Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[wareyin]

Again, it's not about this one instance specifically. It's about a pattern of behavior of which this is one data point among many.

Indeed, as plague311 pointed out, the pattern of behavior has been the "sky is falling" response to any and every anti-Clinton claim, no matter how minute or preposterous. The current posts by you and 16.5 are only one data point among many.

 

[plague311]

“I have provided all of my work-related emails, and I’ve asked that they be made public, and I think that demonstrates that I wanted to make sure that this information was part of the official records,” she told ABC News last month.

But disclosures over the past several weeks have revealed dozens of emails related to Clinton’s official duties that crossed her private server and were not included in the 55,000 pages of correspondence she turned over to the State Department when the agency sought her emails in 2014.

At least 69 such emails have come to light so far, many of them through public-records lawsuits brought by the conservative group Judicial Watch.

Raise questions? I think it absolutely clears up any questions: Hillary's sneering contempt for governmental transparency is absolutely well known to the avid readers on iSkep.

I'm an avid reader on iSkep, and I disagree. Don't speak for me, I don't appreciate it.

Oh no, 69 in the mix of 55,000. Again, the sky is falling, how will we survive?

ETA: What did these "69" emails show us that we didn't know before? What did they contain? Were they relevant to anything? Could they be misconstrued as personal? Do you have details?

ETA2: Nevermind I answered my own questions. There was 1 email that mentioned she didn't know how her data was stored, the rest was mundane stuff. This Queen Lying Mastermind was so up to date on her manipulation to avoid FOIA requests that she didn't even know how her data was stored!!!! Cunning little vixen

 

[Bob001]

Because Trump is the ideally honest politician.

Double standard. Men in politics lie all the time. That's business as usual.

But if a woman does, she's seriously flawed.

That's the old "everybody does it" defense. We know Trump is a scumbag. But saying Hillary isn't as bad as Trump isn't much of a defense. The fact is that NOT "everybody does it." Few people in public life have as long a record of proven dissembling as Hillary Clinton, even in matters where the truth wouldn't have hurt her and her lies didn't help. Her multiple, convoluted, conflicting stories about her email server are just one long-running example, and it all says a lot about her character and judgment, even if she is never formally accused of a crime.

 

[DavidJames]

That's the old "everybody does it" defense. We know Trump is a scumbag. But saying Hillary isn't as bad as Trump isn't much of a defense. The fact is that NOT "everybody does it." Few people in public life have as long a record of proven dissembling as Hillary Clinton, even in matters where the truth wouldn't have hurt her and her lies didn't help. Her multiple, convoluted, conflicting stories about her email server are just one long-running example, and it all says a lot about her character and judgment, even if she is never formally accused of a crime.

Another victim of the right wing slime machine. I understand, when you're getting sprayed with **** all the time, it's challenging to see clearly.

I'm hoping the electorate, at some point can look at the candidates positions along with their performance (actual, not through **** stained biased glasses) to make their decisions.

 

[Bob001]

Another victim of the right wing slime machine. I understand, when you're getting sprayed with **** all the time, it's challenging to see clearly.

I'm hoping the electorate, at some point can look at the candidates positions along with their performance (actual, not through **** stained biased glasses) to make their decisions.

So you claim everything Hillary has said and done about her emails, starting with her initial decision to deliberately evade federal access and record-keeping requirements, has been complete, truthful and beyond reproach? And any evidence to the contrary is only manufactured by her "vast right-wing conspiracy?" I'm not the one with something smeared on my glasses.

 

[wareyin]

So you claim everything Hillary has said and done about her emails, starting with her initial decision to deliberately evade federal access and record-keeping requirements, has been complete, truthful and beyond reproach? And any evidence to the contrary is only manufactured by her "vast right-wing conspiracy?" I'm not the one with something smeared on my glasses.

I believe the proper response, according to the HDS folks, is "Rule of So"!


But that's not very helpful, is it? Your problem is that you aren't comparing the relative truthfulness of different candidates. You've been sold the idea that Clinton lies all the time, but you've never checked out how much. Luckily, the folks at politifact, among others, have done that for you. I can't give a link on Tapatalk, but Clinton is more honest than any of the GOP candidates who were running, and was equally truthful as St Bernie of Sanders.

 

[xjx388]

I believe the proper response, according to the HDS folks, is "Rule of So"!


But that's not very helpful, is it? Your problem is that you aren't comparing the relative truthfulness of different candidates. You've been sold the idea that Clinton lies all the time, but you've never checked out how much. Luckily, the folks at politifact, among others, have done that for you. I can't give a link on Tapatalk, but Clinton is more honest than any of the GOP candidates who were running, and was equally truthful as St Bernie of Sanders.

When deciding who to vote for this may be helpful; you may think she's the lesser of two evils. I disagree, but whatever. But we aren't comparing candidates here, fundamentally. We are discussing, quite specifically, Clinton and HER propensity to be dishonest and not-at-all transparent. Trump is irrelevant to that discussion. In fact, the very need to revert to a tu quoque argument indicates that you (the general "you") don't really even disagree that she's pretty bad all by herself.

 

[wareyin]

When deciding who to vote for this may be helpful; you may think she's the lesser of two evils. I disagree, but whatever. But we aren't comparing candidates here, fundamentally. We are discussing, quite specifically, Clinton and HER propensity to be dishonest and not-at-all transparent. Trump is irrelevant to that discussion. In fact, the very need to revert to a tu quoque argument indicates that you (the general "you") don't really even disagree that she's pretty bad all by herself.

That was not a tu quoque. I never even mentioned Trump. When every politician lies, yet one only acts like the politician who lies the least is the problem, one is obviously not concerned with lies.

 

[xjx388]

That was not a tu quoque. I never even mentioned Trump. When every politician lies, yet one only acts like the politician who lies the least is the problem, one is obviously not concerned with lies.

1. There's the tu quoque right there.
2. That's also begging the question.
3. It doesn't matter, for the purposes of this discussion whether or not anyone else lies.

 

[DavidJames]

So you claim everything Hillary has said and done about her emails, starting with her initial decision to deliberately evade federal access and record-keeping requirements, has been complete, truthful and beyond reproach? And any evidence to the contrary is only manufactured by her "vast right-wing conspiracy?" I'm not the one with something smeared on my glasses.

HRC has been in public service for 12 years. She has made thousands of decisions, but what are you hung up on. Tell me again how you haven't been manipulated.

 

[wareyin]

1. There's the tu quoque right there.
2. That's also begging the question.
3. It doesn't matter, for the purposes of this discussion whether or not anyone else lies.

1. No that is not a tu quoque. Tu quoque is "your guy does it, too", not "every single person does this".
2. No, it is not. As I pointed out, these comparisons have been made. If you are going to claim you know of a politician who doesn't lie, please share.
3. Yes, it does matter. One doesn't complain only about the politician who lies the least if one is concerned about lies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's the old "everybody does it" defense. ...

No it is not a tu quoque defense but I'm sure the nuance escapes a lot of people.

Yes, they all lie. That is not this problem.

Singling out Clinton's misstatements for special treatment is the double standard I refer to.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

By the way, Clinton is not the lesser of two evils. Clinton is the only one now running that is actually qualified for the position of POTUS.

 

[applecorped]

By the way, Clinton is not the lesser of two evils. Clinton is the only one now running that is actually qualified for the position of POTUS.

As was Nixon.

 

[The Big Dog]

By the way, Clinton is not the lesser of two evils. Clinton is the only one now running that is actually qualified for the position of POTUS.

Based on your racist misandrist comment today about VP candidates, all that means is that she has a vagina.

 

[Dog Town]

Based on your racist misandrist comment today about VP candidates, all that means is that she has a vagina.

Don't forget sexist...sexist...sexist!

Goose, and gander come to mind. I'm guessing ...

 

[Bob001]

As was Nixon.

Wait a minute. In 1960 Nixon ran and lost against John Kennedy, a WWII hero who had served in the House before he was elected to the Senate. In 1968 Nixon ran and won against Hubert Humphrey, a legendary old-time liberal who was a civil rights advocate in the 1940s (pretty rare for a white guy then) and a long-time Senator before he became LBJ's VP. In 1972 Nixon ran and won against George McGovern, another WWII hero and long-time Congressman and Senator who was falsely portrayed as some kind of Commie because he opposed the Vietnam War. All of Nixon's opponents were as well-qualified as Nixon if not more so. He didn't coast into the White House because the Democrats were asleep.

 

[Bob001]

No it is not a tu quoque defense but I'm sure the nuance escapes a lot of people.

Yes, they all lie. That is not this problem.

Singling out Clinton's misstatements for special treatment is the double standard I refer to.

There's a big difference between a "misstatement" ("Whoops, I was wrong about the date we met for lunch last month") or an error of fact and a series of deliberate lies intended to conceal the truth. If you think the difference doesn't matter, you may as well just flip a coin to decide between Trump and Clinton; after all, one lie's as good as another, right?
http://nypost.com/2015/08/16/hillary-clintons-5-e-mail-lies/
http://nypost.com/2015/11/28/hillary-clintons-million-little-lies/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420963/hillary-clinton-lies-emails-subpoena

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's a big difference between a "misstatement" ("Whoops, I was wrong about the date we met for lunch last month") or an error of fact and a series of deliberate lies intended to conceal the truth. If you think the difference doesn't matter, you may as well just flip a coin to decide between Trump and Clinton; after all, one lie's as good as another, right?
http://nypost.com/2015/08/16/hillary-clintons-5-e-mail-lies/
http://nypost.com/2015/11/28/hillary-clintons-million-little-lies/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420963/hillary-clinton-lies-emails-subpoena

Way to avoid the point.

 

[Dog Town]

Way to avoid the point.

Ditto!