• 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.
Again, nothing here requires that they talked about Hillary or the case. The purpose would have been accomplished even if they just chatted about their grandchildren as claimed. And Lynch IS corrupt. Had she not been, she would have refused the meeting. It was obviously the wrong thing to do, and Lynch is not so stupid that she wouldn't understand that. She knew, and did it anyways.

I'm more willing to go with lapse of judgement. God knows I've made them. Haven't you done something really stupid and then wondered how you could have done it?

And if Lynch is on it, you have to also get Comey in on it, and that means all the agents who have worked on this won't leak the-fix-is-in to reporters... it's just too crazy.
 
Ziggurat, suppose you had to cast the deciding vote between Trump and Clinton becoming president.

Would this email story make you vote for Trump? For me, the answer is obvious: no.
 
It is interesting to compare the standard for "damaging national security" that conservatives use in the Hillary email case to the one they used when CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame was outed during the Bush Administration.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/state-department-hack-worst-ever/

Overlooked in the controversy over Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, is the fact that suspected Russian hackers have bedeviled State Department's email system for much of the past year and continue to pose problems for technicians trying to eradicate the intrusion.

Federal law enforcement, intelligence and congressional officials briefed on the investigation say the hack of the State email system is the "worst ever" cyberattack intrusion against a federal agency. The attackers who breached State are also believed to be behind hacks on the White House's email system, and against several other federal agencies, the officials say.


Where's the outrage over damage to national security ? Where are the congressional investigations ?

Double standard ?
 
Dog Town said:
I must admit I've had some doubts. I am now certain, she will eventually be indicted!

Not that I am expecting much ... but some mea culpas would certainly be appropriate for many posters in this thread.

Hillary 2016 - not indicted yet :rolleyes:
 
Not quite. If the president knows the server was never hacked, then he knows security wasn't compromised. If he knows there was nothing sensitive on the server, then he knows security wasn't compromised.

But there were sensitive emails on the server, and the president doesn't know if it was hacked. So how can he possibly know that security was not compromised? You provide no possible way that he could.

Yes, there are sometimes other ways of proving that a server was compromised. But how do you prove it wasn't compromised? That's a harder task. And the FBI has stated explicitly that they would not expect to be able to detect an intrusion, had one occurred.

Did Obama do that? No, he did not.

Again, the problem is proving that it didn't happen. If the Russians or Chinese or Iranians got Hillary's email, it's possible the CIA might find out, but it's also possible that they would never know.

No. You have provided possible means by which he could know national security WAS harmed. You have provided no means by which he could know national security was NOT harmed. Simple logic fail here.

You are grasping at straws.

There is no evidence Clintons email server was hacked.

There is no evidence national security was harmed.

There is no evidence that Comeys decision was influenced/pressured.

There is no evidence of blatant corruption.

Go peddle your conspiracies in the right section.
 
I'm more willing to go with lapse of judgement. God knows I've made them. Haven't you done something really stupid and then wondered how you could have done it?

Not like that I haven't.

And if Lynch is on it, you have to also get Comey in on it, and that means all the agents who have worked on this won't leak the-fix-is-in to reporters... it's just too crazy.

First off, again, the messages don't need to be explicit. The meeting IS the message. And it's got "plausible" deniability. I don't know if Comey is in on it, but this is a major problem regardless. And what are the agents going to say? There's no proof that Comey was influenced.

Ziggurat, suppose you had to cast the deciding vote between Trump and Clinton becoming president.

Would this email story make you vote for Trump? For me, the answer is obvious: no.

My answer is yes. And it's not just about the emails themselves, though I consider that pretty bad. But not only did she badly mishandle classified information, and probably in order to shield herself, she lied about it at every single step. Again and again, she lied. And what have been the consequences of those lies? Nothing. She has paid no price for her lies, and not really even for her mishandling of classified information. And so this is what we can expect from her as president: she will make bad choices, and then she will lie to cover them up. This will be routine.

Trump will make bad choices too, and he might lie to cover them up as well. He's a terrible candidate, and I really wish someone else had been nominated. But there's a difference: the press won't cover for Trump the way it covers for Hillary, and Democrats in general. He won't get as much leeway from the rest of the government either. But Hillary will get a pass. If you value the press as a check on government power, then vote Republican, because that's the only way you'll get it.

Bad policies can be changed. But corruption, once it takes root, is harder to remove. Trump is no paragon of virtue, but the mere fact that he has not held office before while Hillary is part of a long-standing machine stretching back decades means that Trump cannot infect the government with corruption to the same extent that Hillary can, even if Trump wants to.

Maybe it's the straw that broke the camel's back, maybe it's just symptomatic of everything that's wrong with Hillary, but no, I cannot vote for her, and yes, I will vote for Trump over her. Trump is terrible, but Hillary is worse.

ETA: I would vote for Bernie over Trump.
 
Last edited:
LOL, of course you are going to vote for that pathologically dishonest conman while laughably pretending that you care about honestly and corruption.
 
LOL, of course you are going to vote for that pathologically dishonest conman while laughably pretending that you care about honestly and corruption.

In contrast to you, I suppose: you simply don't care about honesty, so why not vote for Hillary?
 
In contrast to you, I suppose: you simply don't care about honesty, so why not vote for Hillary?
Trump lies way more than Hillary. Like when he made up that fake university to scam people out of money. Not that you care about things like that though you laughably pretend to be super concerned about corruption.
 
In contrast to you, I suppose: you simply don't care about honesty, so why not vote for Hillary?

Wait, which candidate is more dishonest ?

78% vs 27% ???

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
True 4 (2%)(4)
Mostly True 12 (7%)(12)
Half True 25 (14%)(25)
Mostly False 29 (17%)(29) False 71 (41%)(71) Pants on Fire 34 (19%)
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
True 51 (23%)(51)
Mostly True 62 (28%)(62)
Half True 47 (21%)(47)
Mostly False 33 (15%)(33) False 25 (11%)(25) Pants on Fire 3 (1%)
 
Wait, which candidate is more dishonest ?

78% vs 27% ???

Politifact? Seriously? Yeah, no. There are no controls on their sampling method (in fact, there isn't even a method to how they sample), so no statistics derived from them have any significance.
 
Politifact? Seriously? Yeah, no. There are no controls on their sampling method (in fact, there isn't even a method to how they sample), so no statistics derived from them have any significance.
They are corrupt and in Hillary's pocket. Just like the Republican FBI Director. LOL.
 
Comey confirms that not all of Hillary's attorneys had clearance to read classified emails. "Reasonably confident some were classified"

Gee, just what 16.5 said.

As such she intentionally distributed classified data to people without clearance.
 
Comey confirms that not all of Hillary's attorneys had clearance to read classified emails. "Reasonably confident some were classified"

Gee, just what 16.5 said.

As such she intentionally distributed classified data to people without clearance.

Lets see if you can find the stark contrast in what you've said. Why don't you just try being honest for once? You take something that is possible and say that, not only did it happen, but it was an intentional breach.

Seriously, this isn't helping your cause, just stop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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