Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[TheL8Elvis]

Hillary says it is personal email and you believe her? K.

I think you are missing the point. It is irrelevant whether I believe her or you disbelieve her. Or vice-versa

There has been no evidence offered by you that she destroyed email she wasn't allowed to.

Do you have any evidence ?

If history is any guide, you will just hand-wave this request for evidence away, like all the rest.

We already covered the Trey Gowdy thing, no reason to spam it again.

Sure there is. Someone in a relevant position to know claims there is no evidence of a crime.

You also have provided no evidence.

See how those two things are important and related ?

 

[The Big Dog]

I

I think you are missing the point. It is irrelevant whether I believe her or you disbelieve her. Or vice-versa

There has been no evidence offered by you that she destroyed email she wasn't allowed to.

Do you have any evidence ?

If history is any guide, you will just hand-wave this request for evidence away, like all the. Rest?

Nope. Hillary destroyed it, as has been mentioned a dozen times.

Hillary destroyed the evidence. Mmmmmm, let that sink in. There is no evidence that Hillary destroyed only private emails, and she and her husband are more than sleazy enough not to merit the benefit of the doubt.

That is why I have posted the spoliation articles three separate times.

Hillary claims they are "private" and "skeptics" believe her.

Ok.

 

[wareyin]

Perhaps, I didn't state what I meant clearly. There seem to be examples of Republicans using private email accounts to conduct government business.

None of them seem to have been subject to the same rules that governed archiving as Clinton. Clinton appears to have violated the rules governing emails when she left office.

A slight correction: There seem to be examples of Republicans using private email accounts to conduct government business then deleting the emails rather than turning them over when requested.

As far as your opinion on Clinton not following the rules:
“We haven’t seen any evidence of a crime,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Sunday about Hillary Clinton’s private email use during her service as Secretary of State.

I think Gowdy is in a slightly better position to know what the rules are than those of us on this board.

 

[wareyin]

I

Nope. Hillary destroyed it, as has been mentioned a dozen times.

Hillary destroyed the evidence. Mmmmmm, let that sink in. There is no evidence that Hillary destroyed only private emails, and she and her husband are more than sleazy enough not to merit the benefit of the doubt.

That is why I have posted the spoliation articles three separate times.

Hillary claims they are "private" and "skeptics" believe her.

Ok.

I am glad that the rules for spoliation do not include "16.5 thinks you and your husband are sleazy".

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Issa said there was no crime FOR WHICH THERE IS A PENALTY

Issa:Did she break a law for which there is a penalty? Not really.

And he didn't say she committed a crime for which there is no penalty, either.

ie - she didn't commit a crime.

Gowdy said he had no evidence of a crime yet.

Gowdy:We haven’t seen any evidence of a crime

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/15/trey-gowdy-hillary-emails_n_6872498.html
Feel free to watch the video and tell me where he says "yet" ... I'll wait.

He even actually says that it's "obvious" they haven't seen evidence of a crime.

Therefore your statement is false.

Nope, it's spot on.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I

Nope. Hillary destroyed it, as has been mentioned a dozen times.

Hillary destroyed the evidence. Mmmmmm, let that sink in. There is no evidence that Hillary destroyed only private emails, and she and her husband are more than sleazy enough not to merit the benefit of the doubt.

That is why I have posted the spoliation articles three separate times.

Hillary claims they are "private" and "skeptics" believe her.

Ok.

It's like you ignored my post. It's about evidence, and your lack of it. :roll eyes:

ETA: it's almost mind boggling that I specifically wrote:
It is irrelevant whether I believe her or you disbelieve her. Or vice-versa
And you go right back to how it's all about believing her.

 

[The Big Dog]

I am glad that the rules for spoliation do not include "16.5 thinks you and your husband are sleazy".

Hell, no need. Hillary destroyed documents there is a presumption that they were relevant and harmful.

The fact she and her husband are scumbags does not change that at all.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's like you ignored my post. It's about evidence, and your lack of it.

Nope, I just pointed out that she destroyed the evidence.

Not sure how you missed something so obvious.

 

[wareyin]

Hell, no need. Hillary destroyed documents there is a presumption that they were relevant and harmful.

The fact she and her husband are scumbags does not change that at all.

The problem is that the "presumption" is entirely from those who are in no position to know or to judge, i.e. internet posters and pundits. Actual experts in law do not agree with you, nor your claims of "theft" or "spoliation".

 

[The Big Dog]

Issa:Did she break a law for which there is a penalty? Not really.

And he didn't say she committed a crime for which there is no penalty, either.

ie - she didn't commit a crime.



Gowdy:We haven’t seen any evidence of a crime

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/15/trey-gowdy-hillary-emails_n_6872498.html
Feel free to watch the video and tell me where he says "yet" ... I'll wait.

He even actually says that it's "obvious" they haven't seen evidence of a crime.



Nope, it's spot on.

1. Wrong
2. Gowdy. Already covered.

Cool though that you think Hillary is not an active criminal, notwithstanding the fact she is a scumbag of the highest order.

 

[The Big Dog]

The problem is that the "presumption" is entirely from those who are in no position to know or to judge, i.e. internet posters and pundits. Actual experts in law do not agree with you, nor your claims of "theft" or "spoliation".

Lololo! Oh really? Evidence?

Let's hear from those experts in law.

Spoliation?

 

[The Big Dog]

I do find it hilarious that people are asking me to prove that the documents she destroyed were not private.

I guess we will take it on faith, Hillary said they were? Amen! Hillary also found rose law firm records in her *********** closet six months after they were subpoenaed.

Lolz!

 

[wareyin]

Lololo! Oh really? Evidence?

Let's hear from those experts in law.

Spoliation?

You've been dismissing Issa and Gowdy already. Do you have any evidence that any person with legal knowledge applies these legal terms in your...unconventional interpretation?

 

[wareyin]

I do find it hilarious that people are asking me to prove that the documents she destroyed were not private.

I guess we will take it on faith, Hillary said they were? Amen! Hillary also found rose law firm records in her *********** closet six months after they were subpoenaed.

Lolz!

It's your claim. That is why we keep asking you to provide evidence for it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Issa:Did she break a law for which there is a penalty? Not really.

And he didn't say she committed a crime for which there is no penalty, either.

ie - she didn't commit a crime.

Gowdy:We haven’t seen any evidence of a crime

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/15/trey-gowdy-hillary-emails_n_6872498.html
Feel free to watch the video and tell me where he says "yet" ... I'll wait.

He even actually says that it's "obvious" they haven't seen evidence of a crime.

Nope, it's spot on.

1. Wrong

Does "not really" mean she "sort of" broke the law ? You break the law, or you don't

When Issa says she didn't really break the law, I can only interpret that as meaning, no, she didn't break the law.

Can you please clarify how I am "wrong" ?

2. Gowdy. Already covered.

No, you claimed he said "yet". Please provide evidence that's what he said, or retract your statement. Then it will have been covered.

Cool though that you think Hillary is not an active criminal, notwithstanding the fact she is a scumbag of the highest order.

Cool though that you think Hillary is an active criminal, notwithstanding the fact you have no actual evidence, and experts disagree with you.

 

[The Big Dog]

You've been dismissing Issa and Gowdy already. Do you have any evidence that any person with legal knowledge applies these rules in your...unconventional interpretation?

BWHAHAHAHAHA! Oh man, I ask you for evidence of your claim that actual experts in law do not agree with me, and that is your response?

C'mon, I can't wait to see you actual experts in law.

 

[The Big Dog]

Does "not really" mean she "sort of" broke the law ? You break the law, or you don't

When Issa says she didn't really break the law, I can only interpret that as meaning, no, she didn't break the law.

Can you please clarify how I am "wrong" ?

No, you claimed he said "yet". Please provide evidence that's what he said, or retract your statement. Then it will have been covered.

Cool though that you think Hillary is an active criminal, notwithstanding the fact you have no actual evidence, and experts disagree with you.

K! Issa is an expert? I'll buy that (protip, in the next sentence he called her basically a scumbag)

Gowdy? Wait until he gets her cowboy server.

 

[wareyin]

BWHAHAHAHAHA! Oh man, I ask you for evidence of your claim that actual experts in law do not agree with me, and that is your response?

C'mon, I can't wait to see you actual experts in law.

Is it now your contention that Gowdy and Issa are not experts in law? Or that their statements that Hillary has not committed a crime are not contradicting your claim that Hillary has committed a crime and it's her responsibility to prove she has not?

 

[davefoc]

It's not clear at all that the quote above is something that applies to email in her private email account.

We have Issa and Gowdy stating there is no crime ... only the pundits and the Internet are claiming something illegal happened.

Is your argument that if one conducts government business with a personal email account that person is not subject to the same rules with regard to submitting materials for archiving as other people that used government email accounts to conduct government business? Is this an ethical argument or a legal argument?

The author of the National Review article argued that Clinton was subject to the rules of the Records Management Manual and he referred to sections of that manual:

First, the “departing official or a staff member must prepare an inventory of personal papers and nonrecord materials proposed for removal.” The departing official must then “request a review of the materials proposed for removal.” Lest Mrs. Clinton claim she was not subject to this rule, the manual provides that this review process is specifically required for “Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate.” The purpose of this independent review by records officials (as opposed to simply accepting the say-so of the departing official) is “to certify that the documentary materials proposed for removal may be removed without diminishing the official records of the Department; violating national security, privacy or other restrictions on disclosure; or exceeding normal administrative economies.” The process “generally requires a hands-on examination of the materials to verify the accuracy of the inventory.” (5 FAH-4 H-217.2(b)).

 

[The Big Dog]

I do enjoy the fact that the debate is now whether Hillary is a criminal, or just a scumbag.

Hey, i can live with the fact that she is just a scumbag.

Until Gowdy gets the server, anyway!