RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DavidJames said:
If I don't want to get wet, I don't go out in the rain. But if I did, I'd hope I'd be man enough not to whine about it.
Click to expand...
Recall that we have had brief discussions in the past concerning the inefficacy of mind-reading, which has similar applications to election-cycle predictions that my post referenced. For all I know Stark's remarks could ultimately turn out to be accurate (no indictment) but it tends to carry more weight when the end result has backed that up. In fact I've noted as much for those predicting an indictment...

THis is much like how the above analogy would have more impact if the standards were applied consistently. It lacks the "umph" for lack of better words
 
Last edited:
So just checking up on any news, I Googled "Clinton emails no indictment likely" and of course there was a page of returns agreeing with the statement. Expecting to find an equal slew of contrary opinion pieces I Googled, Clinton emails indictment likely" and got a page of returns saying , no indictment likely with the exception of a HuffPo piece saying Sanders should stay in the race because ... emails, and a couple that just gave the rundown with weak conclusions: maybe.
 
Clinton's likely bigger concern is the emails shadowing her campaign during the general election, which could be compounded by usual election cycle (8 year swings between parties in power) and both democrat and republican general turn out. In my case if there were better candidates available I'd vote for them over her in part because of this issue, but unfortunately Trump ranks as less likeable to me than does Clinton enough to override my usual party-line leanings. I can only speak for my sentiments though.

It doesn't make the taste of feces that is her negligence with sensitive materials and disregard for FOIA procedures go away
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
So just checking up on any news, I Googled "Clinton emails no indictment likely" and of course there was a page of returns agreeing with the statement. Expecting to find an equal slew of contrary opinion pieces I Googled, Clinton emails indictment likely" and got a page of returns saying , no indictment likely with the exception of a HuffPo piece saying Sanders should stay in the race because ... emails, and a couple that just gave the rundown with weak conclusions: maybe.
Click to expand...

Solid research strategy. lolz. :rolleyes:

In other actual news, the FBI won't disclose the identity of the agents doing the investigation because it would compromise the investigation.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So just checking up on any news, I Googled "Clinton emails no indictment likely" and of course there was a page of returns agreeing with the statement. Expecting to find an equal slew of contrary opinion pieces I Googled, Clinton emails indictment likely" and got a page of returns saying , no indictment likely with the exception of a HuffPo piece saying Sanders should stay in the race because ... emails, and a couple that just gave the rundown with weak conclusions: maybe.
Click to expand...

If you actually read any of those articles claiming "no indictment likely" you'd see how unconvincing they are. Well, maybe not you. But an objective person. I wouldn't be surprised if it is simply the Clinton noise machine at work. We know the Clinton campaign pays people to support her candidacy on social media while posing as disinterested parties. It's not much of a step to go from there to "asking" people to write articles that claim an indictment is unlikely in the hope that the opinion becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
sunmaster14 said:
If you actually read any of those articles claiming "no indictment likely" you'd see how unconvincing they are. ..
Click to expand...
Actually it's the other way around. You can't find a single editorial by a legal scholar, prosecutor or news media that is reporting on an anonymous source that isn't seriously partisan saying an indictment is likely. It's a smear campaign.

While the sources concluding no indictment are not solely partisan.

And as I've said before, screwing up at work, even when there are laws regulating the workplace, is almost never treated as a crime.

And finally, your FOIA charge is spurious, none of the emails were scrubbed and all have now been turned over.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Clinton's likely bigger concern is the emails shadowing her campaign during the general election, which could be compounded by usual election cycle (8 year swings between parties in power) and both democrat and republican general turn out. In my case if there were better candidates available I'd vote for them over her in part because of this issue, but unfortunately Trump ranks as less likeable to me than does Clinton enough to override my usual party-line leanings. I can only speak for my sentiments though.

[snipped ludicrous opinion not shared by anybody outside of a small circle of friends. ]
Click to expand...
Have you noticed no one cares except the GOP? :rolleyes:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And finally, your FOIA charge is spurious, none of the emails were scrubbed and all have now been turned over.
Click to expand...

I've said that this was false numerous times, yet it keeps being repeated.

All emails were scrubbed, unfortunately for Hillary the FBI discovered that Hillary's IT gang screwed up and didn't manage to delete all the copies. That doesn't mean that they were "turned" over, quite the opposite.

Further the claim that the FBI has turned over those emails for processing under FOIA is utterly ludicrous.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Have you noticed noone cares except the GOP?
Click to expand...
I tend not to pay attention to contrived realities that are created by politically biased arguments because it is a waste of time. You have argued previously that Clinton had a right to break FOIA regulations for her personal privacy. That alone speaks volumes for the content of your counter arguments.

What drives this point down hard... ironically is that you argue this even without the indictment issue ever being considered. This doesn't even qualify as a trust issue to you. Fine... but your contention that is an issue only to GOP thumpers is easily proven to be false. Several members that have agreed with the basic problem in this very thread provided adequate grounds to dismiss your argument... and they include several people currently involved in the discussion who have been consistently critical of the 16.5, sunmaster, et al
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
If you actually read any of those articles claiming "no indictment likely" you'd see how unconvincing they are. Well, maybe not you. But an objective person.
Click to expand...

That's funny ... do you know any ?

sunmaster14 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if it is simply the Clinton noise machine at work.
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if you had a shred of evidence that was the case.


sunmaster14 said:
We know the Clinton campaign pays people to support her candidacy on social media while posing as disinterested parties.
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if you had a shred of evidence that was the case.

sunmaster14 said:
It's not much of a step to go from there to "asking" people to write articles that claim an indictment is unlikely in the hope that the opinion becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the evidence will be forthcoming.

I'm curious what the excuse will be when she's not indicted. :cool:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Actually it's the other way around. You can't find a single editorial by a legal scholar, prosecutor or news media that is reporting on an anonymous source that isn't seriously partisan saying an indictment is likely. It's a smear campaign.

While the sources concluding no indictment are not solely partisan.

And as I've said before, screwing up at work, even when there are laws regulating the workplace, is almost never treated as a crime.

And finally, your FOIA charge is spurious, none of the emails were scrubbed and all have now been turned over.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this - It's wrong.

She deleted ~30,000 emails she deemed personal.

The FBI has recovered some unknown portion from the server and backups - but no one "turned over" any of them.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Actually it's the other way around. You can't find a single editorial by a legal scholar, prosecutor or news media that is reporting on an anonymous source that isn't seriously partisan saying an indictment is likely. It's a smear campaign.

While the sources concluding no indictment are not solely partisan.

And as I've said before, screwing up at work, even when there are laws regulating the workplace, is almost never treated as a crime.
Click to expand...

How about General Petraeus?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I'm not sure why you keep repeating this - It's wrong.

She deleted ~30,000 emails she deemed personal.

The FBI has recovered some unknown portion from the server and backups - but no one "turned over" any of them.
Click to expand...

Are you quibbling about "turned over"?

I decide an email is personal and delete it. I think I've turned over all work related emails. There's no there there.

Later, the Benghazi committee, the State Department, and/or the FBI say, well let us see the rest in case we disagree or you are hiding something. So the server is recovered as are (as far as we know) the emails because they were indeed merely deleted and not scrubbed.

Why is it the FOIA includes your personal emails?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Are you quibbling about "turned over"?
Click to expand...

Yes. Words have meanings. What is implied by using that one (those ones) is wrong.
Why would you want your argument to be viewed as misleading ?

Skeptic Ginger said:
I decide an email is personal and delete it. I think I've turned over all work related emails. There's no there there.

Later, the Benghazi committee, the State Department, and/or the FBI say, well let us see the rest in case we disagree or you are hiding something. So the server is recovered as are (as far as we know) the emails because they were indeed merely deleted and not scrubbed.

Why is it the FOIA includes your personal emails?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. This is about an FBI investigation security review, not just FOIA at this point.
 
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis said:
Yes. Words have meanings. What is implied by using that one (those ones) is wrong.
Why would you want your argument to be viewed as misleading ?



It doesn't. This is about an FBI investigation security review, not just FOIA at this point.
Click to expand...

If we're getting technical, she did turn over the physical drive, and gave permission for the backups at the other company to be turned over. :D
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Yes. Words have meanings. What is implied by using that one (those ones) is wrong.
Why would you want your argument to be viewed as misleading ?
Click to expand...
You can quibble the other way as well. She turned over those that were work related. They asked to see the trash can. How is that not turning the emails over? You are lumping the trash in with the work related emails. Do we know there was anything intentionally hidden in the trash? Does FOIA apply to your personal emails?


It doesn't. This is about an FBI investigation security review, not just FOIA at this point.
Click to expand...
I was including the people that asked the FBI to look in the trash. Or are you saying they did it all on their own?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You can quibble the other way as well. She turned over those that were work related. They asked to see the trash can. How is that not turning the emails over?
Click to expand...

It's not turning them over because she deleted them.

She turned the server and all of it's contents, which contained potentially recoverable deleted emails doesn't change the fact that she didn't really turn over those emails, except perhaps in the "technically she did" sense.

And I'm not arguing that "technically" she didn't do it. I'm simply pointing out that it sounds disingenuous to claim "she turned over all her emails"

And again, the FBI hasn't confirmed how many deleted emails they recovered. So we don't actually know they have all of them.

Skeptic Ginger said:
You are lumping the trash in with the work related emails. Do we know there was anything intentionally hidden in the trash? Does FOIA apply to your personal emails?
Click to expand...

Again, this isn't FOIA. This is now an FBI investigation security review. At this point, what's in your trash can is completely relevant, to use your analogy.

Skeptic Ginger said:
I was including the people that asked the FBI to look in the trash. Or are you saying they did it all on their own?
Click to expand...

They (being the FBI) did it all on their own, AFAIK. Do you have evidence to the contrary ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom