another. If that doesn't set off one's BS detector, nothing will.

What in particular is the most damning thing you see in this latest round?

 

[sunmaster14]

This should be pointed out more often.

Except that the "is" part is wrong. The facts that are already known are quite enough to support an indictment. I have gone over them frequently. Even her so-called defenders don't ever actually make an argument. They just opine that the law was designed for people with malicious intent, and they claim, without any evidence at all, that Hillary's intent was not malicious. Putting aside the fact that her intent was to keep her communications out of the reach of any FOIA requests (which is arguably malicious), the scope of her intent, and how it interacts with the law, is for a judge or jury to decide. Yes, a prosecutor has discretion as to whether or not to indict, and she may decide that Hillary's intent was pure (just as she may decide Hillary's too politically important to indict), but that doesn't mean there isn't "enough." What we know is enough. That much is clear.

 

[sunmaster14]

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.

You mean other than that she committed a crime to do it? Sure, nothing wrong with that. You want to know a legal way of keeping some control over your emails? Don't take a job as Secretary of State of the most powerful country in the world.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

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.

*As long as you're asking, please use the word "detractors."

As to Clinton's quick wit, I've seen no evidence of it at all. I certainly don't think that answering a hypothetical question by denying that the hypothetical premise will occur is witty at all. Quite the opposite. I've often found that the failure to consider hypothetical questions to be evidence of intellectual dishonesty or timidity.

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's obvious why she did it. She didn't want her communications subject to FOIA requests. In fact, there are even released emails (finally) that make this point explicit. As to why she took the risk, it's because she has gotten away with this stuff all her life. She almost got away with it this time, and maybe still will, because she has so many defenders willing to go to the mat for her. You could ask the same question about why Bill Clinton got blow jobs in the oval office. It's because he didn't see it as particularly risky. He knew that he could just deny that it happened, and at worst it would be his word (and his thousands of powerful defenders) against the word of a 22 year old nobody. Unfortunately for him, Monica coughed up the evidence. Yuk yuk.

 

[The Big Dog]

I rather enjoy(?) how Judicial Watch quotes one word from a critic of Clinton -- "Amazing" -- as if that's supposed to inform readers of something or another. If that doesn't set off one's BS detector, nothing will.

What in particular is the most damning thing you see in this latest round?

Amazing. You called that person a "critic" while in fact that person was an employee of the NSA responsible for setting up secured communications.

What is amazing is that Hillary and her staff of bullies made it clear that Hillary Clinton and her gang needed special handling and if a nobody like Barack Obama got a special blackberry you can be damn sure that Hillary and her thugs are going to get that and more.

Amazing.

Plus, ya know, more evidence that she lied.

Amazing

 

[The Big Dog]

FBI Inteviews Loom

Hillary's once hometown newspaper has an article titled:

Hillary Clinton email probe enters new phase as FBI interviews loom

Federal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides, according to two people familiar with the probe, an indication that the inquiry is moving into its final phases.

And then Hillary...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-hillary-clinton-email-scandal-20160327-story.html

Hillary would be a fool to talk to the FBI of course, because she is incapable of telling the truth.

 

[DavidJames]

It's obvious why she did it. She didn't want her communications subject to FOIA requests. ...You could ask the same question about why Bill Clinton got blow jobs in the oval office. It's because he didn't see it as particularly risky. He knew that he could just deny that it happened, and at worst it would be his word (and his thousands of powerful defenders) against the word of a 22 year old nobody.

Mind reading doesn't belong in a skeptics forum. Unless of course, that's all you got.

You mean other than that she committed a crime to do it?

Ah, prognostication, goes along with mind reading quite nicely, Sylvia.

 

[Fudbucker]

And you'd probably have little difficulty in finding posts of mine that claim there's POSITIVELY nothing here worth investigating, much less prosecuting.

But it's all opinion. In spite of our virtual attorneys, virtual prosecutors and virtual witch-burner-in-chief there's nothing from the actual parties who would have to prosecute this. That'd be the DoJ.

My personal opinion (and in this spirit of this little diversion that means nothing, of course) is that unless one assumes that Obama would gleefully hand the GOP the next 8 years on Pennsylvania Avenue, that there's no indictment, not even of the teensiest nitpickingest level coming. If there was even a remote possibility of such, he'd have the charges brought forward before it wrecks the nominating process and/or general election. Yeah, yeah... I know... "The FBI and DoJ are independent of the POTUS...". In your dreams HDSers.

I doubt the head of the FBI is going to bow to pressure from Obama. James Comey has a reputation for being a straight shooter, and isn't even a Democrat. The DOJ, on the other hand, is run by a friend of Hillary's, so that's another story.

But if the FBI recommends charges, and the DOJ doesn't indict, expect high-level resignations, like what happened when Nixon fired Archibald Cox.

 

[davefoc]

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.

Yes, that would be particularly a fair idea if she applied the same logic to Republicans. But she wasn't too keen on it when they did it.

But, she was not only hypocritical, she flagrantly broke rules, she put the responsibility for the security of her SoS communications on herself (a job for which she clearly wasn't qualified), she also was incompetent at keeping her communications private.

I say incompetent because if she had acted more competently she would have realized the possibility that her scheme would be discovered so she would have kept her private and business emails separated to head off the mess that she found herself in. And her handling of the situation after it became clear that her scheme had been uncovered was particularly incompetent. She had warnings before she was forced to act and she could have used the time provided by those warning to start an effort to release her emails which might have given the appearance that she intended to do this all along but hadn't gotten around to it.

I think I understand the human desire to avoid cognitive dissonance. People have made up their mind that Clinton is great and should be president or they have made up their mind that she is the best choice available and once they've made up their minds on this they really don't like information that puts their decision into question so they deny it or make up excuses or rationalize it by vilifying Clinton's political enemies. Frankly, I am fine with that. I hope a whole lot of people do it because I think it is vitally important to the US that it not allow a race baiting, vulgar, violent, misogynistic, narcissistic buffoon to be president and whatever you think of Clinton this choice is simple: Vote for the candidate that isn't a race baiting jackass.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

... I think it is vitally important to the US that it not allow a race baiting, vulgar, violent, misogynistic, narcissistic buffoon to be president and whatever you think of Clinton this choice is simple: Vote for the candidate that isn't a race baiting jackass.

But what if you find Trump unacceptable too?

 

[mgidm86]

Sorry, I can't quote you properly:

Skeptic Ginger
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.

Me either. But if she wanted control she should have used separate accounts, that way every detail of her life would not be available for scrutiny no matter which server she used for business.

Doesn't that make the most sense if that were truly her reasoning?

Because of this, she obviously was not concerned with every detail of her personal life. She was concerned about her official business, otherwise she wouldn't have mixed the two on any server.

Controlling her official emails is the only benefit that I can see for using a personal server for more than just personal stuff. Using a .gov address for both, or using two accounts would make sense if it were about personal emails.

As far as her wish to be more private - she was a high ranking public servant and she's known for decades that politicians live under a microscope. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. That is not an excuse.

By the way you said "I see nothing wrong with a woman who has every detail of her life scrutinized...."

Why woman? Do you think this is happening because she is a woman? I honestly don't think it has anything to do with it.

 

[davefoc]

But what if you find Trump unacceptable too?

Nice, and even funny a bit because there is a grain of truth to it. But mostly the whole situation bums me out and I'm not laughing quite as much as I might given the quality of the joke.