Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[mgidm86]

I can't answer for 16.5, but I can answer for myself if you're interested. There are degrees to being a liar. Hillary it seems is a particularly egregious liar, who has an army of paid flacks to defend her against accusations of lying and a lapdog media more interested in investigating Marco Rubio's wife's driving record than in investigating Hillary's lies. To top it off, Hillary has by far the highest likelihood of human being to be the next President of the US, so her ability and willingness to lie is actually a matter of some importance to the country and the world.

She raises it to an art form:

"Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar."

B. Safire 1996.

She lies thoroughly, consistently and constantly.

I agree.

 

[Foolmewunz]

You went to the trouble of bumping the thread to type the word: "yawn"?

Jeepers.

Hey look, Sid Blumenthal shows up, trying to get hired before the Obama administration put the kibosh on that because he is such a sleazeball.

Remember when Hillary lied and said her emails from him were "unsolicited" and just from an "old friend" without mentioning he was on the payroll of both the Clinton Family Foundation and the "media matters" group.

Classic Truth Challenged Hillary.

I think his bump was in the form of a reminder. Avid Readers will recall that we're still waiting for your astute analysis of emails released by The Committee(!!) over a month ago. Thus far, you've proved only that a politician uses the terms "truth" and "honest" the way certain news companies use "fair" and "honest". No one's shocked that a lifer in the political arena plays footsie with the facts. We're waiting for that big shocker that isn't there.

 

[The Big Dog]

I think his bump was in the form of a reminder. Avid Readers will recall that we're still waiting for your astute analysis of emails released by The Committee(!!) over a month ago. Thus far, you've proved only that a politician uses the terms "truth" and "honest" the way certain news companies use "fair" and "honest". No one's shocked that a lifer in the political arena plays footsie with the facts. We're waiting for that big shocker that isn't there.

playing footsie with the facts = proven that Hillary lied, withheld documents and destroyed them.

fmw doesn't care. arguments simply do not get more worthless than that.

I'll remember to keep that in mind next time you post.

Thanks, tho, for checking in

 

[Foolmewunz]

playing footsie with the facts = proven that Hillary lied, withheld documents and destroyed them.

fmw doesn't care. arguments simply do not get more worthless than that.

I'll remember to keep that in mind next time you post.

Thanks, tho, for checking in

Foolmewunz cares. Foolmewunz is an Avid Reader. Foolmewunz will be there with your laurel wreath when you actually come up with something. Until then, Foolmewunz will point out that this is one of two attack threads based on nothing other than having a convenient emotional outlet for the Amalgamated Hillary Haters of America, ISF Chapter 207.

 

[The Big Dog]

Clinton takes a deep breath, dodges softball email question

Seemingly paranoid Hillary Clinton sat down for a softball interview on CNN last night, and came out looking like a loon.

As far as the emails, lets take a gander:

KEILAR: One of the issues that has eroded some trust that we've seen is the issue of your email practices while you were secretary of state. I think there's a lot of people who don’t understand what your thought process was on that.

Can you tell me the story of how you decided to delete 33,000 emails and how that deletion was executed?

CLINTON: Well, let's start from the beginning. Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate. Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing. And people across the government knew that I used one device - maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as easy as possible.

KEILAR: But you said they - that they did the same thing, that they used a personal server and -

KEILAR: - subpoena deleted emails from them?

CLINTON: You know, you're starting with so many assumptions that are - I've never had a subpoena. There is - again, let's take a deep breath here. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system.

Now I didn't have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system.

And now I think it's kind of fun. People get a real-time behind-the-scenes look at what I was emailing about and what I was communicating about.

It is fun!

Fun to completely dodge the question, huh Hills?

But of course she alludes to the vast right wing conspiracy. Take a deep breath Hillary and tell us who is really to blame:

CLINTON: I can only tell you, Brianna, that this has been a theme that has been used against me and my husband for many, many years. And at the end of the day, I think voters sort it all out. I have great confidence. I trust the American voter. So I trust the American voter 100 percent because I think the American voter will weight these kinds of accusations.:

Remember, it helps to "take a deep breath" before lying.

 

[mgidm86]

"I've never had a subpoena"

The subpoena, and a snippet from her interview:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-email-subpoena-released_987095.html

I'm just kinda waiting to see where this goes, but I have to say her interview is hilarious. She's so full of crap that it just keeps pouring out as if she knows people are just going to buy into it. She doesn't even try anymore, she's a terrible liar. It's uncomfortable watching her do it.

 

[The Big Dog]

The subpoena, and a snippet from her interview:


I'm just kinda waiting to see where this goes, but I have to say her interview is hilarious. She's so full of crap that it just keeps pouring out as if she knows people are just going to buy into it. She doesn't even try anymore, she's a terrible liar. It's uncomfortable watching her do it.

She never got a subpoena... shakes head sadly.

I guess the State Department never got FOIA requests either, huh Hills?

 

[NoahFence]

And still, NONE of this is going to make a lick of difference, because there isn't a single candidate on the right that can beat her.

Because she's so unbeatable? No. Because they're that bad.

 

[The Big Dog]

And still, NONE of this is going to make a lick of difference, because there isn't a single candidate on the right that can beat her.

Because she's so unbeatable? No. Because they're that bad.

The "right"? How about the non-right, like Bernie and Marty O'Malley?

Plus, Hillary is doing a hell of a fine job beating herself: beyond the lying, did you see her last night bobbing her head back and forth with a fixed and glazed stare? YIKES

 

[NoahFence]

glazed stares....

Too funny. Good luck with the strategy.

 

[The Big Dog]

here is a pretty good round up of how Hillary embarrassed herself yesterday:

http://www.thewrap.com/hillary-clinton-cnn-interview-ripped-by-media-opponents/

Joe Scarborough on Clinton’s email answer

“I’ve always said I liked Hillary, but it would take three hours to unwind everything she said there and point out what’s just not true. It’s not true everything she did was acceptable under regulations, it’s not true that she only had one device … it’s just not true.”

so far the responses on this site for "skeptics" regarding last night's Clinton debacle are snark and personal attacks.

So, nothing new.

 

[DavidJames]

So far I've seen plenty of accusations, bluster, and righteous indignation. But have yet to see her actually, officially charged. If she broke any laws, or failed to adhere to regulations, she should be held accountable and pay the consequences.

Seems fair, no?

 

[Foolmewunz]

I can't find a link to the interview. Anyone got one?

It depends on what she said....

I've never had
--- vs. ---
I never had

"I've" is clearly not true.
"I" could be true but awkwardly worded. She was responding to a statement about her deleting emails for which she'd received a subpoena. "I never had a subpoena.... (when I deleted those emails back in '14)" may be the argument she was making.

Sure would be nice if reporters remembered basic journalism and put follow-up questions to the interviewee.

 

[The Big Dog]

I've never had
--- vs. ---
I never had

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

 

[tyr_13]

I've never had
--- vs. ---
I never had

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

I know conservatives want to rag on this, but as someone who has extensively studied English, that was a perfectly salient question. If it meant 'is not currently' or 'is and never was' is and was a very important distinction to the question asked. Taken out of context it sounds silly, but legally and for accurate communication, it was the correct response.

Of course if you don't actually care what was said and meant and just want to attack a Clinton, it doesn't matter what is true.

 

[The Big Dog]

I know conservatives want to rag on this, but as someone who has extensively studied English, that was a perfectly salient question. If it meant 'is not currently' or 'is and never was' is and was a very important distinction to the question asked. Taken out of context it sounds silly, but legally and for accurate communication, it was the correct response.

Of course if you don't actually care what was said and meant and just want to attack a Clinton, it doesn't matter what is true.

First of all, Hillary flat out lied about never getting a subpoena.

Second, are you really trying to rationalize one of the most ridiculously dissembling comments in American History?

"oh it wasn't a lie because I wasn't actually having sex right that very second in the courtroom with 'that woman.'"

Technically true! Good job slick willy, too bad Hillary is as talented a liar as you!

 

[sunmaster14]

I know conservatives want to rag on this, but as someone who has extensively studied English, that was a perfectly salient question. If it meant 'is not currently' or 'is and never was' is and was a very important distinction to the question asked. Taken out of context it sounds silly, but legally and for accurate communication, it was the correct response.

Of course if you don't actually care what was said and meant and just want to attack a Clinton, it doesn't matter what is true.

Oh, please. It sounds ridiculous in context too. The English language is inherently ambiguous. It's possible to play games with it all day long, but reasonable people can usually agree on when somebody has crossed the line into deception. And Bill Clinton danced across that line often. This is a guy who once said that he was never alone in a hotel with Paula Jones and meant that only in its most literal sense because there were other people in the hotel. If the hotel had miraculously been vacant at the time, he probably would have claimed that they were accompanied by mice and bedbugs, so they weren't really alone in that case either.

 

[johnny karate]

I can't find a link to the interview. Anyone got one?

It depends on what she said....

I've never had
--- vs. ---
I never had

"I've" is clearly not true.
"I" could be true but awkwardly worded. She was responding to a statement about her deleting emails for which she'd received a subpoena. "I never had a subpoena.... (when I deleted those emails back in '14)" may be the argument she was making.

Of course that's what she was arguing, and any reasonable person can see thats what she was arguing.

It barely qualifies as a gaffe, let alone a lie.

But when you've got an agenda to push, why let critical thinking get in the way?

 

[The Big Dog]

Of course that's what she was arguing, and any reasonable person can see thats what she was arguing.

It barely qualifies as a gaffe, let alone a lie.

But when you've got an agenda to push, why let critical thinking get in the way?

rationalizing something is not critical thinking.

KEILAR: Can you tell me the story of how you decided to delete 33,000 emails and how that deletion was executed?

CLINTON: Well, let's start from the beginning. Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate. Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing. And people across the government knew that I used one device - maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as easy as possible.

KEILAR: But you said they - that they did the same thing, that they used a personal server and -

KEILAR: - subpoena deleted emails from them?

CLINTON: You know, you're starting with so many assumptions that are - I've never had a subpoena. There is - again, let's take a deep breath here.

Of course, maybe she did mean to say that she intentionally destroyed all those documents before she personally got the subpoena, despite the fact that the documents were covered by subpoenas to the State department and FOIA requests and court orders while she was SoS.

Lets take a deep breath here, she destroyed them before getting the subpoena. That is some FINE critical thinking.

 

[johnny karate]

rationalizing something is not critical thinking.

No, the critical thinking comes in when you look at something said in context, and then have to decide if an experienced politician running for president told a huge, ridiculous and easily demonstrable lie in a nationally televised interview, or perhaps inartfully responded to specifically framed question.

It's the same kind of critical thinking you would need to employ to decide if another experienced politician running for president made a public proclamation that implied the economy would improve if Americans weren't so lazy, or perhaps inartfully referred to his desire to see more part-time workers get full-time employment.

Warning: Partisan blinders will need to be removed for critical thinking to work properly.