Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You wrote that you disagree with what I said, yet every sentence after that one is completely unrelated to my post.
Click to expand...

You said something was the worst. I'm saying something else is even worse than that, and I described what I think is even worse. My intention was not to argue that what you said was the worst wasn't bad, because I certainly agree that it is. I don't even necessarily disagree with you about how bad it is.
 
BobTheCoward said:
"Legitimately angry or scared" does not mean your anger complies with the law.
Click to expand...

If the FBI takes action contrary to the law, as they did in the case of some of these redactions, how is that legitimate?

And yes, actually, your anger or fear always comply with the law (at least in the US), because the law places no obligation on your feelings.
 
Ziggurat said:
You said something was the worst.
Click to expand...

No, I said it was "[t]he most damning thing WRT the political opinions of these two that the report has to say". You then said I was wrong and posted about the actions of the FBI, rather than about the political opinions of Strzok and Page.
 
By the way, love how the FBI got played by Combetta.

He lies to them.
Rather than go after him for lying, they give him full immunity.
He then claims he deleted all the emails on his own and can't remember what he talked about with Mills and Kendall.

D'oh.
 
Why is this thread still going on? Before the report we knew that the email scandal proved that Clinton was wildly hypocritical and that she handled the resulting fall out after her scheme came to light incompetently. We knew that some classified information made it on to her personal server. We k now she attempted to violate the law by not archiving her emails.

We also know that congress and the FBI spent vast resources investigating Clinton's actions and the fall out from her reckless decision to use her personal server and to combine her SoS emails, her other business and political emails and her personal emails all on one account. We also know that most or all of her emails that were destroyed when she wiped her hard disk were recovered either because they were recovered from the recipients or they were recovered from the backup that was discovered. And despite this trove of evidence about what went on with her server neither congress nor the FBI nor the DOJ under Trump found violations worthy of prosecution.

I guess the claim that is generating this new flurry is that a couple of FBI agents exchanged emails that they thought Trump shouldn't become president and that therefore the entire investigation into Clinton's emails was compromised. Wow, do any of the people that advocate this have any idea how wildly partisan you need to be to believe that? Maybe if the IG hadn't just done a complete review and didn't find anything else there'd be a glimmer of hope for this partisan driven conspiracy theory. Alas no.

Clinton was wildly hypocritical, reckless and incompetent with regards to her email scandal and reasonably enough given her position as SoS some stuff made it on to her server that shouldn't have. That's it. There is no more here. You're just going to have to settle for hypocritical, reckless, and incompetent. Being partisans, of course, that isn't enough and so, of course, you want to turn this into something that in some way provides excuses for Trump's various transgressions. Cool, hyper partisan minds can always find interesting ways to support their preconceptions.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
Why is this thread still going on?
Click to expand...

Because new information keeps coming out.

This isn't over yet. I've mentioned that before.

I guess the claim that is generating this new flurry is that a couple of FBI agents exchanged emails that they thought Trump shouldn't become president and that therefore the entire investigation into Clinton's emails was compromised.
Click to expand...

There's a lot more going on. For example, there's the unjustifiable decision not to examine the devices of Clinton's top aides, there's the fact that the FBI knew some of her emails (including with classified information) were likely compromised, the fact that Comey changed the language of his statement to obfuscate this fact... we haven't heard the last of this yet. The IG's findings go beyond what's getting the headlines right now.

Clinton was wildly hypocritical, reckless and incompetent with regards to her email scandal and reasonably enough given her position as SoS some stuff made it on to her server that shouldn't have. That's it. There is no more here.
Click to expand...

How sure of this are you? As sure as you were last time?
 
Ziggurat said:
How sure of this are you? As sure as you were last time?
Click to expand...
Fairly sure, although I wasn't aware that the FBI had declined to examine the devices of Clinton's top aides.

I still think it is likely that the FBI engaged in an objective, professional probe of Clinton's email scandal. But it seems in the range of possible that I am wrong on that. I already had a low opinion of Clinton with regard to her email scandal. I thought the scandal was serious enough that it might end her campaign. I wasn't all that sure it was to the benefit of the Democratic Party when the DOJ declined to prosecute. What I didn't realize at the time was how incompetently Clinton was going to handle the scandal. It seems like she never succeeded in getting candid skilled advice about the mess she was in or if she got that advice she ignored it.

FWIW, my thought on how she came to handle this so poorly is that she relied on a lawyer that may have understood the law but who was poorly informed about email technical issues and who was not focused on handling the scandal in a way that wouldn't seriously damage her chances of winning the election. If Clinton's goal was to get Trump elected it is hard to imagine how she could have handled the scandal more effectively.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
If the FBI takes action contrary to the law, as they did in the case of some of these redactions, how is that legitimate?

And yes, actually, your anger or fear always comply with the law (at least in the US), because the law places no obligation on your feelings.
Click to expand...

If there existed a law that made types of anger illegal, legitimately angry would not depend on the law.
 
A stepping back for perspective...

After several years now we're still on about "Her emails!" And the Trumpettes still have an endless appetite for chasing chimeras.

After just a year-and-a-half Mueller's investigation has nearly two dozen fish in the bag. But the Trumpettes say this has gone on too long and must be shut down.

The contrast of the partisan disconnect is strong here.
 
Lurch said:
The contrast of the partisan disconnect is strong here.
Click to expand...

Amen. How can people discuss YESTERDAY's IG report when there is a perfectly fine Whatabout to distract them.... except of course the revelation that the top guy on the Russia team and that was on Mueller's team sent a text to his bang buddy saying that "we'll stop" Trump.

can we talk about that at least?
 
The Big Dog said:
Amen. How can people discuss YESTERDAY's IG report when there is a perfectly fine Whatabout to distract them.... except of course the revelation that the top guy on the Russia team and that was on Mueller's team sent a text to his bang buddy saying that "we'll stop" Trump.

can we talk about that at least?
Click to expand...

What is there to talk about? The report didn't say he tried to.
 
NoahFence said:
Yet you steadfastly refuse to tell the class wheat those actions are.

you know we see this, right? the refusal of your side to acknowledge important facts?
Click to expand...

Strzok prioritized the russia investigation over the weiner laptop i have explained that a half dozen times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom