RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheL8Elvis said:
Some serious cognitive dissonance. :eek:

ETA: perhaps it's just plain old denial
Click to expand...

Wait, you quoted something from wareyin and accused me of cognitive dissonance? Bwhahahahahah! Oh man.

I am well aware of what the justice department said, I am also well aware of what the FBI CAN say about ongoing investigations.

There is no doubt at all that they are investigating Hillary and with all due respect one would have to be grossly naive to believe that she is not the subject of the investigation.

Take comfort in the statement of the justice department before they started ripping apart the server, if you wish, a skeptic knows better.

Her server her emails her staff her department, you'll forgive me for thinking that only a fool would believe that she is not a target.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Scooter Libby was prosecuted for leaking classified information to the press.
Click to expand...

No he wasn't. He was prosecuted for perjury. But he wasn't even the source of the leak in question. The actual source was Richard Armitage, and he was never prosecuted.

You really can't get anything right.
 
16.5 said:
Wait, you quoted something from wareyin and accused me of cognitive dissonance? Bwhahahahahah! Oh man.
Click to expand...

What is that, some kind of sucky tu quoque argument ?

16.5 said:
I am well aware of what the justice department said, I am also well aware of what the FBI CAN say about ongoing investigations.

There is no doubt at all that they are investigating Hillary and with all due respect one would have to be grossly naive to believe that she is not the subject of the investigation.

Take comfort in the statement of the justice department before they started ripping apart the server, if you wish, a skeptic knows better.

Her server her emails her staff her department, you'll forgive me for thinking that only a fool would believe that she is not a target.
Click to expand...

Believe what you want, just stop claiming you have any evidence for your beliefs, mmm k ?
 
Media Keep Printing Mean things about Hillary

Seemingly becoming a Right Wing Blog, NPR reports "Defense Department Reveals Two New Developments In Clinton Email Saga."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/25/443503507/defense-department-uncovers-previously-undisclosed-clinton-email-chain

First, the State Department announced that the Department of Defense uncovered a previously undisclosed email chain between former Secretary of State Clinton and retired Gen. David Petraeus about personal matters. NPR's Tamara Keith reports that the chain starts before she became secretary of state and continues into the early days of her time in office.

Later, the State Department told the House Benghazi committee it would be producing an additional 925 emails related to Libya, as the committee prepares for Clinton to testify in October, Tamara reports.

I join all of those people on iSkep who decry the media printing actual facts that make Hillary look terrible.

Damn you media!
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
I join all of those people on iSkep who decry the media printing actual facts that make Hillary look terrible.
Click to expand...
The vast right wing conspiracy is far deeper than anyone believed.
 
16.5 said:
Seemingly becoming a Right Wing Blog, NPR reports "Defense Department Reveals Two New Developments In Clinton Email Saga."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...rs-previously-undisclosed-clinton-email-chain

First, the State Department announced that the Department of Defense uncovered a previously undisclosed email chain between former Secretary of State Clinton and retired Gen. David Petraeus about personal matters. NPR's Tamara Keith reports that the chain starts before she became secretary of state and continues into the early days of her time in office.

Later, the State Department told the House Benghazi committee it would be producing an additional 925 emails related to Libya, as the committee prepares for Clinton to testify in October, Tamara reports.

I join all of those people on iSkep who decry the media printing actual facts that make Hillary look terrible.

Damn you media!
Click to expand...

Is it possible that this is not new stuff? Clinton already says that she doesn't have the emails from when she first took office. Those were on her senate email account and if the government didn't find them in a timely way maybe it's not completely Clinton's fault*. And are the 925 emails just ones that are just now being released out of the big pile that Clinton already submitted or do they represent a new discovery?

*except for the fact that she made no effort to comply with regulations that she supply her emails for archiving regardless of what server they were on.
 
davefoc said:
Is it possible that this is not new stuff? Clinton already says that she doesn't have the emails from when she first took office. Those were on her senate email account and if the government didn't find them in a timely way maybe it's not completely Clinton's fault*. And are the 925 emails just ones that are just now being released out of the big pile that Clinton already submitted or do they represent a new discovery?
Click to expand...

I gave a link on the last page. Here's a key bit:

"[The Petraeus emails] start on Jan. 10, 2009, with Clinton using the older email account. But by Jan. 28 — a week after her swearing in — she switched to using the private email address on a homebrew server that she would rely on for the rest of her tenure. There are less than 10 emails back and forth in total, officials said, and the chain ends on Feb. 1."

So some of the emails are from before she set up her own server, but some of them are from after. These emails were not turned over to state, they were discovered by the Defense Dept (from Petaeus's emails), and this is a new revelation.

As I keep saying, don't count on the scandal having plateaued.
 
From the NPR link:
Defense uncovered a previously undisclosed email chain between former Secretary of State Clinton and retired Gen. David Petraeus about personal matters. NPR's Tamara Keith reports that the chain starts before she became secretary of state and continues into the early days of her time in office.
Click to expand...
From that information, it's a personal email. So this conclusion is doubtful at this point:
The emails cast doubt on Clinton's assertion that she had turned over all work-related correspondence that moved across the private email server she used during her tenure at the State Department.
Click to expand...

When someone tells me what she was hiding and why it clearly wasn't a personal discussion, I'll consider it.

And the other revelation:
The documents provided today do not alter the fundamental facts known about the Benghazi attacks."
Click to expand...
Ah yes, that Benghazi, I bet the GOP committee is so disappointed.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
When someone tells me what she was hiding and why it clearly wasn't a personal discussion, I'll consider it.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you chose that link, to frame your argument. I would doubt that the General and HRC had personal matters. I do believe they may have discussed personnel matters.
All the other articles I have read use personnel not personal. Typo perhaps?
Logic goes with personnel, not personal. YMMV?

ETA: From AP
They largely pertained to personnel matters
Click to expand...
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f80a...als-more-work-emails-clintons-private-account
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
I gave a link on the last page. Here's a key bit:

"[The Petraeus emails] start on Jan. 10, 2009, with Clinton using the older email account. But by Jan. 28 — a week after her swearing in — she switched to using the private email address on a homebrew server that she would rely on for the rest of her tenure. There are less than 10 emails back and forth in total, officials said, and the chain ends on Feb. 1."

So some of the emails are from before she set up her own server, but some of them are from after. These emails were not turned over to state, they were discovered by the Defense Dept (from Petaeus's emails), and this is a new revelation.

As I keep saying, don't count on the scandal having plateaued.
Click to expand...

I had a bit of a brain fart there. I had read the article, found out the answer to my question and then forgot it. But in rereading the article I noticed this:

The State Department's record of Clinton emails begins on March 18, 2009 — almost two months after she entered office. Before then, Clinton has said she used an old AT&T Blackberry email account, the contents of which she no longer can access.

The Petraeus emails, first discovered by the Defense Department and then passed to the State Department's inspector general, challenge that claim. They start on Jan. 10, 2009, with Clinton using the older email account. But by Jan. 28 — a week after her swearing in — she switched to using the private email address on a homebrew server that she would rely on for the rest of her tenure. There are less than 10 emails back and forth in total, officials said, and the chain ends on Feb. 1.
Click to expand...

This looks like a bigger uh oh than the newly discovered Patreus emails. I thought the explanation for the gap in the emails that were turned over was that the gap was the time that she was using her Senate email. This article makes it seem like the original gap story was more right than I realized.

As far as the scandal having plateaued: I agree these nudge up the intensity a bit, but with time parts of the scandal are also fading away, so I see the net effect of this new little kerfuffle as more of a keep it alive kick than a major step upward. It is still within the plausibility range that a very favorable FBI report could wipe away most of the political problems* this scandal is causing Clinton. But, right now, an FBI report that isn't substantially critical of Clinton looks unlikely to me.

*political problem here is meant the loss of moderate voters in a swing state or difficulties significant enough that it might cause her to lose in the primary.
 
Last edited:
Just what secret do you think is in the Petraeus email exchange?

What motivation would Clinton have had other than the exchange truly was personal and not Sec of State related?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Just what secret exchange do you think is in the Petraeus email exchange?

What motivation would Clinton have had other than the exchange truly was personal and not Sec of State related?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I didn't mention it, but it does appear to be something of an innocent mistake. It doesn't sound like it was embarrassing or classified. I doubt she was trying to hide it.

The hit to Clinton is two fold though. 1. It got the scandal in the news again. 2. Even if it is just an innocent mistake that the emails weren't included it was a mistake and once again an element of this scandal hints at Clinton competency issues.

Anyway, it was this kind of thinking that made me think these new facts were more of a little nudge upwards in the scandal intensity and not some major revelation.

As I mentioned before, it would be best for Clinton if all this stuff could come out at once instead of dribbling in. I think a fully competent Clinton might have considered that when she was working out a strategy to deal with this scandal. She had an opportunity to get out in front of this scandal but it seems like she was working in some sort of denial mode. And her aides either weren't giving her the straight dope about how serious this was or she was ignoring them.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
I'm sorry, I didn't mention it, but it does appear to be something of an innocent mistake. It doesn't sound like it was embarrassing or classified. I doubt she was trying to hide it.
Click to expand...
Then why is it a 'mistake'?

davefoc said:
The hit to Clinton is two fold though. 1. It got the scandal in the news again. 2. Even if it is just an innocent mistake that the emails weren't included it was a mistake and once again an element of this scandal hints at Clinton competency issues.

Anyway, it was this kind of thinking that made me think these new facts were more of a little nudge upwards in the scandal intensity and not some major revelation.

As I mentioned before, it would be best for Clinton if all this stuff could come out at once instead of dribbling in. I think a fully competent Clinton might have considered that when she was working out a strategy to deal with this scandal. She had an opportunity to get out in front of this scandal but it seems like she was working in some sort of denial mode. And her aides either weren't giving her the straight dope about how serious this was or she was ignoring them.
Click to expand...
Here's where I don't get you. Clinton foes will take anything, it matters not if there is a there there, and hype it up against her. The news media could care less about accurate reporting, they sell scandal.

So how does that translate into Clinton making a mistake?

It looks to be a private communication, determined not to be relevant.

So are you just reminding us the single email server was a mistake and this kind of false attack is the result of that mistake? Because the way I see it, she's attacked no matter what she does, ergo maybe it's not her fault after all.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
...

So how does that translate into Clinton making a mistake?

...
Click to expand...

Maybe I don't understand something here. Didn't Clinton claim to have turned over all her SoS emails from her home brew server? And isn't this story partially about some that she didn't turn over? Did she not turn them over intentionally because she was trying to hide something? Did she not turn them over because she thought they were private communications or did she make a mistake? My apologies, I may not understand your point or I may be confused here about something. ETA: The most likely situation to me appears that she just made a mistake. Do you disagree? ETA2: I just realized that you believe that the emails were private and she didn't turn them over because she thought they were private. Based on the articles I read and the probable mistake in the article you read with regard to the personal/personnel mixup it sure doesn't sound like they were private to me. But the bigger deal may be that she was using her home brew server much sooner than she claimed. Again perhaps an innocent mistake but still another mistake. And there is still the issue of the surprisingly few emails that have shown up in the gap.
 
Last edited:
She turns over work related emails. She doesn't turn over personal communications.

All we know at this point is the Petraeus emails were personal.

Where's the mistake?

Upon what are you basing your conclusions they weren't personal?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
She turns over work related emails. She doesn't turn over personal communications.

All we know at this point is the Petraeus emails were personal.

Where's the mistake?

Upon what are you basing your conclusions they weren't personal?
Click to expand...

How can you possibly know that the Petraeus emails were personal? Apparently the defense department didn't think so. They turned them over to the State Department that said that "the emails could now be subject to public disclosure".

Yes the one article you linked to used the word, personal, but other articles used the word personnel . Have you seen the emails? Do you know something that the State Department doesn't about the emails? What kind of personal email chain that went on between Petraeus and Clinton for 10 or 11 emails do you envision?

With respect, you and the Clinton defenders are looking at this scandal with the eyes of partisans. Partisans are not going to decide this election. This election will be decided by moderate voters in swing states and the defense of Clinton in this thread will not be as persuasive to them as it seems to the partisans in this thread. The question right now is whether Clinton, even with her miscellaneous baggage, is the Democrat's best hope.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom