Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

Hillary Clinton Dodged Direct Question Regarding her Email Use

Hillary Clinton was directly asked by congressional investigators in a December 2012 letter whether she had used a private email account while serving as secretary of state, according to letters obtained by The New York Times.

But Hillary did not reply to the letter. And when the State Department finally answered in March 2013, nearly two months after she left office, it ignored the question and provided a directly evasive response.

Hillary Stonewall Clinton

 

[The Big Dog]

Here are the questions:

“Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business?” “If so, please identify the account used.”

“Does the agency require employees to certify on a periodic basis or at the end of their employment with the agency they have turned over any communications involving official business that they have sent or received using nonofficial accounts?”

I've said it before, Congress ********** up, they trusted Hillary.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Hillary Clinton was directly asked by congressional investigators in a December 2012 letter whether she had used a private email account while serving as secretary of state, according to letters obtained by The New York Times.

But Hillary did not reply to the letter. And when the State Department finally answered in March 2013, nearly two months after she left office, it ignored the question and provided a directly evasive response.

Hillary Stonewall Clinton

So Issa et al were playing the long con, knowing full well that HRC used personal email, they just decided to drag it out as long as the possibly could. Then turn the benghazi investigation into a fishing expedition to go through her email.

Thanks for the confirmation !

 

[The Big Dog]

So Issa et al were playing the long con, knowing full well that HRC used personal email, they just decided to drag it out as long as the possibly could. Then turn the benghazi investigation into a fishing expedition to go through her email.

Thanks for the confirmation !

I think you are missing the fact that the State Department, ya know, LIED in the response?

Yes you are.

 

[DavidJames]

Here are the questions:

“Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business?” “If so, please identify the account used.”

“Does the agency require employees to certify on a periodic basis or at the end of their employment with the agency they have turned over any communications involving official business that they have sent or received using nonofficial accounts?”

Anyone notice he didn't supply the answers?

He didn't because she didn't. 16.5 knows that but seems to feel saying she lied has more of an impact then saying she evaded or ignored the questions. (which I feel was wrong)

It's pointing out stuff like that which put caused 16.5 to put me on ignore.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hillary Clinton was directly asked by congressional investigators in a December 2012 letter whether she had used a private email account while serving as secretary of state, according to letters obtained by The New York Times.

But Hillary did not reply to the letter. And when the State Department finally answered in March 2013, nearly two months after she left office, it ignored the question and provided a directly evasive response.

Hillary Stonewall Clinton

Anyone notice he didn't supply the answers?

He didn't because she didn't. 16.5 knows that but seems to feel saying she lied has more of an impact then saying she evaded or ignored the questions. (which I feel was wrong)

It's pointing out stuff like that which put caused 16.5 to put me on ignore.

My original post contains both a link to the article in question and the following sentence:

But Hillary did not reply to the letter. And when the State Department finally answered in March 2013, nearly two months after she left office, it ignored the question and provided a directly evasive response.
You are quite correct that "pointing out stuff" that is obviously FALSE is why you are going back on ignore.

 

[DavidJames]

My original post contains both a link to the article in question and the following sentence:

But Hillary did not reply to the letter. And when the State Department finally answered in March 2013, nearly two months after she left office, it ignored the question and provided a directly evasive response.

But later you said this.

I think you are missing the fact that the State Department, ya know, LIED in the response?

You are quite correct that "pointing out stuff" that is obviously FALSE is why you are going back on ignore.

So you see, you said she lied, I called you on it, you respond with your own form of deceit and now I'm back on ignore.

Oh what a tangled web....

 

[The Big Dog]

I think you are missing the fact that the State Department, ya know, LIED in the response?

Yes you are.

But later you said this.

So you see, you said she lied, I called you on it, you respond with your own form of deceit and now I'm back on ignore.

You might want to read what I posted again.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I am wondering, after 31 pages, did anyone figure out who this Eric Hoteham character is yet?

Yes, it was a pseudonym for Hillary's cowboy server wrangler.

There was a similarly named guy who worked for Slick Willy.

No, it was simply a misspelling of the person's name. You might want to pay better attention to your thread, in particular the factual aspects.

I asked the same question several weeks ago and the "pseudonym" answer informed me this thread belongs in religion, not politics. Thus, I moved on and have largely ignored the thread.

 

[wareyin]

You might want to read what I posted again.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content

You might want to read what you posted again, as well:

But Hillary did not reply to the letter. And when the State Department finally answered in March 2013, nearly two months after she left office, it ignored the question and provided a directly evasive response.

I think you are missing the fact that the State Department, ya know, LIED in the response?

One of these things is not like the other.

 

[The Big Dog]

You might want to read what you posted again, as well:

One of these things is not like the other.

"But Hillary did not reply to the letter...."

"And when the State Department finally answered ..... it ignored the question and provided a directly evasive response."

Yes, I am very certain that what I wrote was accurate, and the attack on me completely unwarranted.

anything about the article I posted, or just more distraction about 16.5?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

But Hillary did not reply to the letter.

So, not a lie.

Issa’s letter to Clinton, who formally announced her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination on Sunday, was one of a round of more than a dozen such inquiries he sent to agency chiefs across the government after it was disclosed that officials at the Environmental Protection Agency and elsewhere had conducted official business on private email accounts and government email accounts created under fake names.

MOAR FISHING !!11!

And when the State Department finally answered ..... it ignored the question and provided a directly evasive response.

So, not a lie.

Yes, I am very certain that what I wrote was accurate,

Except when you wrote:

I think you are missing the fact that the State Department, ya know, LIED in the response?

and the attack on me completely unwarranted.

anything about the article I posted, or just more distraction about 16.5?

Already addressed the article.

 

[The Big Dog]

Except when you wrote:

I think you are missing the fact that the State Department, ya know, LIED in the response?

"a lie of omission is still a lie. Lying by omission, otherwise known as exclusionary detailing, is lying by either omitting certain facts or by failing to correct a misconception."

“The slickest way in the world to lie is to tell the right amount of truth at the right time-and then shut up.”
― Robert A. Heinlein,

 

[wareyin]

"a lie of omission is still a lie. Lying by omission, otherwise known as exclusionary detailing, is lying by either omitting certain facts or by failing to correct a misconception."

“The slickest way in the world to lie is to tell the right amount of truth at the right time-and then shut up.”
― Robert A. Heinlein,

Ignoring or evading questions is a lie?

Good to know.

 

[DavidJames]

"a lie of omission is still a lie. Lying by omission, otherwise known as exclusionary detailing, is lying by either omitting certain facts or by failing to correct a misconception."

“The slickest way in the world to lie is to tell the right amount of truth at the right time-and then shut up.”
― Robert A. Heinlein,

If that's the standard, then lying is so rampant in society that it's become meaningless or maybe worse, people decide to apply that standard, not consistently, but based on personal bias.

Edit - For example, the Indiana Gov. was asked 5 (or 6) directly if the "religious freedom" law would allow discrimination, each time he avoided answering. Easily meeting the above criteria. I haven't seen one person say he lied (damn liberal media). I would expect the same standard used on him, be used on HC.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hillary Clinton was directly asked by congressional investigators in a December 2012 letter whether she had used a private email account while serving as secretary of state, according to letters obtained by The New York Times.

But Hillary did not reply to the letter. And when the State Department finally answered in March 2013, nearly two months after she left office, it ignored the question and provided a directly evasive response.

Hillary Stonewall Clinton

Curious, no one seems to have pointed out that the New York Times is promulgating a "fake" scandal involving a faux pas.

 

[plague311]

Curious, no one seems to have pointed out that the New York Times is promulgating a "fake" scandal involving a faux pas.

This thread has dissolved to nothing. I haven't seen any really stimulating conversation in awhile. 16.5 blurts out how horrible Hillary is, a bunch of other people make it clear that it's not as bad as he points out, then we wait for 16.5 to find another article somewhere.

The New York Times might be right but, just like all the other right wing "scandals", all the noise came early. Now no one really cares anymore

 

[The Big Dog]

This thread has dissolved to nothing. I haven't seen any really stimulating conversation in awhile. 16.5 blurts out how horrible Hillary is, a bunch of other people make it clear that it's not as bad as he points out, then we wait for 16.5 to find another article somewhere.

The New York Times might be right but, just like all the other right wing "scandals", all the noise came early. Now no one really cares anymore

actually, they ignore the article and mostly attack me.

Kind of like you just did.

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

Just the New York Times....

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

 

[The Big Dog]

We know that Hillary and the State Department failed to tell the Congress that she exclusively used her own private cowboy server, but it appears that the non-disclosures was orchestrated not only by Hillary and State, but also the Obama administration.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/15/what-darrell-issa-thinks-of-state-departments-response-to-his-question-on-hillary-clintons-emails/

Ugh, the more you hear about these clowns the more showers you want to take.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

We know that Hillary and the State Department failed to tell the Congress that she exclusively used her own private cowboy server, but it appears that the non-disclosures was orchestrated not only by Hillary and State, but also the Obama administration.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/15/what-darrell-issa-thinks-of-state-departments-response-to-his-question-on-hillary-clintons-emails/

Ugh, the more you hear about these clowns the more showers you want to take.

It "appears that the non-disclosures was orchestrated ... the Obama administration" because "Issa believes the White House coordinated the collective response"

Conspiracies everywhere you look ! OMG!