Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[wareyin]

Evidence of what?

cankles?

See, this is what you missed about why this is a conspiracy theory, and not one of the rational ones:

But to flesh that out a bit, from wikipedia:Conspiracy theory^WP
"A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful."

Two or more persons are the Clintons, and Eric Hoteham/Hothem and possibly "Obama's DoJ", having caused...well, we don't really know yet, but they covered it up, through secret planning (and secret spy networks!) and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal (according to sunmaster14) or harmful (according to 16.5).

Thank you for.........that.

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

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.

Evidence of....what?

 

[The Big Dog]

cankles?

Lolz!

Top three scandals that are the subject of numerous foia requests?

3. That Hillary knew that the benghazi talking points were false before rice went on the Sunday morning talk shows.
2. Huma abedin's employment scam and
Hillary's top scandal (today anyway)
1. Her violation of the memorandum of understanding and massive conflicts of interest involving the Clinton foundation.

She didn't destroy those emails because she was concerned about her yoga schedule getting released.

 

[plague311]

16.5, didn't your article say that the conservative group filed an FOIA request for the emails Hillary turned over? Hasn't Hillary been asking that those emails be released since the day she turned them over? You can't pin those on her, she's asking for that information to be released, and the committee hasn't done so.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Lolz!

Top three scandals that are the subject of numerous foia requests?

"Top three scandals"? Only in your mind.

benghazi

BENGHAZI!!!

 

[The Big Dog]

"Top three scandals"? Only in your mind.

Sure, there are a number of others, but those are probably the most significant.

I snipped your infantile reference at the end.

I note that many Hillary fans enjoy make benghazi a joke, despite the four men who died there due to Hillary's incompetence.

Note that you did not mention her betrayal of Obama tho.

 

[wareyin]

"Top three scandals"? Only in your mind.


BENGHAZI!!!

This is just hyper-partisan Republicans throwing a bunch if crap at the wall and hoping something sticks. So far, nothing has, but maybe there's something in those emails to make one of any number of ludicrous claims seem plausible. Heck, after the facts have come out about that ridiculous book, I'm surprised to find that anyone still believes the Clinton Foundation influence "scandal", much less anyone who actually thinks it is the top possibility!

 

[Minoosh]

She didn't destroy those emails because she was concerned about her yoga schedule getting released.

I'm impressed by your ability to employ innuendo so effectively. Clinton has left herself wide open for such treatment.

 

[Foolmewunz]

This is just hyper-partisan Republicans throwing a bunch if crap at the wall and hoping something sticks. So far, nothing has, but maybe there's something in those emails to make one of any number of ludicrous claims seem plausible. Heck, after the facts have come out about that ridiculous book, I'm surprised to find that anyone still believes the Clinton Foundation influence "scandal", much less anyone who actually thinks it is the top possibility!

Yep. This is Bubba redux. And you'd think the Derangement Squad would have learned from that adventure. Years in the making, following every path they could, constantly leaking innuendos and unproven "major crimes" and nary a thing came out of it. But they persevered. And they finally got themselves a genuine sexual scandal, and the American public.... not Clinton, he foolishly tried to back and fill.... but the American public basically said, "Meh? Yeah he was doing a little hanky and panky in the White House, so what? He's been president through some of our best years in several decades?"

And moreso, they made it clear that he was being targeted and made him more sympathetic. In fact, into the weapon that probably got Obama over the mid-point in the 2008 elections and into the stalking horse who's going to probably unleash the hounds on whomever is unfortunate enough to have to run against Hillary.

So let's hear one for the Derangement Team. Stop those Clintons, guys! The more you slather it on and go looking for unrelated items, the more it becomes apparent that it's a witch hunt. And the more sympathetic Hillary becomes to the last remaining middle-of-the-road voters. (I'm not sure we should remind them of the definition of insanity being doing something repeatedly that you know is going to fail.)

 

[quadraginta]

Y'all let the really important stuff 16.5 has shared with us slide right by.

Tom Brady got sacked over deflated footballs!

I wonder who the new Patriots quarterback is going to be?

 

[12AX7]

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.

Not to mention the OP's ignorance of the term "forensic examination" of the server.

 

[12AX7]

Y'all let the really important stuff 16.5 has shared with us slide right by.

Reading 16.5's posts for "important stuff" is like digging through a septic tank to find coins. There may be some there, but it's really not worth the effort.

 

[The Big Dog]

Reading 16.5's posts for "important stuff" is like digging through a septic tank to find coins. There may be some there, but it's really not worth the effort.

That is truer than you think, given that my posts are surrounded by effluvium like yours!

Do what I do, put most of the left wing partisans/shillaries on ignore, and then you are drinking out of a 16.5 cm fire hose of knowledge!

 

[Shalamar]

That is truer than you think, given that my posts are surrounded by effluvium like yours!

Do what I do, put most of the left wing partisans/shillaries on ignore, and then you are drinking out of a 16.5 cm fire hose of knowledge!

Eventually you'll be talking to yourself...

So what about the right wing partisans like yourself?

 

[DavidJames]

...put most of the left wing partisans/shillaries on ignore...

What is "how do I avoid learning anything", 16.5.

 

[The Big Dog]

and vice versa of course

Or said another way, wasn't the guy who did the Popular Mechanics article on 9/11 related to the homeland security guy?

It's clear from the actual quotes what Barr is saying, but the large font used by 16.5 is pretty convincing. I'm going to have to rethink this.

What is "how do I avoid learning anything", 16.5.

Reading your posts? Do you ever post anything substantive or just this passive aggressive sarcasm?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Reading your posts? Do you ever post anything substantive or just this passive aggressive sarcasm?

Do you actually ever have, you know, FACTS to counter any of the points raised by others, or have you decided to pull out your Big List of Quasi-Skeptical Counter-Arguments and accuse everyone of various logical fallacies.

If you were joking and don't really place us Libruls on ignore, just say so. You're offering up bait for people to ridicule your paper tiger position and then when people take that bait, you play Skeptic Gotcha. Well done. But avid readers of the thread, even the rare sympathetic avid reader, are going to recognize that your ultimate argument is "Hillary Bad!!!", with only rumor, innuendo and personal beliefs as the underlying criteria for "bad".

There are issues in this entire debacle that need to be addressed:
> Government, particularly executive branch departments, needs to have a clear policy on use of personal email. Not just servers. Email in general. And add to that ANY INFORMAL OR OUT-OF-CHANNEL communication.
> The Clinton Foundation. There are issues there that even the most rabid progressive will have problems with. It doesn't have to be conflict-of-interest or favor-peddling. Even the look of impropriety should be enough to worry anyone who is concerned about the effect of money in electoral politics. "Well, they do it through the Koch Brothers' groups!" is not a sufficient justification, but it's why Congress is going to look the other way on this.

However, those issues are not going to get addressed by a partisan committee asking for blanket access to upwards of half-a-million emails so they can go over them looking for dirt.

 

[beren]

Reading your posts? Do you ever post anything substantive or just this passive aggressive sarcasm?

 

[The Big Dog]

As we know, Hillary's cowboy server had emails not only from her own account, but also other governmental employees, most particularly Huma Abedin. Whether Hillary turned emails relating to Huma's governmental work over to State, or destroyed them is an open question. Hillary has not said, and continues to duck questions from the press.

Judicial watch is going to court to reopen a previous case in which Abedin's emails were requested and not turned over

The Associated Press is on the hunt for them too.

This should be very interesting. Did Hillary destroy Huma's emails without looking at them, simply because she was in charge of the server?

Avid readers want to know.....

Because I've read the AP's story and their complaint and various articles about the suit like this one:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-11/clinton-e-mails-trigger-lawsuit-against-state-department-by-ap

I have of course previously posted links to this in this thread.

There was testimony today regarding Clinton's email practices, where a number of witnessed (including General Counsel for the AP) decried the pathetic response to FOIA requests, and specifically criticized the use of a private email service as "not acceptable."

A high-ranking State Department official said Wednesday it's "not acceptable" for any agency employee to conduct government business on a private email server as former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did.

She also testified that State was "taking Hillary's word for it" that she had turned over all relevant documents (despite the fact that Hillary's gang can't even agree on a consistent story on what documents they looked at).

In other news, Chicken producers announce plans to hire foxes to guard hen houses

Lol! I got to keep an eye on you "Beren" you got a hell of a sense of humor!

 

[davefoc]

Do you actually ever have, you know, FACTS to counter any of the points raised by others, or have you decided to pull out your Big List of Quasi-Skeptical Counter-Arguments and accuse everyone of various logical fallacies.

If you were joking and don't really place us Libruls on ignore, just say so. You're offering up bait for people to ridicule your paper tiger position and then when people take that bait, you play Skeptic Gotcha. Well done. But avid readers of the thread, even the rare sympathetic avid reader, are going to recognize that your ultimate argument is "Hillary Bad!!!", with only rumor, innuendo and personal beliefs as the underlying criteria for "bad".

There are issues in this entire debacle that need to be addressed:
> Government, particularly executive branch departments, needs to have a clear policy on use of personal email. Not just servers. Email in general. And add to that ANY INFORMAL OR OUT-OF-CHANNEL communication.
> The Clinton Foundation. There are issues there that even the most rabid progressive will have problems with. It doesn't have to be conflict-of-interest or favor-peddling. Even the look of impropriety should be enough to worry anyone who is concerned about the effect of money in electoral politics. "Well, they do it through the Koch Brothers' groups!" is not a sufficient justification, but it's why Congress is going to look the other way on this.

However, those issues are not going to get addressed by a partisan committee asking for blanket access to upwards of half-a-million emails so they can go over them looking for dirt.

It seems like this post pretty much summarizes the entire situation and it is hard to understand the need for a lot more discussion. I guess 16.5's view is that since it can't be proven that Clinton didn't do all sorts of malevolent deeds here she did do all sorts of malevolent deeds here.

This is the kind of argument that appeals strongly to people who wouldn't vote for Clinton no matter what. I think if one of the likely Republicans get the nomination I and a ton of other people will be voting for Clinton no matter what comes of all this. I wouldn't vote for any Republican that voted for or approved shutting the government down with that stupid anti-Obama care nonsense and I think morally any Republican that signed the letter to Iran should be thrown in jail for treason.

A lot of Republicans come across as pure whack jobs to me and if the argument is that Clinton is somehow uniquely corrupt in all this I'd say think again. The Republicans are awash in corporate money. Does anybody really think that every Republican would claim that global warming theories are some kind of hoax if they weren't getting paid to spout that view? So in the end if one believes the worst of Clinton here (and I think the truth isn't all that flattering to her on this stuff) she is still much less likely to get the US involved in another mid east war than whatever Republican whack job wins the nomination and that alone is enough to make me vote for her over one of the pro-war Republican whackos.

 

[beren]

Lol! I got to keep an eye on you "Beren" you got a hell of a sense of humor!

Sad thing is, I really really don't want Hillary for prez.
I mean, not as bad as you, but I really don't want her.


But you know, for real reasons, and I am not derangedly hatridified*.










The irony of using made-up words in the process of claiming sanity is not lost on me. It does, however, titillate me.