Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[plague311]

Anti-Governmental Transparency Zealot Hillary Clinton's former State Department is the subject of 79 lawsuits nationwide for their failure to comply with FOIA requests.

79 lawsuits. Cripes. Thanks Hillary!

How many arise out of her decision to use a cowboy/homebrew server? A bunch of them:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/05/state-department-hit-with-more-clintonrelated-foia-206709.html

Sneering contempt for the rule of law and political openness does not bode well for a presidential candidate. Maybe Bill can go give a couple of speeches in Russia and earn some dough to pay all the lawyers trying to sort through Hillary's latest mess?

One can only hope, huh?

Your cherry picking is becoming something of legend. Every time you post a link, you cherry pick a line, and then get called out on it. Doesn't it get old for you to constantly be shown up? Anyway, on this most recent one:

Much of the onslaught has been triggered by the disclosure that Clinton used a personal email account as her sole email account during her four years as America's chief diplomat.

In a court filing Monday, just before the latest suits were filed, government lawyers said the agency was facing 79 FOIA lawsuits nationwide.

It says there are 79 lawsuits, not that there are 79 Hillary related lawsuits. Try learning to read.

 

[Shalamar]

Your cherry picking is becoming something of legend. Every time you post a link, you cherry pick a line, and then get called out on it. Doesn't it get old for you to constantly be shown up? Anyway, on this most recent one:



It says there are 79 lawsuits, not that there are 79 Hillary related lawsuits. Try learning to read.

I'm sure 'Avid Readers' have long given up on it. Perhaps if he were actually skeptical of the links and information that confirm his blind bias?

I don't particularly like Hillary, or want her to be president, but this is really making my eyes roll so hard, I can see the inside of my skull. And I wonder why he doesn't make similar threads on the actions of conservatives? Avid readers want to know!

 

[12AX7]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/u...ton-gains-favor-times-cbs-poll-says.html?_r=0


Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have initially weathered a barrage of news about her use of a private email account when she was secretary of state and the practices of her family’s foundation, an indication that she is starting her second presidential bid with an unusual durability among Democratic voters.

Americans now view Mrs. Clinton more favorably and more see her as a strong leader than they did earlier in the year, despite weeks of scrutiny about her ethics, a New York Times/CBS News poll has found.

Great!

You know 16.5 loves him some New York Times!

I hear tell that the New York Times who broke this story and has been following it up (to their credit) is part of the "right wing echo chamber."

Love to hear a little bit more about that.

Any takers?

No one cares about Hillary's scandals anymore, Auntie Em!

Just the New York Times....

"right wing scandals." LOLZ! Auntie Em, Auntie Em!

 

[12AX7]

Of course the headline is always an accurate summation of the facts in the article, right?

Here are some more 'factual' headlines:-

"Government Report: Bush, Rove Broke The Law"

"Special Report: G.W. Bush's 103.6 million missing email messages"

"Investigation Uncovers ‘Extensive Destruction’ Of RNC Emails, Violations Of Records Act"

"That's tu quoque! That's a personal attack! OMGZ!!!1!!"

He doesn't care about those.

 

[The Big Dog]

All is explained in the opening sentence ...

A conservative watchdog group filed seven new Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against the State Department this week, all relating to Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.

Also ... how many of those 79 lawsuits that you are blaming on Hillary were actually filed while Hillary was in charge of the state dept ? Inquiring minds would like to you to back up your innuendo ...

Open up with a cherry picked ad hominem, ignore the text of the linked article that I actually linked and somehow totally miss the point! Fantastic.

The question is not "how many were filed WHILE Hillary was in charge of the state department."

the question is how many were filed because of the way Hillary ran the state department while she was in charge, for example, running her own cowboy server and failing to ensure that her official emails were available for review under FOIA.

As the linked article notes? A whole bunch!

/You guys are getting really fast at white knighting hillary, tho. Pretty impressive! You might wish, however, to slow down and work some actual substance into your replies. Still pretty speedy there, Sir Galahad.

 

[plague311]

Open up with a cherry picked ad hominem, ignore the text of the linked article that I actually linked and somehow totally miss the point! Fantastic.

The question is not "how many were filed WHILE Hillary was in charge of the state department."

the question is how many were filed because of the way Hillary ran the state department while she was in charge, for example, running her own cowboy server and failing to ensure that her official emails were available for review under FOIA.

As the linked article notes? A whole bunch!

/You guys are getting really fast at white knighting hillary, tho. Pretty impressive! You might wish, however, to slow down and work some actual substance into your replies. Still pretty speedy there, Sir Galahad.

You might want to slow down and link some evidence that supports your actual statements. The question is how many of those are related to Hillary and the answer is...they didn't say! Why didn't they say?

 

[The Big Dog]

Lolz, according to the link in the article I linked, the DoJ lawyers are laying the blame squarely on Hilldawg for the extraordinary delay:

"These exceptional circumstances are compounded by the fact that a significant portion of Defendant’s FOIA processing resources are currently devoted to reviewing for public release the complete collection of emails that were recently provided to the Department by former Secretary Clinton, consistent with the FOIA , and to making those documents available to the public by posting them on a Department website. Indeed, contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, these circumstances constitute precisely the sort of extraordinary event which falls outside of predictable agency workload demands and justifies the granting of additional time."

Laughably frivolous claims of cherry picking in 3,2,1....

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Open up with a cherry picked

ad hominem,

A conservative watchdog group filed seven new Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against the State Department this week, all relating to Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.

What about this sentence do you find to be an ad hominem, exactly ?

ignore the text of the linked article that I actually linked

pot/kettle/black

and somehow totally miss the point! Fantastic.

Indeed.

The question is not "how many were filed WHILE Hillary was in charge of the state department."

the question is how many were filed because of the way Hillary ran the state department while she was in charge, for example, running her own cowboy server and failing to ensure that her official emails were available for review under FOIA.

As the linked article notes? A whole bunch!

"a whole bunch" is meaningless. Specific number, please.

/You guys are getting really fast at white knighting hillary, tho. Pretty impressive! You might wish, however, to slow down and work some actual substance into your replies. Still pretty speedy there, Sir Galahad.

Thanks for posting. Keep up the good work !

 

[The Big Dog]

that about this sentence do you find to be an ad hominem, exactly ?

The parts you inexplicably left out, like "All is explained in the opening sentence ..." and the bolding.

"a whole bunch" is meaningless. Specific number, please.!

See, this is why I totally respect you. You manage to come up with some completely inconsequential and fallacious appeal to perfect data, about a 'specific" number, without acknowledging that there is absolutely no question at numerous lawsuits have been filed and are pending arising out of Hillary's cowboy server (and which, as avid readers know was EXACTLY MY POINT!). Why does he need a specific number? REASONS, and certainly not to derail from the substantive facts set forth in the article I linked, no siree!

And the Shillaries will go crazy for it! Oh, you don't have a specific number, therefore Hillary gets to be President! Yay.

But I have an ace up my sleeve. I've read the status reports, ya see, so let me present you with a specific number:

79. 79 cases.

And the crowd goes WILD!!!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The parts you inexplicably left out, like "All is explained in the opening sentence ..." and the bolding.

You are clearing confusing ad hominem and cherry picking with context and with facts.

But I know that's already clear to everyone in the thread.

See, this is why I totally respect you. You manage to come up with some completely inconsequential and fallacious appeal to perfect data, about a 'specific" number,

I simply love that fact that in your world asking for a number more specific than "a whole bunch" is some type of logical fallacy.

Man, you can't make this stuff up !!

without acknowledging that there is absolutely no question at numerous lawsuits have been filed and are pending arising out of Hillary's cowboy server (and which, as avid readers know was EXACTLY MY POINT!).

I can't acknowledge "numerous" lawsuits have been filed because of Hillarys homebrewz cowboyz serverz ... becuase the article you cited only lists that some part 7 of more than 70 are due to that.
And of course, the article goes on to say:
The suits, filed Tuesday and Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Washington, seek all the work-related emails Clinton sent and received on her private accounts, as well as records about her use of a private server for her email, names of other State employees who used private accounts for work email and Clinton's messages related to the Benghazi attack. Also sought are details of the State Department's ethics review process for donations to the Clinton Foundation, details on Clinton's resignation and emails sent on a private account by Clinton's deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin.
so I can't even agree with your assertion that those 7 they are because of Hillarys homebrewz cowboyz serverz, becuase some of them aren't.

So, if by numerous you mean a large number, your point is incorrect and unproven.

Why does he need a specific number? REASONS, and certainly not to derail from the substantive facts set forth in the article I linked, no siree!

And the Shillaries will go crazy for it! Oh, you don't have a specific number, therefore Hillary gets to be President! Yay.

She "gets to be president" because this whole thread is a tempest in a teapot

But I have an ace up my sleeve. I've read the status reports, ya see, so let me present you with a specific number:

79. 79 cases.

And the crowd goes WILD!!!

You keep believing that. Also, keep believing it matters to the presidential election

 

[The Big Dog]

You are clearing confusing ad hominem and cherry picking with context and with facts.

Lol, did you just claim that it wasn't an ad hominem fallacy because "facts." I giggled!

Smoking is harmful.
But you smoke therefore
smoking is good.

Heck, if Hillary told me that 2 +2 = 4, I'd believe her. I mean I'd check it out of course because... Hillary, amiright?

By the way? the fundraising and resignation stuff? Lets ask the Plaintiff: "Judicial Watch Files Seven New FOIA Lawsuits against State Department to Force Release of Clinton Emails, Other Secret Email Records."

Let us do the dance of my people: "all I do is win. win, win!"

79

 

[The Big Dog]

Hillary gets a pass while Tom Brady gets sacked.

Sports fans will note the recent excitement about regarding Tom Brady and Deflategate

here's an interesting comments about the report:

Brady's unwillingness to fully cooperate in the investigation leaves him open to more second-guessing than any throw he has ever made. If he had nothing to hide, then why not give Wells and his investigative team access to records that might help resolve the issue? The fact that Brady would not surrender texts, phone records or emails suggests that there was plenty to hide.

Source

Tom Brady gets roasted for refusing to turn over his messages, while Hillary Clinton intentionally destroys tens of thousands of emails and people are not only willing to give her a pass, there is a possibility that she might actually win the Democratic nomination for President.

Should tom brady gets a more sever penalty for deflategate than Hillary Clinton deserves for Emailgate? Of course not.

Hillary, we know you had plenty to hide. Avid readers and critical thinkers want to know what you destroyed and why.

 

[beren]

Sports fans will note the recent excitement about regarding Tom Brady and Deflategate

here's an interesting comments about the report:



Source

Tom Brady gets roasted for refusing to turn over his messages, while Hillary Clinton intentionally destroys tens of thousands of emails and people are not only willing to give her a pass, there is a possibility that she might actually win the Democratic nomination for President.

Should tom brady gets a more sever penalty for deflategate than Hillary Clinton deserves for Emailgate? Of course not.

Hillary, we know you had plenty to hide. Avid readers and critical thinkers want to know what you destroyed and why.

Brady broke the rules. Still waiting for *evidence Hillary did.





*real evidence

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Sports fans will note the recent excitement about regarding Tom Brady and Deflategate

here's an interesting comments about the report:



Source

Tom Brady gets roasted for refusing to turn over his messages, while Hillary Clinton intentionally destroys tens of thousands of emails and people are not only willing to give her a pass, there is a possibility that she might actually win the Democratic nomination for President.

Should tom brady gets a more sever penalty for deflategate than Hillary Clinton deserves for Emailgate? Of course not.

Hillary, we know you had plenty to hide. Avid readers and critical thinkers want to know what you destroyed and why.

Oh my I can't even pretend to take this seriously enough to play along.

I hope you have something better tomorrow.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh my I can't even pretend to take this seriously enough to play along.

I hope you have something better tomorrow.

You can't take it seriously that Tom Brady is being held to a higher standard than Hillary Clinton?

'k. Thanks for posting, tho

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You can't take it seriously that Tom Brady is being held to a higher standard than Hillary Clinton?

No, what I can't take seriously is that anyone thinks the situations are at all analogous.

'k. Thanks for posting, tho

Ditto

 

[The Big Dog]

No, what I can't take seriously is that anyone thinks the situations are at all analogous.

Ditto

You are correct! Hillary's misconduct was exponentially more egregious and her misconduct infinitely more serious.

But people are asking Brady what he is hiding??

What was Hillary Clinton hiding when she destroyed those emails?

 

[wareyin]

What was Hillary Clinton hiding when she destroyed those emails?

Was she hiding communications between Brady and her about the football psi?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Was she hiding communications between Brady and her about the football psi?

I don't know. It could, literally, be about anything !

Hey ... I have a thought ... those communications would be a pretty good excuse to claim Hillary could be hiding anything she wanted to !

 

[wareyin]

No, what I can't take seriously is that anyone thinks the situations are at all analogous.



Ditto

Wait, you think deflate-gate and email-ghazi aren't analogous? Is it because we actually know what Brady is alleged to have done, and therefore why people want his communications, while we don't have any allegations of wrongdoing by Clinton, and therefore only want private communications in the hope of finding something? I mean, it's hard to miss that glaring difference, isn't it?

How many times shall we expect Brady to testify before Congress about his situation, vs the many times Clinton has already testified before Congress, with more to come? Oh wait, since we're holding Brady to a higher standard, we can expect his subpoena any day now, right?