• 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.
Jrrarglblarg said:
Your right. Ignore all the evidences ever. Vote trump! Empty rhetoric über alles!
Click to expand...

My right? What right? To vote against the unfit? I did that but the DNC screwed me by getting into bed with the corrupt ***************** in the Clinton campaign.
 
The Big Dog said:
:eye-poppi That is absurd.
Click to expand...
It's a good year for absurd.

But, in all seriousness, you should at least pay attention to what you are responding to. Let me explain, I said

meadmaker said:
Again, calling it "classified information" makes people think that we are dealing with military secrets. It wasn't.
Click to expand...

That's what you called absurd.

Let's think about that. What part did you think was absurd? Was it the claim that the email didn't deal with military information? Well, it didn't. Not all classified information has to do with military information.

Or was it absurd to say that people associate the phrase "classified information" with "military secrets"? Well, I'm not going to conduct a survey, but I think that's what comes to mind when people hear that phrase. They think it is either sensitive military information, or secret intelligence gathering stuff. They don't know that there is some pretty mundane information having nothing to do with national security that is also classified.

In truth, I don't think either of those things is what you thought absurd. I think you thought it absurd to defend Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.

You called my statement absurd, even though it is objectively and verifiably true. Why did you do that? That's a rhetorical question, so don't feel compelled to answer it, but I suggest you think about it anyway.
 
Meadmaker said:
It's a good year for absurd.

But, in all seriousness, you should at least pay attention to what you are responding to. Let me explain, I said



That's what you called absurd.

Let's think about that. What part did you think was absurd? Was it the claim that the email didn't deal with military information? Well, it didn't. Not all classified information has to do with military information.

Or was it absurd to say that people associate the phrase "classified information" with "military secrets"? Well, I'm not going to conduct a survey, but I think that's what comes to mind when people hear that phrase. They think it is either sensitive military information, or secret intelligence gathering stuff. They don't know that there is some pretty mundane information having nothing to do with national security that is also classified.

In truth, I don't think either of those things is what you thought absurd. I think you thought it absurd to defend Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.

You called my statement absurd, even though it is objectively and verifiably true. Why did you do that? That's a rhetorical question, so don't feel compelled to answer it, but I suggest you think about it anyway.
Click to expand...

It is absurd because the suggestion that "most people" would think something wrong does not mean the statement isn't wrong. It is a logical fallacy known as appeal to popularity. Therefore your statement is objectively, verifiably and logically false and therefore absurd.

QED.
 
The Big Dog said:
Oh you meant "you're" right.

You are making a good case for Trump.
Click to expand...

The overwhelming river of bull **** from trump supporters has finally affected me!!! Drink the trump Flavorade and surrender to your fears!

Vote trump, he's probably competent!
 
The Big Dog said:
It is absurd because the suggestion that "most people" would think something wrong does not mean the statement isn't wrong. It is a logical fallacy known as appeal to popularity. Therefore your statement is objectively, verifiably and logically false and therefore absurd.

QED.
Click to expand...

Ummm.....no.

Perhaps you can go back and read and see why not, or perhaps someone else will explain it to you, but no.


What you know is that my post was a defense of Hillary Clinton, even if a very, very, weak defense, and so you conclude that it is wrong, and actually understanding it is not really a matter of any significance. It supports Hillary, therefore it's wrong. QED.
 
Meadmaker said:
Ummm.....no.

Perhaps you can go back and read and see why not, or perhaps someone else will explain it to you, but no.


What you know is that my post was a defense of Hillary Clinton, even if a very, very, weak defense, and so you conclude that it is wrong, and actually understanding it is not really a matter of any significance. It supports Hillary, therefore it's wrong. QED.
Click to expand...

it is absurd for the reasons I explained in detail with specific reasons and specific reference to a basic logical fallacy.

And your response is "no"?

Well then, let me to retort: 'k.
 
shuize said:
If passing sensitive information to Chelsea is no really no big deal after all (and I'm enjoying imagining the cognative dissonance it must cause normally reasonable people to try to minimize it), why would Clinton try to delete evidence of doing so? It was clearly work related information.
Click to expand...

Every time I talk to my wife about my work day, according to your logic, it's "work related".

No.

You, among others, may, however, continue to cling to your misconceptions in hopes that ... idk what.

Clinton already didn't get charged for her emails.

Clinton won't in the future get charged for her emails.

Clinton will get elected president Tuesday.

Benghazi !!!111!
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...-conclusions-on-clinton-s-e-mails-not-changed

FBI Says Its Conclusions on Clinton’s E-Mails ‘Not Changed’

The FBI is sticking to its conclusion that Hillary Clinton’s handling of her e-mails as secretary of state wasn’t a crime, the bureau’s director James Comey said in a letter to members of Congress.
Since informing Congress on Oct. 27 that the FBI was examining new e-mails potentially related to its investigation of Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server, “the FBI investigative team has been working around the clock to process and review” the material, Comey said in a letter released by Representative Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, on Sunday.
“During that process, we reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State,” Comey wrote. “Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.”

No ****, sherlock. :rolleyes:
 
The Big Dog said:
it is absurd for the reasons I explained in detail with specific reasons and specific reference to a basic logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

You reasons are indeed specific. They are also wrong. Demonstrably.


All you have to do is read it to see that there is not so much as a shred of appel to popularity as part of it. It's not even remotely related to the post. Ergo, you are wrong. QED.
 
Meadmaker said:
As I said in my post it's "kind of bad"

...

Careless is bad, but not horribly bad.
Click to expand...


The New York Post is reporting Clinton directed her maid to print out classified material:

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government e-mails and documents — including ones containing classified information — from her house in Washington, DC, e-mails and FBI memos show. But the housekeeper lacked the security clearance to handle such material ...
Click to expand...


Also from the article:

Santos also had access to a highly secure room called an SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) that diplomatic security agents set up at Whitehaven, according to FBI notes from an interview with Abedin.

From within the SCIF, Santos — who had no clearance — “collected documents from the secure facsimile machine for Clinton,” the FBI notes revealed.
Click to expand...


I know. "Kind of bad." But what government worker doesn't give her maid access to the sensitive compartmented information room, right?


http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/
 
Last edited:
Nobody tell shuize about the FBI not charging Clinton. Let's see how long he/she tries to run with that maid silliness.
 
wareyin said:
Nobody tell shuize about the FBI not charging Clinton. Let's see how long he/she tries to run with that maid silliness.
Click to expand...


I saw it. I stand by my earlier statements: I believe she's getting special treatment.

Clinton loses a dozen or so mobile devices. Sorry, can't find them. Oh well, not gross negligence. She sets up a private, bathroom server without permission and sends over a hundred classified documents (that we know of, we can't really be sure since she deleted tens of thousands more). Ho hum. Bill Clinton meets with the Attorney General in the middle of the investigation. Nothing shady about that at all. The FBI always lets targets of the investigation sit in on each other's interviews and then gives out immunity deals like candy for nothing in return. Why wouldn't they?

Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps someone can explain how I've completely misread the situation and this is actually how it works for everyone.
 
shuize said:
I saw it. I stand by my earlier statements: I believe she's getting special treatment.

Clinton loses a dozen or so mobile devices. Sorry, can't find them. Oh well, not gross negligence. She sets up a private, bathroom server without permission and sends over a hundred classified documents (that we know of, we can't really be sure since she deleted tens of thousands more). Ho hum. Bill Clinton meets with the Attorney General in the middle of the investigation. Nothing shady about that at all. The FBI always lets targets of the investigation sit in on each other's interviews and then gives out immunity deals like candy for nothing in return. Why wouldn't they?

Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps someone can explain how I've completely misread the situation and this is actually how it works for everyone.
Click to expand...
Comey explained it back in July. Man, you guys have a short memory when it comes to anything that clears Clinton.
 
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