• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, we laughed, we had fun, but now the next Tranche is on the street and we are off!

My favorite so far? A tie, between Huma forwarding HRC a story about "buyer's remorse" over Obama and one from Hillary asking to print a story about how Bloomberg thinks Obama is the most arrogant person he has ever met.

Hee hee!

FWI, I will find a certain amount of humor in this kind of thing as well, but I question whether it is really in the national interest to make these kinds of things public contemporaneously. If I was in charge, I would probably go for a period of at least 25 years before this kind of thing can be released. I don't see the FOIA as a tool to shake loose every little embarrassing comment from a public official that there is. If documents relevant to the FOIA request can be found, great. Otherwise the stuff should stay secret for quite awhile IMO.
 
Hillary does not like Fox News:

"We ned to address this today or we will be facing a huge Fox-generated media storm led by Palin et al."
 
Probably needs a new thread:

McCarthy makes plain what Democrats have long suspected about the Benghazi committee
Republican Rep. Kevin McCarthy has yet to win the speaker's gavel, but he is already stepping into a rhetorical minefield that shows the perils of the job.

McCarthy, the no. 2 House Republican, who is favored to become the top leader in Congress after Speaker John A. Boehner steps down at the end of month, gave an interview Tuesday night to Fox News in which he seemed to concede a key Democratic talking point: that the GOP investigation into the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, is all about politics.

Opened the door wide for Clinton and other Democrats to discredit the incessant attacks on her. And just when Bill has emerged to remind people that Whitewater never amounted to more than a partisan attack, good timing.
 
OMG, you mean the Benghazi committee was really a partisan witch hunt after all? Who knew?
We all knew, just like everyone should know the faux email scandal is more of the same. What this GOP gaffe will do, however, is give Clinton a platform to emphasize those facts.
 
...

My claim is I don't know if they did that or not - their claim that Clinton's server didn't have a digital certificate is based on ???

...

Presumably the results of internet scans of servers during the time in question?

There are two arguments here that make me suspect that Clinton's server wasn't secured in the time in question.
1. If they had been all that concerned about security they would not have used a private server to begin with.
2. There are two claims (perhaps not independent) from credible sources that the server didn't use digital certificates in the time in question.

But people that seem competent on the issue in this thread think it is likely that she did.

I don't know, but my guess is that this is one of the things that will be covered in the FBI report and that it will report that the server didn't use digital certificates for the time in question.
 
We all knew, just like everyone should know the faux email scandal is more of the same. What this GOP gaffe will do, however, is give Clinton a platform to emphasize those facts.

I say this with the greatest respect and I hope as still a friend. You are an unmitigated partisan and I think you would likely characterize any Clinton scandal as faux regardless of the facts about it. That might not be a bad thing. It is possible she will make a great president. Certainly if that happens 16.5's head will explode and that will be fun to watch if the video becomes available.
 
Last edited:
A new favorite! Hillary gets in a fight with the White House operator, loses, doesn't know her own phone number.

Hee hee! can't link it tho.... so odd.
 
Presumably the results of internet scans of servers during the time in question?

I'm not saying it's impossible, just ... unlikely.

There are two arguments here that make me suspect that Clinton's server wasn't secured in the time in question.
1. If they had been all that concerned about security they would not have used a private server to begin with.

So wait ... I run my own mail server. Does that mean you think I am unconcerned about security ?

2. There are two claims (perhaps not independent) from credible sources that the server didn't use digital certificates in the time in question.

You are really counting that techno-babble from CCN as a claim ?

Hows that email sale coming along ? :rolleyes:

But people that seem competent on the issue in this thread think it is likely that she did.

I don't know, but my guess is that this is one of the things that will be covered in the FBI report and that it will report that the server didn't use digital certificates for the time in question.

Absolutely. And to repeat - I don't know if we will ever be privy to that info.
 
...

You are really counting that techno-babble from CCN as a claim ?
I was, but maybe I was just doing it to give Plague311 another thing to ridicule me for.
Hows that email sale coming along ? :rolleyes:
For the record, I was skeptical of that story. But I'll give you it still seems in the plausible range to me.
Absolutely. And to repeat - I don't know if we will ever be privy to that info.
I wonder about that. My guess is we will, though. That sounds like exactly the kind of thing that the FBI would want to know when they are trying to run down if any security breaches occurred and it seems like it would be knowable to them after an investigation and it seems likely that if the FBI does find it out it will be covered in a part of the report that will eventually be made public.
 
I say this with the greatest respect and I hope as still a friend. You are an unmitigated partisan and I think you would likely characterize any Clinton scandal as faux regardless of the facts about it. That might not be a bad thing. It is possible she will make a great president. Certainly if that happens 16.5's head will explode and that will be kind of fun to watch if the video of that becomes available.
Of course you're still my friend. :) If you notice, I'm still discussing this issue with you while I'm bored answering some of the others in this thread.

I know we don't agree, which is fine. I'm confident I am looking at the facts. I do wish you wouldn't assume I'm using partisan confirmation bias, because I don't think I am.

I've been refraining from a similar ad hom. I don't think you'd agree with me if I said you are using sexist confirmation bias, would you? A lot of people who dislike Clinton, who are buying into the not trustworthy image which this brouhaha is accentuating, probably have no idea that the untrustworthy image of Clinton is heavily based on a sexist double standard.

Of course the GOP party line is Clinton brought this on herself. No, she used a private email when it was perfectly legal to do so. She turned over her emails and the server which was not scrubbed as was claimed, emails she didn't need were deleted. No one has evidence she didn't turn over emails.

Can we trust Bernie Sanders opinion on this matter? Bernie Sanders: Criticism of Hillary Clinton is 'sexist'

Bernie Sanders is battling Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination -- but he's defending her trustworthiness, saying the former secretary of state is facing "sexist" criticism....

"I don't know that a man would be treated the same way that Hillary is," Sanders said. "So all that I can say is I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I admire her. I respect her. I like her.

That's how I see the 'not trustworthy' image that truly has only GOP amplifying non-incidents behind it. They nitpick her comments like a prosecutor. No one else would come up squeaky clean in their memory or their on the job perfection were they put through the same barrage in interview after interview.

There's nothing there, yet all this suspicion is built up on things like, did she get the dates right on when the server was set up. Can you say which month and year you bought the computer you are currently using without looking, or the month and year you signed up for your current email account(s)? I can't.

So her staff missed a couple work related emails in their sort of 30,000 of them. They also decided lots of personal emails were work related. Think they erred on the side of work related? And what was in the Petraeus email? Something Clinton was trying to hide?

It's a sexist based image she's being attacked with because it's easy to do when you are a powerful woman.


So, I'll make a deal with you. Stop accusing me of partisan bias and I won't start accusing you of sexist bias. What do you say?

By the way, in the latest email release, guess what? The GOP must be so disappointed, not a lot of scandal yet. Except, OMG she communicated with Blumenthal. What do you want to bet someone trumps that one up? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
...

I've been refraining from a similar ad hom. I don't think you'd agree with me if I said you are using sexist confirmation bias, would you? A lot of people who dislike Clinton, who are buying into the not trustworthy image which this brouhaha is accentuating, probably have no idea that the untrustworthy image of Clinton is heavily based on a sexist double standard.
...

:)

Being an excessively introspective individual, I have wondered about my sexist biases for most of my life. A few facts. When I was a young engineer and had met few woman engineers and had never met one that I viewed as having an engineer's mind I considered the possibility that women were probably less well adapted to an engineering career than men. When I went to China I met quite a few woman engineers and was quite surprised to find out how bright and curious they were. It was almost like I was wrong about woman engineers in general. Of course, now in this younger generation bright woman engineers are a common thing, more evidence that an earlier theory of mine was wrong.

Before, I participated in this forum I had a sense that there was something so fundamentally different about the way men and women think such that I would usually be able to tell who was a male poster and who was a female poster. I was actually pretty good at it I thought. Something like the way dowsers are pretty good at finding the pail where the gold is until Randi puts the lids on. Alas, the same thing happened to me. It turned out that when people had screen names identifiable as male or female I was very good at determining who was who. Alas when the screen name was ambiguous I just couldn't figure it out.

I've also noticed a transition away from some other anti-woman biases I held in my youth. In my youth, I thought a successful woman in business got there only through special advantages. Now the success of a great many women in business has put that little theory to rest as well.

Anyway, today I think I'm a pretty balanced objective observer of things male and female, but of course I always thought that even though I think I was wrong about what I thought previously.

As an aside, I was rooting for the success of Clinton before this stuff broke. I will certainly vote for her over somebody I see as pro-war, anti-science, anti-gay, etc. but I'm certainly going to be a lot less happy about it than I was before. I really think there is something seriously wrong with her integrity or her intelligence or her management style.

ETA: I wasn't real keen on the Bush administration and I think most of them were men. I did have the sexist theory that maybe if they'd had a few more women floating around that it might have curtailed some of their zeal for war.
 
Last edited:
The act you claim did not occur. So stop lying about it.

The act you presupposed in your question is me lying?

The act of which I claim, for the record, is that she never turned over government documents from her email while in office as required by the FOIA and National Record Keeping Act.
 
:)

Being an excessively introspective individual, I have wondered about my sexist biases for most of my life. A few facts. When I was a young engineer and had met few woman engineers and had never met one that I viewed as having an engineer's mind I considered the possibility that women were probably less well adapted to an engineering career than men. When I went to China I met quite a few woman engineers and was quite surprised to find out how bright and curious they were. It was almost like I was wrong about woman engineers in general. Of course, now in this younger generation bright woman engineers are a common thing, more evidence that an earlier theory of mine was wrong.

Before, I participated in this forum I had a sense that there was something so fundamentally different about the way men and women think such that I would usually be able to tell who was a male poster and who was a female poster. I was actually pretty good at it I thought. Something like the way dowsers are pretty good at finding the pail where the gold is until Randi puts the lids on. Alas, the same thing happened to me. It turned out that when people had screen names identifiable as male or female I was very good at determining who was who. Alas when the screen name was ambiguous I just couldn't figure it out.

I've also noticed a transition away from some other anti-woman biases I held in my youth. In my youth, I thought a successful woman in business got there only through special advantages. Now the success of a great many women in business has put that little theory to rest as well.

Anyway, today I think I'm a pretty balanced objective observer of things male and female, but of course I always thought that even though I think I was wrong about what I thought previously.

As an aside, I was rooting for the success of Clinton before this stuff broke. I will certainly vote for her over somebody I see as pro-war, anti-science, anti-gay, etc. but I'm certainly going to be a lot less happy about it than I was before. I really think there is something seriously wrong with her integrity or her intelligence or her management style.

ETA: I wasn't real keen on the Bush administration and I think most of them were men. I did have the sexist theory that maybe if they'd had a few more women floating around that it might have curtailed some of their zeal for war.
Did I hit a nerve?

We all see things through our filters. As a woman, who recognizes the undercurrent of sexism against powerful women, I am certain that the image of 'not trustworthy' is not based on facts, it's based on a sexist image that was propagated by the GOP as a campaign tactic. Was she not trustworthy when she was a NY Senator? Was she not trustworthy when she was the Secretary of State?


By the way, one doesn't need partisan bias to recognize the GOP propaganda. And I like Sanders' position on some things, but he doesn't have broad appeal. And Clinton has been Progressive and pro-women since she was in college.


Edited to add: The GOP is exploiting an undercurrent of sexism that pervades our society the same way that they exploited the undercurrent of racism when they promoted the 'Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya' campaign. It's not dependent upon outright sexism or racism. It only requires an undercurrent that subtly affects a lot of people's perceptions.

And it's not mutually exclusive of being for or against any other candidate or party.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom