Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
12AX7 said:
Wow.

You've discovered a politician selling out and getting in bed with a money donor.

Top-notch reporting. I'm glad you're here to keep us abreast of these breaking stories.
Click to expand...

Well, she was secretary of state at the time.

I sense that this doesn't bother you, nor the fact that she may have covered it up?

Ok.
 
16.5 said:
In 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly lauded a Colombian free trade agreement—the same deal she'd condemned as being bad for labor rights back in 2008. So why the change of heart? According to a report from the International business Times, it could be because the country's largest oil company was dumping millions of dollars straight into the Clinton Foundation.

the question for the thread is whether Hillary destroyed emails relating to her dealings with the Clinton Family Foundation, which no doubt would be a major concern where the evidence is pretty clear that she was flip flopping on major issues like this one.

Other than her characteristic flippant comment regarding "yoga" emails she has not deemed to tell the little people just what it was she destroyed.

/Hillary reminds me more and more every day of Putin, doesn't she?
Click to expand...

Wait, you think the question for the thread is whether Hillary Clinton "destroyed (personal) emails" relating to her dealings with the Clinton Family Foundation? And people aren't allowed personal lives, or personal emails, as Secretary of State....why, again? Only if they are Democratic? Or only if their last name is Clinton? Or is there <finally> some actual, legal, compelling reason that the conspiracy theory of the day is a legitimate concern?
 
wareyin said:
Wait, you think the question for the thread is whether Hillary Clinton "destroyed (personal) emails" relating to her dealings with the Clinton Family Foundation? And people aren't allowed personal lives, or personal emails, as Secretary of State....why, again? Only if they are Democratic? Or only if their last name is Clinton? Or is there <finally> some actual, legal, compelling reason that the conspiracy theory of the day is a legitimate concern?
Click to expand...

"personal" emails. You know like "personal" emails with Columbia's largest oil company.

You know, personal stuff like yoga, and multi-million dollar donations to her foundation in exchange for official approbation.
 
16.5 said:
"personal" emails. You know like "personal" emails with Columbia's largest oil company.

You know, personal stuff like yoga, and multi-million dollar donations to her foundation in exchange for official approbation.
Click to expand...

That didn't answer my question. Not that I expected an answer, mind you. Conspiracy theorists tend to be unable to actually answer questions, but it's still fun (and pertinent) to point out the gaping flaws in the conspiracy theory du jour.
 
16.5 said:
"personal" emails. You know like "personal" emails with Columbia's largest oil company.

You know, personal stuff like yoga, and multi-million dollar donations to her foundation in exchange for official approbation.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see any evidence you have for this that doesn't involve the words "may have" or "could have". Otherwise, all you have is a partisan whispering campaign.
 
jhunter1163 said:
I'd like to see any evidence you have for this that doesn't involve the words "may have" or "could have". Otherwise, all you have is a partisan whispering campaign.
Click to expand...

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I've been saying that since page 2 or 3 LoL. He finally put me on ignore for bringing it up too much, or being a pain in the ass. One of the two, maybe both.
 
jhunter1163 said:
I'd like to see any evidence you have for this that doesn't involve the words "may have" or "could have". Otherwise, all you have is a partisan whispering campaign.
Click to expand...

Fact; she destroyed emails

Fact: she refuses to allow an inspection of the server

Based on the intentional spoliation doctrine I posted way up thread, the presumption is that the documents were harmful and the burden is on hillary (and her apologists here) to rebut that presumption.

Asserting that a person does not have the evidence she destroyed and refuses to allow access to is not an argument, it is a weak attempt to reward hillary for her misconduct and intentional destruction of documents.

It is like a murderer claiming they can't be convicted because they destroyed the body. Hogwash.
 
wareyin said:
That didn't answer my question. Not that I expected an answer, mind you. Conspiracy theorists tend to be unable to actually answer questions, but it's still fun (and pertinent) to point out the gaping flaws in the conspiracy theory du jour.
Click to expand...

You mean like your ridiculous straw man?

protip: I was suggesting that Hillary lied when she claimed she had destroyed only "personal" emails.

Do keep up.
 
16.5 said:
You mean like your ridiculous straw man?

protip: I was suggesting that Hillary lied when she claimed she had destroyed only "personal" emails.

Do keep up.
Click to expand...
Yes, you were "suggesting", with literally no support. You know, like a conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Fact; she destroyed emails

Fact: she refuses to allow an inspection of the server

Based on the intentional spoliation doctrine I posted way up thread, the presumption is that the documents were harmful and the burden is on hillary (and her apologists here) to rebut that presumption.

Asserting that a person does not have the evidence she destroyed and refuses to allow access to is not an argument, it is a weak attempt to reward hillary for her misconduct and intentional destruction of documents.

It is like a murderer claiming they can't be convicted because they destroyed the body. Hogwash.
Click to expand...
Ooh, Ooh, was that the theory of spoliation that is not supported by any legal professional, anywhere?


Lololol indeed!
 
wareyin said:
Ooh, Ooh, was that the theory of spoliation that is not supported by any legal professional, anywhere?


Lololol indeed!
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that the spolitation doctrine does not exist?

Holy cats!

https://books.google.com/books?id=GPda-b9i2OYC&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=spoliation+presumption&source=bl&ots=ENaAvJAoC0&sig=3uwDaBcYb5AdY8WFT0YFeOIdU9w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AR8nVem3IpayoQSH64CYDw&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=spoliation%20presumption&f=false

Four minutes to utterly debunk you, pretty good! Read the thread
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
LOL!

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/03/alt-legal-could-hillary-clinton-go-to-jail/

Well that didn't take long.:D

You want to explain why I am wrong?

protip: I am right! WINK!
Click to expand...

Lol ok, a blog. How convincing. These views are not those of alt-legal, Reuters, etc..,sounds like even this blogger is not certain of this conspiracy theory. Got any legal professionals?

ETA: Even your source doesn't agree with you:
There’s a long process ahead, and it’s unlikely that Clinton is actually going to end up in jail. But there’s a small chance that Clinton makes further missteps, refuses to cooperate with a Congressional subpoena, and Gowdy and Co. decide to try and lock her up. It’s highly unlikely, but it would be exciting to watch.
Click to expand...

My highlighting, and my lol-ing!
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Lol ok, a blog. How convincing. These views are not those of alt-legal, Reuters, etc..,sounds like even this blogger is not certain of this conspiracy theory. Got any legal professionals?
Click to expand...

But I was told that no one agreed with the spoliation doctrine.

You said that. It is a legal blog posted by an expert in e-discovery (do you know what that is?) Not good enough he says!

I know that you are not going to ever try to even attempt to explain why the foregoing analysis is wrong. I KNOW that.

Keep hand waving it away. Yay Hillary!

:D
 
16.5 said:
But I was told that no one agreed with the spoliation doctrine.

You said that. It is a legal blog posted by an expert in e-discovery (do you know what that is?) Not good enough he says!

I know that you are not going to ever try to even attempt to explain why the foregoing analysis is wrong. I KNOW that.

Keep hand waving it away. Yay Hillary!

:D
Click to expand...
No legal expert agrees with you. Your source does not agree with you, as I quoted. Do keep trying, though. I love watching cowboy homebrew legal conspiracy theorists invent new interpretations of laws!
 
wareyin said:
No legal expert agrees with you. Your source does not agree with you, as I quoted. Do keep trying, though. I love watching cowboy homebrew legal conspiracy theorists invent new interpretations of laws!
Click to expand...

Bwhahahaa! Hillary is not likely to end up in jail?

Jesus, that takes the cake!

Vote Hillary, 2016! Not likely to end up in jail!

That was not actually what I said, and you have literally moved the goalposts in a hilarious fashion, all the way to the gates of stateville.

me: Spoliation doctrine applies a presumption, and shifts the burden of proof....
you: Hillary is not likely to go to jail!

:D:D
 
16.5 said:
Bwhahahaa! Hillary is not likely to end up in jail?

Jesus, that takes the cake!

Vote Hillary, 2016! Not likely to end up in jail!

That was not actually what I said, and you have literally moved the goalposts in a hilarious fashion, all the way to the gates of stateville.

me: Spoliation doctrine applies a presumption, and shifts the burden of proof....
you: Hillary is not likely to go to jail!

:D:D
Click to expand...
Or, you: Hillary is guilty until proven innocent because spoliation! Here's a source!

Your source: highly unlikely, blah blah blah, not going to jail, blah blah, nothing that says "guilty until proven innocent".

Me: lolol, got anything that actually supports your conspiracy theory?

....rinse, repeat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom