• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
But Hillary told us they were just sharing a news article about drone programs!
 
16.5 said:
as if we didn't already know.
Click to expand...

Just so I am clear ... the white house press secretary is now the authority and spokesperson for the FBI ?

Or so we only believe the white house press secretary's statements when they benefit a certain agenda ?

Because if their word is now gospel, I'd like to remind you of a lot of things they have said ....
 
Obama's flack calls it a "criminal investigation..."

Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used, where generally the content of the statement is so prejudicial to the person making it that he would not have made the statement unless he believed the statement was true. The Federal Rules of evidence limit the bases of prejudices to the declarant to tort and criminal liability.
Click to expand...

:D
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Just so I am clear ... the white house press secretary is now the authority and spokesperson for the FBI ?

Hey, he said it no one else did.

Or so we only believe the white house press secretary's statements when they benefit a certain agenda ?

Are you naive or are you serious.

Because if their word is now gospel, I'd like to remind you of a lot of things they have said ....
Click to expand...

The press secretary is the President's spoke's man. Are you denying that?
 
Reheat said:
The press secretary is the President's spoke's man. Are you denying that?
Click to expand...

Please learn how to quote properly.

And no, I don't deny "The press secretary is the President's spoke's man."

Do you know what a straw man is ?

Would you like to claim the press secretary is the FBI's "spoke's man." ?
 
16.5 said:
Obama's flack calls it a "criminal investigation..."

:D
Click to expand...

The question isn't whether the statement is hearsay, since a presser isn't a court of law. The question is whether his statement is authoritative for the the FBI or not.

But you knew that.
 
Looks like a gaffe just happened: a politician accidentally said something true. Press Secretary Earnest referred to criminal investigations when asked about Clinton's emails.

He quickly tried to walk it back.

ETA: it was such a vague answer, he probably can get away with it, but Fox is having a lot of fun with it.
 
Last edited:
I think all the partisan witch hunts have insulated Clinton to some extent from attacks.

Even with the emails, in the beginning there really wasn't anything of merit.

So now even when there is actual evidence, far too many just instantly dismiss it assuming either it's the old garbage news from the beginning, or new partisan witch hunt garbage.

Kinda similar to Trump in a way. They both have been attacked so much, rightly or wrongly, that it seems like nothing ever sticks, even when it's a valid criticism.
 
The_Animus said:
I think all the partisan witch hunts have insulated Clinton to some extent from attacks.

Even with the emails, in the beginning there really wasn't anything of merit.

So now even when there is actual evidence, far too many just instantly dismiss it assuming either it's the old garbage news from the beginning, or new partisan witch hunt garbage.

Kinda similar to Trump in a way. They both have been attacked so much, rightly or wrongly, that it seems like nothing ever sticks, even when it's a valid criticism.
Click to expand...

TheL8Elvis said:
Meh. Still waiting on actual evidence her email was compromised. Have any ?
Click to expand...

Actual evidence .... of ??
 
The_Animus said:
Kinda similar to Trump in a way. They both have been attacked so much, rightly or wrongly, that it seems like nothing ever sticks, even when it's a valid criticism.
Click to expand...
A strategy very favorable to Trump. Even here, a skeptics forum, we have Trump water carriers who may not even realize it.

Well done guys.
 
What Clinton’s E-mails Reveal About Her Support for CIA Drone Strikes

Here is a very interesting piece about what Hillary's emails taught us about her view on the Drone program:

In other words, of the 294 CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, Clinton’s State Department objected to fewer than one-percent of them. If elected to the White House, would she similarly prioritize CIA counterterrorism operations over the concerns of senior U.S. diplomats? The evidence from her time as Secretary of State suggests that the answer is overwhelmingly “yes.”
Click to expand...

Oh dear, the Council on Foreign Relations is carrying Trump's water.

By the way, remember this sneering contempt for the truth:

“How a New York Times public article that goes around the world could be in any way viewed as classified, or the fact that it would be sent to other people off of the New York Times site, I think, is one of the difficulties that people have in understanding what this is about.”
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was false, although it does describe why the Shillaries are having a hard time figuring what this is all about. They believe her, you see.

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2016/06/...veal-about-her-support-for-cia-drone-strikes/
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Emails in Clinton Probe Dealt With Planned Drone Strikes
Some vaguely worded messages from U.S. diplomats in Pakistan and Washington used a less-secure communications system

As noted above the ongoing criminal investigation deals with, in part, impending drone strikes in Pakistan.



The problem is, of course, while the original low side communication was vague, Hillary's crew's subsequent deliberations were not! Mills asks "you good with this" and a series of redacted communications ensues that were eventually sent to Hillary's cowboy server in the open.

Emails

Deliberations regarding impending Drone strikes, Guccifer must have enjoyed reading those.

/If you are having trouble accessing, look for it on google news.
Click to expand...
Funny, you didn't quote the part in that WSJ article where it says that, "Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation."

Has Hillary been indicted yet?

LOL.
 
Tony Stark said:
Funny, you didn't quote the part in that WSJ article where it says that, "Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation."

Has Hillary been indicted yet?

LOL.
Click to expand...

As a Hillary supporter, maybe you can tell us what the latest euphemism is for what the FBI is doing. Security review? Investigation? Email retrieval? Criminal investigation?
 
Fudbucker said:
As a Hillary supporter, maybe you can tell us what the latest euphemism is for what the FBI is doing. Security review? Investigation? Email retrieval? Criminal investigation?
Click to expand...
Investigation sounds fine. One that is not going to result in any sort of criminal charges against Hillary no matter how badly the fanatical Hillary haters want it to.
 
Tony Stark said:
Funny, you didn't quote the part in that WSJ article where it says that, "Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation."

Has Hillary been indicted yet?

LOL.
Click to expand...

To quote:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863

Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation, although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton this summer.

One reason is that government workers at several agencies, including the departments of Defense, Justice and State, have occasionally resorted to the low-side system to give each other notice about sensitive but fast-moving events, according to one law-enforcement official.

When Mrs. Clinton has been asked about the possibility of being criminally charged over the email issue, she has repeatedly said “that is not going to happen.’’

not going to happen.

not going to happen.

not going to happen.

...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom