Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

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 !

Yes, you are beginning to catch on: by destroying her emails Hillary could hide anything she wanted to.

Why else do you think she set up her own cowboy server and then destroyed over half of her documents?

What the hell is Hillary hiding?

 

[wareyin]

What the hell is Hillary hiding?

Maybe Clinton ordered Brady to cheat! I say we have 8 Congressional hearings about it! We'll tear down that smug Brady, yes siree Bob!

 

[jhunter1163]

At this point, even if she did provide the server, the right-wing outrage machine wouldn't be satisfied. They'd keep screeching to see the "real" server, the way the Birthers kept screeching to see the "real" birth certificate even after it was provided and certified. Literally nothing would satisfy them, so Clinton is probably smart not to try.

 

[Blaster]

What the hell is Hillary hiding?

Probably correspondence that would reveal her secret lesbian love affair or some such nonsense.

I think you're really stretching here about what's "hidden" in those emails, as if it would implicate her legally. If Hillary was in contact with the embassy in Benghazi via email, would it be safe to assume that the embassy staff was utilizing a .gov server? Do you know if that's true? If it's true, you'll probably be able to obtain the correspondence between that facility and Hillary. Unless you have evidence that Hillary had everyone in the government added to her private server.

 

[The Big Dog]

At this point, even if she did provide the server, the right-wing outrage machine wouldn't be satisfied. They'd keep screeching to see the "real" server, the way the Birthers kept screeching to see the "real" birth certificate even after it was provided and certified. Literally nothing would satisfy them, so Clinton is probably smart not to try.

Just so I understand you, she violated her agreement with Obama, destroyed emails and is refusing to turn over her server, and you want to give HER the benefit of the doubt?

And the "right wing" are the bad guys here?

 

[The Big Dog]

Probably correspondence that would reveal her secret lesbian love affair or some such nonsense.

I think you're really stretching here about what's "hidden" in those emails, as if it would implicate her legally. If Hillary was in contact with the embassy in Benghazi via email, would it be safe to assume that the embassy staff was utilizing a .gov server? Do you know if that's true? If it's true, you'll probably be able to obtain the correspondence between that facility and Hillary. Unless you have evidence that Hillary had everyone in the government added to her private server.

Her emails with Huma Abedin would not be on the .gov server, her emails with the Libyan government would not.

She decided to destroy them, the presumption is she did so because they were harmful.

 

[Blaster]

Her emails with Huma Abedin would not be on the .gov server, her emails with the Libyan government would not.

She decided to destroy them, the presumption is she did so because they were harmful.

OK, that's fine. I get that. But I asked specifically about Libya and Benghazi. What are your thoughts on my post in regards to Libya and Benghazi vis a vis the US Embassy staff there.

 

[jhunter1163]

Ah, the Rule of So.

No, that isn't at all what I said. I said that she's smart not to turn over the server because doing so would not satisfy the outrage machine. They would say "What happened during the three months that we weren't allowed to look at it? What was deleted in that time period? How do we know this is even the real clintonemails.com server and not a mirror machine with the incriminating stuff removed?" She's smart to just let it all blow over. No one cared about Bush's missing emails, and no one really cares about Hillary's except for a few hyperpartisan rightwingers.

 

[jhunter1163]

Her emails with Huma Abedin would not be on the .gov server, her emails with the Libyan government would not.

She decided to destroy them, the presumption is she did so because they were harmful.

Who is doing this "presuming", besides a few hyperpartisan right-wingers?

 

[The Big Dog]

OK, that's fine. I get that. But I asked specifically about Libya and Benghazi. What are your thoughts on my post in regards to Libya and Benghazi vis a vis the US Embassy staff there.

Short answer: I don't know.

Long answer: no such communications have in fact been made available.

 

[The Big Dog]

Who is doing this "presuming", besides a few hyperpartisan right-wingers?

As discussed in detail in this thread, the law creates that presumption.

As such, my answer is everyone except hyperpartisan left-wingers.

 

[Foolmewunz]

IRONY!!!!! Miss the headline did ya?

State official: Clinton email practices 'not acceptable'

In all fairness to 16.5, that was the headline and not just in that reprint (Yahoo doesn't actually have any news gatherers or reporters), but in almost every newspaper/website that picked it up. It's a headline sent with the story.... sent by the AP. No one at any of those news outlets vetted the story to see that that's not actually a properly attributed quote. Reading her words, it's pretty clear that she's talking about what is acceptable "now". As avid readers (of actual news/history, not this witch hunt of a thread) will know, State actually didn't have any such policy in the past.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Short answer: I don't know.

Long answer: no such communications have in fact been made available.

And that's why the must be there. Along with the emails to the Pats owners ordering them to frame St. Thomas of Brady, the Wikimaps link to the body of Jimmy Hoffa, the solution to World Hunger, and the recipe for McDonald's Secret Sauce.

 

[jhunter1163]

And that's why the must be there. Along with the emails to the Pats owners ordering them to frame St. Thomas of Brady, the Wikimaps link to the body of Jimmy Hoffa, the solution to World Hunger, and the recipe for McDonald's Secret Sauce.

Don't forget the Coca-Cola formula, Judge Crater, Amelia Earhart and the real killer of Nicole Brown Simpson.

 

[The Big Dog]

Don't forget the Coca-Cola formula, Judge Crater, Amelia Earhart and the real killer of Nicole Brown Simpson.

Say, way to stretch a rather anemic joke....

Critical thinkers know that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, particularly when the evidence Was intentionally destroyed.

For example, the coca cola formula, the fact that you have never seen it does not mean it doesn't exist, right?

 

[wareyin]

Say, way to stretch a rather anemic joke....

Critical thinkers know that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, particularly when the evidence Was intentionally destroyed.

Evidence of what?

For example, the coca cola formula, the fact that you have never seen it does not mean it doesn't exist, right?

The Coca Cola formula obviously does exist, as evidenced by the bottle of Coca Cola in my refrigerator. What, in this analogy, does that represent? What are you claiming exists in the emails?

 

[jhunter1163]

Say, way to stretch a rather anemic joke....

Critical thinkers know that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, particularly when the evidence Was intentionally destroyed.

Way to shift the burden of proof. We've asked you repeatedly for specific examples of just what wrongdoing the homebrewz cowboyz server is supposed to contain evidence of. You have, despite your handwaving, yet to provide any concrete allegations against Clinton. You have not produced any evidence whatever that the deleted emails implicate Clinton in any chicanery. And no, breathlessly quoting Tea Party-oriented websites is not "providing evidence".

 

[The Big Dog]

Way to shift the burden of proof. We've asked you repeatedly for specific examples of just what wrongdoing the homebrewz cowboyz server is supposed to contain evidence of. You have, despite your handwaving, yet to provide any concrete allegations against Clinton. You have not produced any evidence whatever that the deleted emails implicate Clinton in any chicanery. And no, breathlessly quoting Tea Party-oriented websites is not "providing evidence".

that is ridiculous. when are people going to realize that repeatedly claiming the we don't yet have evidence because Hillary other destroyed it (the emails) or is refusing to allow access to it (the server) does not at all excuse Hillary's gross misconduct.

Didn't know that Newsday and Politico were tea party web sites. Oh, wait they are not, you made that up then?

We get that hyper partisan left wingers don't care and are desperate to hand wave away the fact the Hillary unilaterally destroyed 30,000 emails. We get it, you don't care. Understood!!! Hillary 2016, yay!

/I see that Hillary's document destruction orgy and her and the Obama administration's refusal to cooperate has caused her testimony to be delayed again, according to tea party oriented website CNN.

 

[wareyin]

that is ridiculous. when are people going to realize that repeatedly claiming the we don't yet have evidence because Hillary other destroyed it (the emails) or is refusing to allow access to it (the server) does not at all excuse Hillary's gross misconduct.

Didn't know that Newsday and Politico were tea party web sites. Oh, wait they are not, you made that up then?

We get that hyper partisan left wingers don't care and are desperate to hand wave away the fact the Hillary unilaterally destroyed 30,000 emails. We get it, you don't care. Understood!!! Hillary 2016, yay!

/I see that Hillary's document destruction orgy and her and the Obama administration's refusal to cooperate has caused her testimony to be delayed again, according to tea party oriented website CNN.

Evidence of what?

 

[applecorped]

Evidence of what?

cankles?