Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[12AX7]

Big win Hilldawg!

Should Hilary Clinton become POTUS, will you feel really stupid? Will it be the end of you here ala mhaze? Or will we get treated to 4 years of "avid reader" nonsense?

What exactly is the agenda you're selling?

 

[davefoc]

I agree. Both sides will come away thinking theirs was the clear benefactor of the hearings. Where I think HC comes out a winner (assuming there was no actually breaking of laws), is those truly undecided will come away seeing it was at best a honest attempt at getting out the truth and accept she didn't break any laws, or realize it really was a witch hunt.

I don't suppose anybody's going to post video of the practice sessions. They might be pretty good fun on their own. My sense of it is that Clinton is world class when it comes to dealing with this kind of thing. Nobody has had more experience.

How do you think Clinton should deal with this question:
Were any of the emails you deleted from foreign contacts discussing foundation business? My guess is that some of them were at least. It wouldn't be completely out the realm of possibility that the Republicans have managed to dig up one. Has there been any evidence of a separate email account for foundation business?

Why don't you take a shot at this question 16.5? Put on your Clinton political operative hat. I realize you don't actually have one of those but do your best anyway.

Maybe other people have some tough questions in mind the Republicans could ask Clinton and some ideas about how Clinton should deal with them?

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't suppose anybody's going to post video of the practice sessions. They might be pretty good fun on their own. My sense of it is that Clinton is world class when it comes to dealing with this kind of thing. Nobody has had more experience.

How do you think Clinton should deal with this question:
Were any of the emails you deleted from foreign contacts discussing foundation business? My guess is that some of them were at least. It wouldn't be completely out the realm of possibility that the Republicans have managed to dig up one. Has there been any evidence of a separate email account for foundation business?

Why don't you take a shot at this question 16.5? Put on your Clinton political operative hat. I realize you don't actually have one of those but do your best anyway.

Maybe other people have some tough questions in mind the Republicans could ask Clinton and some ideas about how Clinton should deal with them?

A shot at what question? "Were any of the emails you deleted from foreign contacts discussing foundation business?" That one?

What do you mean a "shot"? She should answer truthfully, yes, no, or I don't know. I don't think she can honestly answer no, because there is no way she reviewed those documents.

You really think that Clinton is "world class" at testifying before Congress? What an odd thing to say....

By the way, Gowdy sent her lawyer over 100 questions, I bet with some digging you can find them.,

 

[TheL8Elvis]

A shot at what question? "Were any of the emails you deleted from foreign contacts discussing foundation business?" That one?

What do you mean a "shot"? She should answer truthfully, yes, no, or I don't know. I don't think she can honestly answer no, because there is no way she reviewed those documents.

Why would that question even come up ?

Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy today sent a letter to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal counsel, David Kendall, setting a timeframe for Clinton to appear before the committee twice—the first to answer questions regarding the completeness of her public record and the second to answer questions on the substance of the Benghazi terrorist attacks.

The emails regarding the clinton foundation have ****-all to do with benghazi.

At any rate - the correct way to answer is to acknowledge that relevant state department emails were turned over. That seems rather easy.

You really think that Clinton is "world class" at testifying before Congress? What an odd thing to say....

You really question HRCs ability to testify before Congress? What an odd thing to say....

By the way, Gowdy sent her lawyer over 100 questions, I bet with some digging you can find them.,

Is this a scavenger hunt now ?

 

[The Big Dog]

Why would that question even come up ?

Is this a scavenger hunt now ?

Why would it come up? Heck if i know, ask your buddy dave.

"Scavenger hunt"? No reason to be confused,I was replying to Dave. Google it if you are interested, or don't, I don't really care that much if you do. here is the site:

www.google.com

 

[davefoc]

The Gowdy letter and list of questions are embedded in an article here:
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2015/0...estions-for-hillary-clinton-about-her-emails/

The questions were almost entirely devoted to the nuts and bolts of the Clinton email server. It would be one boring committee meeting if they stick to that agenda.

The hardest question looks to be right at the top when they ask Clinton why she set up the server. Hopefully Clinton can do a little better this time than the last time she took a swing at that question.

As to why they'd ask her about foundation emails on the server: I think that is the main chance for Republican gain out of this committee meeting. Behghazi is a bogus scandal and if they push in that direction the results of the committee meeting will be to please the partisan true believers and the end result will be a net win for Clinton who will once again have a chance to explain why the Benghazi conspiracy theories are BS.

But almost certainly what she's calling private emails contained a lot of political emails and probably some foundation emails and it looks like Clinton may not have conformed to her pre Secretary of State agreement to not accept donations for her foundation while she was Secretary of State* and there is a chance that eliminating emails from foreign countries related to the foundation may have been a prime reason for the destruction of the emails.

*A donation from Algeria looks to be the most suspicious with an uptick in state department activity on Algeria coinciding roughly with the time of an Algerian donation to the foundation.

 

[The Big Dog]

Thoughtful article on Hillary's congenital dishonesty

Hillary Clinton is a congenital rule breaker

Do people really doubt that the entire email server scam and destruction was intended to cover up Hillary's misconduct.

The thing about it is she really screwed Obama by violating the memorandum of understanding.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Hillary Clinton is a congenital rule breaker

It's great how her "email server" can be hiding any evidence anyone wants.
Benghazi, Clinton foundation, etc.

Do people really doubt that the entire email server scam and destruction was intended to cover up Hillary's misconduct.

Just being skeptical of your claims, and waiting for some actual, you know, evidence ...

The thing about it is she really screwed Obama by violating the memorandum of understanding.

Yeah, poor Obama is really screwed ... I think it means he can't run for president again.

 

[The Big Dog]

Just being skeptical of your claims, and waiting for some actual, you know, evidence ....Yeah, poor Obama is really screwed ... I think it means he can't run for president again.

You don't understand the whole "cover up" bit do you?

Funny "jape" about Obama tho, sure she violated the agreement and is making Obama look like a fool, but he can't run again, ha. ha.



Thanks for bumping the thread tho!

 

[wareyin]

It's great how her "email server" can be hiding any evidence anyone wants. Benghazi, Clinton foundation, etc. Just being skeptical of your claims, and waiting for some actual, you know, evidence ...

Yeah, poor Obama is really screwed ... I think it means he can't run for president again.

You don't understand the whole "cover up" bit do you? Funny "jape" about Obama tho, sure she violated the agreement and is making Obama look like a fool, but he can't run again, ha. ha.



Thanks for bumping the thread tho!

Can somebody explain to me how this isn't a conspiracy theory, and therefore ought to be in that section?

 

[The Big Dog]

It appears that the State Department continues to drag its feet in responding to the numerous outstanding FOIA request, so much so that a Judge had to impose a deadline.

Deadline to release Hillary emails

Is that going to include the other emails on her cowboy server like Huma Abedin's emails? Who knows, certainly Hillary is "too busy" to answer any questions about it.

Wonder if emails from these Clinton Foundation Donors who were lobbying the State Department made it into the destroyed or saved column???

 

[DavidJames]

Can somebody explain to me how this isn't a conspiracy theory, and therefore ought to be in that section?

This and the Benghazi thread are textbook examples of how to employ conspiratorial techniques to keep a subject alive.

 

[The Big Dog]

conspiracy theory

Drink!

 

[wareyin]

Drink!

Can't! I'm already way past my limit from:

cowboy server

But can you answer the question I actually asked, rather than doing a childish dodge?

 

[The Big Dog]

But can you answer the question I actually asked, rather than doing a childish dodge?

why should I, it is grossly fallacious, spammy and an overt attempt to derail this thread, as well as being totally off topic.

I totally get that you don't care that Hillary destroyed over half her emails, and refuses to come clean about what was destroyed.

Thanks for clearing that up!

 

[wareyin]

why should I, it is grossly fallacious, spammy and an overt attempt to derail this thread, as well as being totally off topic.

I totally get that you don't care that Hillary destroyed over half her emails, and refuses to come clean about what was destroyed.

Thanks for clearing that up!

So you can't answer why this is not a conspiracy theory? Calls for evidence are met with derision, lack of evidence for anything (at all) is explained by "cover up", sure sounds like a consp....uh, like it belongs in the forum for things like 9/11 (whew, I'd hate to have you drunk because of an obvious truth!)

 

[The Big Dog]

So you can't answer why this is not a conspiracy theory? Calls for evidence are met with derision, lack of evidence for anything (at all) is explained by "cover up", sure sounds like a consp....uh, like it belongs in the forum for things like 9/11 (whew, I'd hate to have you drunk because of an obvious truth!)

You see, the fact that you keep calling it a "conspiracy theory" doesn't, ya know, make it one. And the fact that you call it a conspiracy theory a dozen times? Doesn't make it one. And the fact you really want it be one?

Not a conspiracy theory.

The fact that you are overtly trying to diminish the ongoing email scandal by calling it a conspiracy theory, does not make it a.... aww, you know.

Why don't you take a gander at my signature?

 

[wareyin]

You see, the fact that you keep calling it a "conspiracy theory" doesn't, ya know, make it one. And the fact that you call it a conspiracy theory a dozen times? Doesn't make it one. And the fact you really want it be one?

Not a conspiracy theory.

The fact that you are overtly trying to diminish the ongoing email scandal by calling it a conspiracy theory, does not make it a.... aww, you know.

Why don't you take a gander at my signature?

Sorry, my friend, but it fits the profile of a conspiracy theory. I'm asking for an explanation of how, or why, it's not a conspiracy theory. Dodging the question doesn't really give me a reason to believe that it's not. Obviously, ymmv.

As to your signature, sorry, those don't come through on Tapatalk. I'm sure it's oh, so clever, though!

 

[applecorped]

Sorry, my friend, but it fits the profile of a conspiracy theory. I'm asking for an explanation of how, or why, it's not a conspiracy theory. Dodging the question doesn't really give me a reason to believe that it's not. Obviously, ymmv.

As to your signature, sorry, those don't come through on Tapatalk. I'm sure it's oh, so clever, though!

Out of curiosity what is the profile of a conspiracy theory that you are using?

 

[The Big Dog]

Sorry, my friend, but it fits the profile of a conspiracy theory. I'm asking for an explanation of how, or why, it's not a conspiracy theory. Dodging the question doesn't really give me a reason to believe that it's not. Obviously, ymmv.

face palm.

Argument by bare assertion + Fallacious and specious labeling + switching the burden of proof = Hillary Clinton 2016!