Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dumb All Over said:
What difference does it make?!
Click to expand...

Clearly, if one is a Democrat, one has to prove every unfounded accusation is untrue, rather than the accuser actually providing evidence that the accusation is correct. Therefore, because several posters think she did something wrong, even if they are unable to articulate which law was not followed, she is automatically evil! For instance:

Ziggurat said:
No. You do trust her, because if you didn't trust her, you would put the burden of proof on her to show that she has handed over everything relevant.
Click to expand...

ETA: Also:

16.5 said:
Given that she could delete emails, I think the burden is on her to show they were not deleted.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
How quickly do you think 55,000 pages can be scanned and OCR'ed (with the necessary corrections)? Sure, it will probably get done, but it's hardly what I would call "easy". And it sure as **** isn't going to be quick.
Click to expand...

at 25ppm with just one scanner .. a few days ? I suppose we'll just have to disagree on what constitutes "easy".

Ziggurat said:
No. You do trust her, because if you didn't trust her, you would put the burden of proof on her to show that she has handed over everything relevant.
Click to expand...

yes, I do, as much as anyone else. I think you were responding when I edited my post to add:

So no, in general I don't have a problem with people having discretion in classifying their communicators.

Otherwise, we get in an infinite loop of quis custodiet ipsos custodes
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
How quickly do you think 55,000 pages can be scanned and OCR'ed (with the necessary corrections)? Sure, it will probably get done, but it's hardly what I would call "easy". And it sure as **** isn't going to be quick.



No. You do trust her, because if you didn't trust her, you would put the burden of proof on her to show that she has handed over everything relevant.
Click to expand...

Given the proper equipment I could do it in a week myself...
 
TheL8Elvis said:
So no, in general I don't have a problem with people having discretion in classifying their communicators.

Otherwise, we get in an infinite loop of quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Click to expand...

There's no infinite loop here. There's the State Department. The State Department, not Hillary, should be deciding which of those emails are relevant. If you trust her to make that decision, you're basically asking to be deceived.
 
wareyin said:
Clearly, if one is a Democrat, one has to prove every unfounded accusation is untrue, rather than the accuser actually providing evidence that the accusation is correct. Therefore, because several posters think she did something wrong, even if they are unable to articulate which law was not followed, she is automatically evil! For instance:

ETA: Also:
Click to expand...

"unfounded." :rolleyes:

I explained to you that the law shifts the burden of proof where there is a showing made that an individual has not properly disclosed documents pursuant to FOIA and subpoenas.

concealment of documents often results in adverse inferences and sanctions.

Pretty basic stuff.
 
16.5 said:
"unfounded." :rolleyes:

I explained to you that the law shifts the burden of proof where there is a showing made that an individual has not properly disclosed documents pursuant to FOIA and subpoenas.
concealment of documents often results in adverse inferences and sanctions.

Pretty basic stuff.
Click to expand...

Your failure to provide the highlighted is why your accusations are unfounded.

Pretty basic stuff, indeed.
 
wareyin said:
Your failure to provide the highlighted is why your accusations are unfounded.

Pretty basic stuff, indeed.
Click to expand...

I have previously cited to the Gawker FOIA request and the Benghazi subpoena in which documents were withheld because Hillary did not turn them over.
 
wareyin said:
Your failure to provide the highlighted is why your accusations are unfounded.

Pretty basic stuff, indeed.
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
I have previously cited to the Gawker FOIA request and the Benghazi subpoena in which documents were withheld because Hillary did not turn them over.
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
What does that have to do with your unfounded claim that she deleted emails?
Click to expand...

Sigh. As I have already explained the burden is on Hillary to prove that she has not deleted any emails.
 
16.5 said:
Sigh. As I have already explained the burden is on Hillary to prove that she has not deleted any emails.
Click to expand...
No, the burden is on the accuser to prove that there were any deleted emails, not on the accused to prove a negative.
 
16.5 said:
I just explained that the burden of proof can shift...

I mean I just explained that.
Click to expand...
The Republican poster boy for partisan witchhunts has already said there is no crime for which there is a penalty, here. Do I believe Issa, or some homebrew internet legal "expert"?

Let me think about that for a bit before we talk about how to prove a negative.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
The Republican poster boy for partisan witchhunts has already said there is no crime for which there is a penalty, here. Do I believe Issa, or some homebrew internet legal "expert"?

Let me think about that for a bit before we talk about how to prove a negative.
Click to expand...

"Did she break a law for which there is a penalty? Not really," Issa said on CNN. "But there's a big difference between being open, transparent, honest and having public integrity and only when you get caught do you turn in documents."


I assume you agree with the entirety of Issa's statement then.

This thread has almost come full circle! Vote for Hillary 2016, She is not an active criminal according to Issa!
 
16.5 said:
"Did she break a law for which there is a penalty? Not really," Issa said on CNN. "But there's a big difference between being open, transparent, honest and having public integrity and only when you get caught do you turn in documents."


I assume you agree with the entirety of Issa's statement then.
This thread has almost come full circle! Vote for Hillary 2016, She is not an active criminal according to Issa!
Click to expand...

Why would you assume that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom