RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
In a live phone interview with Wolf Blitzer (just ended), Hillary is still claiming she just did what everybody else did and she didn't cooperate with investigators because she had already said everything she could say about her emails in press interviews and on her campaign web site. Seems like that's all the more reason to talk to them, rather than looking like she's hiding something.
 
Bob001 said:
In a live phone interview with Wolf Blitzer (just ended), Hillary is still claiming she just did what everybody else did and she didn't cooperate with investigators because she had already said everything she could say about her emails in press interviews and on her campaign web site. Seems like that's all the more reason to talk to them, rather than looking like she's hiding something.
Click to expand...

But... that is ridiculous on every level. Plus it contradicts what her spokesconman said yesterday (that they were "prioritizing" the FBI investigation (yes, I realize that excuse is incredibly stupid too)).

Plus eight of her staff also refused to cooperate.

Plus she said that she would talk to anybody, anytime.

Man, she is such a terrible liar...

just listened to it.... She did claim that it had been addressed on her campaign website. Jeepers, I just went there and did not see anything about two staffers being falsely told that legal had approved it and instructed not to talk about it ever again.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
In a live phone interview with Wolf Blitzer (just ended), Hillary is still claiming she just did what everybody else did and she didn't cooperate with investigators because she had already said everything she could say about her emails in press interviews and on her campaign web site. Seems like that's all the more reason to talk to them, rather than looking like she's hiding something.
Click to expand...

It would be so nice if the person that you were going to vote for didn't make such a transparently bogus lie. But then back to reality. I'm not going to release my tax returns because I'm being audited. versus I didn't cooperate with the investigation even though I said I would because I've already said everything about my use of a private email server even when my excuse for using one was a transparent lie.

How in the hell did the US find itself in a mess like this? FWIW, between Trump and Clinton I find Trump's past actions far more disgusting, but your mileage may vary. How does self dealing on a business venture that leads your partners to sue and win against you compare with some of Clinton's self dealing like bending patronage rules to get a buddy a job? I don't know and that is the tip of the iceberg for both of them. How does walking through the dressing room with the contestants in various states of undress because you happen to own the pageant compare with defending a philandering husband with questionable tactics. If you put everything in a list between the two of them I think most people will be the most disgusted with Trump but Clinton's actions aren't exactly the stuff that will make you proud she's president.
 
So you think Earhart is dead? Without evidence?

I give her better odds than Clinton's basement server remaining uncompromised.
 
crestfallensidekick said:
Am I alone in thinking that this reflects quite poorly on HRC's character, but still thinks she's preferable to both Sanders and Trump?
Click to expand...
You're not alone, I really dislike Hillary, I can't think of many people who would make a worse President. Trump is among that select group though, I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary
 
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-26-14-58-26

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was supposed to have turned over all work-related emails to the State Department to be released to the public. But an agency audit found at least three emails never seen before - including Clinton's own explanation of why she wanted her emails kept private.

After 14 months of public scrutiny and skepticism over Clinton's motives in keeping her emails secret, new questions emerged Thursday. They centered on her apparent failure to turn over a November 2010 message in which she worried that her personal messages could become accessible to outsiders, along with two other messages a year later that divulged possible security weaknesses in the home email system she used while secretary of state.

The Clinton campaign has previously denied that her home server was breached, but newly revealed emails show an aide worried it could have been compromised.

The existence of these previously unreleased messages - which appear to have been found among electronic files of four former top Clinton State Department aides - renews concerns that Clinton was not completely forthcoming when she turned over a trove of 55,000 pages of work-related emails.
Click to expand...

Isn't it funny that the newly found e-mails that weren't turned over raise concerns about her actions and the security of her server. I love when coincidence and motive seem to be able to work so well with one another.
 
crestfallensidekick said:
Am I alone in thinking that this reflects quite poorly on HRC's character, but still thinks she's preferable to both Sanders and Trump?
Click to expand...

I think most people participating in this forum would pick Clinton over Trump with a lack of enthusiasm for the choice similar to yours. However I think she does have some enthusiastic supporters on this forum that pretty much see all of her alleged foibles as being nothing more than creations of the partisan Republican smear machine. I think most of them are the result of the Republican smear machine just not all of them. The good news for Clinton is that the Trump campaign can't seem to tell the difference and it appears that they are going to blast away at Clinton based on nut job theories as well as her real stumbles. Blasting away with the crazy town stuff should help blunt any legitimate criticism of Clinton.

Many of the Democratic Party leaning participants in this forum would pick Sanders over Clinton. By ideology, I'm a moderate Republican which of course means that I disagree pretty much with the current Republican Party on everything so I will vote for a Democrat. I also see Trump as a race baiting, con man advocating torture and violence so Trump is not an option at all for people that think like me. My problem with Sanders is on economic issues, i.e. he wants trade wars (a really bad idea IMO) and supports a $15 an hour minimum wage (another really bad idea IMO). ETA: I kind of wonder why there doesn't seem to be stronger support of Sanders in this forum. Most Democratic partisans would probably not be concerned about Sanders economic ideas and he does seem to be a more ethical/honest candidate than Clinton. Maybe Clinton's much greater relevant experience is the issue for them or maybe they think it's time to elect a woman.

And there is a small minority of forum participants (my guess less than 10% of forum participants) that will pick Trump*. I would liked to have thought that number was zero, but there are people who seem reasonable and intelligent that participate in this forum that I suspect will vote for Trump. And who knows. I voted for George Bush the first time around and he is probably the worst president in the last 100 years at least. So who am I to judge another person's pick for president?

* Who also advocates for trade wars. The good news with Trump about this is that he is probably lying and I doubt that he would actually initiate trade wars if he was elected. As a demagogue Trump will say anything to fire up his audience and telling people that the Chinese are the source of their problems works about as well as telling your racist audience how the Mexicans are crossing the border and raping women.
 
Last edited:
The_Animus said:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-26-14-58-26



Isn't it funny that the newly found e-mails that weren't turned over raise concerns about her actions and the security of her server. I love when coincidence and motive seem to be able to work so well with one another.
Click to expand...
But an agency audit found at least three emails never seen before - including Clinton's own explanation of why she wanted her emails kept private.
Click to expand...
An agency audit of what? If they didn't have these emails what did they audit? Emails she sent to .gov address aka emails already in the State Department system?
The existence of these previously unreleased messages - which appear to have been found among electronic files of four former top Clinton State Department aides - renews concerns that Clinton was not completely forthcoming when she turned over a trove of 55,000 pages of work-related emails. And it has drawn fresh criticism from presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Click to expand...
Clinton staff went through more than 30K emails and divided them into personal and work related. Did they miss these or actually try to hide them? If they were sent to .gov addresses, why try to conceal them?

Since when is 'worried it could be breached' the same as was compromised?

Why is the report by the FBI they found no trace of a compromised system and the fact the State Department's system actually was breeched being left out of this account?

Then the article goes into rehash:
But hundreds were censored for national security reasons and 22 emails were completely withheld because the agency said they contained top secret material - a matter now under investigation by the FBI.
Click to expand...
That's been addressed ad nauseum in this thread.

Oh, and then we have this:
"It is disturbing that the State Department knew it had emails like this and turned them over to the inspector general, but not to Congress," said Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the chair of the Senate judiciary committee that's been probing Clinton's use of a private server.
Click to expand...
Because the department and the FBI review are not enough, completely partisan fine toothed combing must be done as well.

The first 4 months in office emails are missing. Not a single email from previous Secretaries were kept, turned over, scrutinized, whatever. But Clinton, oh for shame, in her case it's criminal. :rolleyes:

What do you think, during the first 4 months some massive conspiracy took place that had to be covered up? Is it not more likely those emails were inadvertently not saved?


This is such overkill, insane nitpicking. No one could withstand a similar audit and come out error free.

Where's the real issue here? I mean the stuff that matters to anyone except Clinton's political enemies? Who else on the Hill is 100% transparent with no faults ever?

She wanted to keep some things private. If you were Clinton so would you. Was it a cover up of a security breach? Coverup of a quid pro quo? Coverup of some conspiracy?

No? Thought not.

Was it hiding the use of the Dept of Justice to influence elections? How does that Bush action compare to this faux atrocity?


DOUBLE STANDARD, EXCESSIVE SCRUTINY, MAKING UP OUTRAGE FOR LESS THAN OUTRAGEOUS STUFF. IT'S NUTS.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
An agency audit of what? If they didn't have these emails what did they audit? Emails she sent to .gov address aka emails already in the State Department system?

Clinton staff went through more than 30K emails and divided them into personal and work related. Did they miss these or actually try to hide them? If they were sent to .gov addresses, why try to conceal them?

Since when is 'worried it could be breached' the same as was compromised?

Why is the report by the FBI they found no trace of a compromised system and the fact the State Department's system actually was breeched being left out of this account?

Then the article goes into rehash:
That's been addressed ad nauseum in this thread.

Oh, and then we have this:Because the department and the FBI review are not enough, completely partisan fine toothed combing must be done as well.

The first 4 months in office emails are missing. Not a single email from previous Secretaries were kept, turned over, scrutinized, whatever. But Clinton, oh for shame, in her case it's criminal. :rolleyes:

What do you think, during the first 4 months some massive conspiracy took place that had to be covered up? Is it not more likely those emails were inadvertently not saved?


This is such overkill, insane nitpicking. No one could withstand a similar audit and come out error free.

Where's the real issue here? I mean the stuff that matters to anyone except Clinton's political enemies? Who else on the Hill is 100% transparent with no faults ever?

She wanted to keep some things private. If you were Clinton so would you. Was it a cover up of a security breach? Coverup of a quid pro quo? Coverup of some conspiracy?

No? Thought not.

Was it hiding the use of the Dept of Justice to influence elections? How does that Bush action compare to this faux atrocity?


DOUBLE STANDARD, EXCESSIVE SCRUTINY, MAKING UP OUTRAGE FOR LESS THAN OUTRAGEOUS STUFF. IT'S NUTS.
Click to expand...

How much do you get paid per post?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
An agency audit of what? If they didn't have these emails what did they audit? Emails she sent to .gov address aka emails already in the State Department system?

Clinton staff went through more than 30K emails and divided them into personal and work related. Did they miss these or actually try to hide them? If they were sent to .gov addresses, why try to conceal them?

Since when is 'worried it could be breached' the same as was compromised?

Why is the report by the FBI they found no trace of a compromised system and the fact the State Department's system actually was breeched being left out of this account?

Then the article goes into rehash:
That's been addressed ad nauseum in this thread.

Oh, and then we have this:Because the department and the FBI review are not enough, completely partisan fine toothed combing must be done as well.

The first 4 months in office emails are missing. Not a single email from previous Secretaries were kept, turned over, scrutinized, whatever. But Clinton, oh for shame, in her case it's criminal. :rolleyes:

What do you think, during the first 4 months some massive conspiracy took place that had to be covered up? Is it not more likely those emails were inadvertently not saved?


This is such overkill, insane nitpicking. No one could withstand a similar audit and come out error free.

Where's the real issue here? I mean the stuff that matters to anyone except Clinton's political enemies? Who else on the Hill is 100% transparent with no faults ever?

She wanted to keep some things private. If you were Clinton so would you. Was it a cover up of a security breach? Coverup of a quid pro quo? Coverup of some conspiracy?

No? Thought not.

Was it hiding the use of the Dept of Justice to influence elections? How does that Bush action compare to this faux atrocity?


DOUBLE STANDARD, EXCESSIVE SCRUTINY, MAKING UP OUTRAGE FOR LESS THAN OUTRAGEOUS STUFF. IT'S NUTS.
Click to expand...

Fascinating. Rarely do I get to see somebody advance through the five stages of grief. This must be the bargaining stage. We've already seen denial and anger. Depression is next. And then acceptance - of your new flaxen haired, orange-skinned overlord.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Fascinating. Rarely do I get to see somebody advance through the five stages of grief. This must be the bargaining stage. We've already seen denial and anger. Depression is next. And then acceptance - of your new flaxen haired, orange-skinned overlord.
Click to expand...

Actually this is a new stage. Spinning like a tornado stage. It's a wonder they can see the keyboard to type.:thumbsup::D
 
What am I grieving? That stuff's been going on since Bill's tenure. I'm just countering all the nonsense in this thread and in the news. This is a non-story. It's a faux-reason generated outrage. It's unfortunate people I think are intelligent like Davefoc have fallen for it. That you have Sunmaster14 or applecorped or any of the other right wingers doesn't surprise me in the least. That fudbucker buys it, he's still hoping Clinton will crash and burn so Sanders can win.

But if you guys think this isn't just going to be a blip, you are sorely mistaken. There will be no indictment. All this report is is a department reprimand and given they found how widespread the practice was of using private emails, there's no way the FBI is going to recommend an indictment.

Consider this the wrist slap.

If there was a normal candidate nominated by the GOP, maybe this would be noticeable. But Trump is so wacko, who cares about this stuff? :rolleyes:

No, sorry, I am not grieving.
 
Dog Town said:
Actually this is a new stage. Spinning like a tornado stage. It's a wonder they can see the keyboard to type.:thumbsup::D
Click to expand...

More like "The Black Knight" stage. Doesn't matter what happens, "It's just a flesh wound", or "I've had worse", is the reply. We haven't quite got to, "I'll bite your legs off" just yet though.
It's coming.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is a non-story.
Click to expand...

inigo-image.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom