Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
The decision of the Department of Justice to not indict Lerner happened just in the last two weeks. It is relevant because it shows the reluctance of Obama's DOJ to prosecute Democrats who are hampering a Republican-led Congressional investigation. I expect that the DOJ will not prosecute Hillary for the same reason, even if the Congress holds her in contempt for spoliation or for not giving up her server.

However, the destruction of Lois Lerner's hard drive in 2011 has nothing to do with this, and especially not my analysis of the probability that she crashed it intentionally. It was Lerner's refusal to testify to Congress, despite waiving her 5th Amendment rights, and the subsequent failure of the DOJ to do anything about it, which is on point.
Click to expand...

Yep, that Democratic DOJ is conspiring to not buy into Republican led fishing expeditions. Totally not a conspiracy theory. :rolleyes:
 
sunmaster14 said:
It hardly requires an assumption of a vast conspiracy in order to believe that Hillary broke the law in several ways and that Obama's DOJ will refuse to prosecute the Democrats' leading Presidential nominee for political reasons. Also, there's nothing flawed about 16.5's theory of spoliation. Hillary's behavior is a classic example of spoliation. Who would even delete every single personal email for the last six years, a time period which includes the wedding of one's only child and the birth of one's only grandchild?

Nice little derail there. Technically a violation of the MA, but I'm happy to let it remain since it says more about you than it does about me.
Click to expand...

It is abundantly clear the waryn has no idea what I am talking about, nor the experience to understand how the concept of spoliation fits in to the discussion.

That is why he has been moving the goalposts so desperately and fallaciously calling it a conspiracy (as if that was not the most laughably transparent cop out ever).

These threads are quite reliable. I post a recent article from a mainstream regarding new developments, and the Hillary sycophants swarm into the thread name calling ("partisan" is their favorite) and spinning and excusing Hillary's latest conduct.

Every single time. It is quite laughable really.

Ring-a-ling! LOLZ!
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
It is abundantly clear the waryn has no idea what I am talking about, nor the experience to understand how the concept of spoliation fits in to the discussion.

That is why he has been moving the goalposts so desperately and fallaciously calling it a conspiracy (as if that was not the most laughably transparent cop out ever).

These threads are quote reliable. I post a recent article from a mainstream regarding new developments, and the Hillary sycophants swarm into the thread name calling ("partisan" is their favorite) and spinning and excusing Hillary's latest conduct.

Every single time. It is quite laughable really.

Ring-a-ling! LOLZ!
Click to expand...
Your conspiracy theory thread is certainly "quote" reliable. I love quoting people who obviously don't understand the sources they cite. Its also fun to watch people try to invent new interpretations of existing law to prove someone is a criminal. Hillary having control of her personal emails is theft of government property according to 16.5 is still my favorite. Can you work that back in with your tortured application of spoliation? Thanks in advance.
 
12AX7 said:
What bothers me the most are partisan conspiracy theory attacks rather than facts. It looks like you're throwing anything at the wall hoping something will stick. What bothers me is that you weren't this upset when other SoS did this. What bothers me is that you weren't this upset a previous diplomatic facility attacks..
Click to expand...

You see folks, what bothers him most is Me... apparently.:rolleyes:
 
 
16.5 said:
It is abundantly clear the waryn has no idea what I am talking about, nor the experience to understand how the concept of spoliation fits in to the discussion.

That is why he has been moving the goalposts so desperately and fallaciously calling it a conspiracy (as if that was not the most laughably transparent cop out ever).

These threads are quote reliable. I post a recent article from a mainstream regarding new developments, and the Hillary sycophants swarm into the thread name calling ("partisan" is their favorite) and spinning and excusing Hillary's latest conduct.

Every single time. It is quite laughable really.

Ring-a-ling! LOLZ!
Click to expand...

This is like Pavlov's dog making fun of the cat that comes running every time it hears the electric can opener. What's reliable is that if you can't get people taking your bait and arguing incessantly and then thread slows down, we just have to wait until the morning news cycle for you to find any mention of "Search Hilary Clinton & News" and tie it into The Gowdy Gish Gallup.

And it's a lovely ploy. Since, by definition, an unseen email has unseen contents, it is easy to contend that traffic infractions, being one of the "mean girls" in the cafeteria, slutting around on campus, or baking hash brownies is relevant.

"Well, mightn't one of the missing emails have been about her affair with Tom Tresh?"
"You'd have to prove that such an affair existed in the first place."
"LOL-LOL. 30,000 emails and you think one of them wouldn't have been about her affair? And you call me partisan! :rolleyes: "

And when you get caught out on your slanted interpretations, you gish gallup on to the next day's "breaking news". How's your interpretation of the polling data coming along? Have you figured out how polls work, yet? Or that "3 is less than 5"? That one I tested. My six year old got it right.
 
16.5 said:
It is abundantly clear the waryn has no idea what I am talking about, nor the experience to understand how the concept of spoliation fits in to the discussion.

That is why he has been moving the goalposts so desperately and fallaciously calling it a conspiracy (as if that was not the most laughably transparent cop out ever).

These threads are quite reliable. I post a recent article from a mainstream regarding new developments, and the Hillary sycophants swarm into the thread name calling ("partisan" is their favorite) and spinning and excusing Hillary's latest conduct.

Every single time. It is quite laughable really.

Ring-a-ling! LOLZ!
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
[URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/8/carly-fiorina-course-hillary-clintons-emails-were-/"]My second reaction was that she clearly doesn’t understand technology very well, because when she starts talking about it’s safe, it’s safe, we have two Secret Service agents guarding it, you know, as I think I’ve said to you before, no one’s worried about it getting stolen,” she said. “They’re worried about it getting hacked.[/URL]

/I understand that Hillary is going to announce her candidacy this weekend "via social media."

Hey that is what all the kids do! Maybe she does get Computers!

LOLZ!:D
Click to expand...

In a mere three posts you go from quoting in a mainstream (I assume a mianstream something) to quoting the Washington Times.

Slow news day it in Conservatopia?
 
Foolmewunz said:
In a mere three posts you go from quoting in a mainstream (I assume a mianstream something) to quoting the Washington Times.

Slow news day it in Conservatopia?
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding!

I was actually quoting Carly Fiorina, and linking to a source, there are plenty of others.

But, like clock work, I post an article, someone rushes into the thread, ignores the substance and attacks the messenger.

Here is my surprised face: "o"

:D
 
16.5 said:
Ding ding ding!

I was actually quoting Carly Fiorina, and linking to a source, there are plenty of others.

But, like clock work, I post an article, someone rushes into the thread, ignores the substance and attacks the messenger.

Here is my surprised face: "o"

:D
Click to expand...

Yep. "Breaking News". A possibly soon-to-announce candidate for the Presidency who once held a CEO job comments on a news item. Big time news in some circles.
 
Just when you thought the Email Scandal is going away....

As Hillary Clinton reportedly prepares to announce her 2016 presidential bid this weekend, the Republican National Committee is out with a new ad that attempts to sow doubt about Clinton's candidacy.

The ad, titled "Stop Hillary," uses various sound bytes from news reports to target Clinton on a number of fronts, including her use of a private email server to conduct business as secretary of state, her effort to "reset" U.S.-Russia relations in President Obama's first term, and her family foundation's receipt of money from foreign governments.

Interesting that the CBS* story links to its own previous articles regarding Hillary's various misconduct throughout the years.

Enjoy them!

*Don't think it stands for Conservatopia Broadcasting System, but I may be wrong, after all i understand that Hillary is Ready.
 
16.5 said:
As Hillary Clinton reportedly prepares to announce her 2016 presidential bid this weekend, the Republican National Committee is out with a new ad that attempts to sow doubt about Clinton's candidacy.

The ad, titled "Stop Hillary," uses various sound bytes from news reports to target Clinton on a number of fronts, including her use of a private email server to conduct business as secretary of state, her effort to "reset" U.S.-Russia relations in President Obama's first term, and her family foundation's receipt of money from foreign governments.

Interesting that the CBS* story links to its own previous articles regarding Hillary's various misconduct throughout the years.

Enjoy them!

*Don't think it stands for Conservatopia Broadcasting System, but I may be wrong, after all i understand that Hillary is Ready.
Click to expand...

Yep. "Breaking News". Republican National committee airs Anti-Clinton ad. Big time news in some circles.
 
Fact: On the eve of Hillary's tweet that she is running, ads are set to run raising the very email scandal that is the subject of the thread.

response: quibble over whether it is "breaking" news.

You cannot make this up!
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Yep. "Breaking News". Republican National committee airs Anti-Clinton ad. Big time news in some circles.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is rather boring. I wish we'd get back to the laughable homebrew cowboy legal beagle stuff like theft of government property for having your own emails!
 
Hillary's Spin doctor's cover letter.

Cheryl Mills, one of Hillary's spin doctors, cover letter to the belatedly issued emails is now available.

Take a gander here:

http://images.politico.com/global/2015/04/09/millsresponseltr.pdf

Secretary Clinton "at times" used a personal email account. BZZZ! Lie, Hillary at all times exclusively used a personal email account run off her cowboy/homebrew server.

Cheryl Mills? You may know her from such previous scandals as "Don't talk to Congressional Investigators" and "The Benghazi Talking Points Fiasco."
 
16.5 said:
Cheryl Mills, one of Hillary's spin doctors, cover letter to the belatedly issued emails is now available.

Take a gander here:

http://images.politico.com/global/2015/04/09/millsresponseltr.pdf

Secretary Clinton "at times" used a personal email account. BZZZ! Lie, Hillary at all times exclusively used a personal email account run off her cowboy/homebrew server.

Cheryl Mills? You may know her from such previous scandals as "Don't talk to Congressional Investigators" and "The Benghazi Talking Points Fiasco."
Click to expand...

You are having difficulty parsing English, I think.

Like Secretaries of State before her, Secretary Clinton at times used her own electronic mail account when engaging with other officials.

Let me clarify for you by paraphrasing:

At times, Secretary Clinton used her own electronic mail account when engaging with other officials. At other times, she used other methods when engaging with other officials, such as a telephone.

Do you see how that's not a lie now ? It's perfectly accurate. But , spin away.

Also:
16.5 said:
Cheryl Mills, one of Hillary's spin doctors, ... Cheryl Mills? You may know her from such previous scandals as "Don't talk to Congressional Investigators" and "The Benghazi Talking Points Fiasco."
Click to expand...
your fallacy is ad hominem and poisoning the well
 
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis said:
You are having difficulty parsing English, I think.

Like Secretaries of State before her, Secretary Clinton at times used her own electronic mail account when engaging with other officials.

Let me clarify for you by paraphrasing:

At times, Secretary Clinton used her own electronic mail account when engaging with other officials. At other times, she used other methods when engaging with other officials, such as a telephone.

Do you see how that's not a lie now ? It's perfectly accurate. But , spin away.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp:eek::jaw-dropp

Not kidding, that might be the most ridiculous thing the Hillary apologists have ever said.

That is AMAZING cherry picking, couple with a suggestion that Cheryl Mills meant not that she used her "own" email account, but that she also did things that were completely irrelevant to the subject matter of the letter, like just, you know, talk to her assistants, you know, just chew the fat...:rolleyes:

Utterly fascinating the lengths that people will go to around here to excuse Hillary's conduct.
 
16.5 said:
:jaw-dropp:eek::jaw-dropp

Not kidding, that might be the most ridiculous thing the Hillary apologists have ever said.

That is AMAZING cherry picking, couple with a suggestion that Cheryl Mills meant not that she used her "own" email account, but that she also did things that were completely irrelevant to the subject matter of the letter, like just, you know, talk to her assistants, you know, just chew the fat...:rolleyes:

Utterly fascinating the lengths that people will go to around here to excuse Hillary's conduct.
Click to expand...


You quoted part of her sentence, and I quoted the whole thing, but I am cherry picking. :rolleyes:

The "suggestion" is no more than an attempt to help you understand that the sentence simply connotes the idea that email was not the sole means of communications.
 
One thing threads like this show is just how terrified of Hillary Clinton conservatives/Republicans really are. Let's grab anything we can to stave her off!

And I'd be willing to bet this is the Hail Mary of threads. That when all this ginned-up poutrage controversy and conspiracy gets boiled down and there's nothing there, the OP will slink away like another famous poster did after the election.

One can hope, anyway.
 
16.5 said:
:jaw-dropp:eek::jaw-dropp

Not kidding, that might be the most ridiculous thing the Hillary apologists have ever said.

That is AMAZING cherry picking, couple with a suggestion that Cheryl Mills meant not that she used her "own" email account, but that she also did things that were completely irrelevant to the subject matter of the letter, like just, you know, talk to her assistants, you know, just chew the fat...:rolleyes:

Utterly fascinating the lengths that people will go to around here to excuse Hillary's conduct.
Click to expand...

I find it amazing that every 5th post you write has the most ridiculous insert_something_here that you've ever seen. This whole thing has been cherry picking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom