Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

Your source is wrong:
Let’s set aside the fact that storing emails privately is just a bad idea, potentially a national security risk, maybe in violation of diplomatic security protocols, and most likely a violation of the Federal Records Act.

Already addressed in previous post, not likely a violation.

Jason Baron, formerly director of litigation at the National Archives, notes that the other 30,000 documents should have been reviewed manually. If an email appears mostly personal but “also contains a sentence or paragraph related to government business, then that email is a government record appropriate for preservation at the State Department.”

Clinton spokesperson already stated that were manually reviewed. No evidence exists to the contrary.

Then a lot of ifs and buts.

Bottom line ...nothing is going to happen.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Clinton spokesperson already stated that were manually reviewed. No evidence exists to the contrary.

Then a lot of ifs and buts.

Bottom line ...nothing is going to happen.
Click to expand...

Day 1: Hillary and her handlers issued a written statement saying that they had conducted a "term search" which resulted in documents, etc.

Response: she only did a term search? Wtf? Outrage!

Day 2: wait, did we say term search, in fact we looked at all the documents!

Response: face palm!

It is just that she *********** lies, it is that she is so bad at it. :D
 
SezMe said:
Sloppy dodge. Pathetic, in fact. You (presumably) can read my highlight and can respond accordingly. Right?
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. You edited your post 12 minutes after I replied.

You fix it and then accuse me of a sloppy dodge.

unbelievable....

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Talk about pathetic.

To be clear, that post you see now is not remotely what it looked like when I responded. What a *********** joke.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Under an obligation to preserve? The documents were subject to outstanding foia requests, subpoenas, and a congressional request.

There does not have to be a suit!

See Arthur Anderson/Enron.

C'mon people, I cannot fathom how desperate you are to stick up for Hillary.
Click to expand...
Civil suit? No? No spoliation. Try again.
 
16.5 said:
Day 1: Hillary and her handlers issued a written statement saying that they had conducted a "term search" which resulted in documents, etc.

Response: she only did a term search? Wtf? Outrage!

Day 2: wait, did we say term search, in fact we looked at all the documents!

Response: face palm!

It is just that she *********** lies, it is that she is so bad at it. :D
Click to expand...

So, no evidence that a manual review was not conducted.

thanks for playing.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
So, no evidence that a manual review was not conducted.

thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Right, no manual review. They said they did a term search, and then changed their story.

I get that people will swallow any lie Hillary tells, but that one is particularly insipid.
 
16.5 said:
Tell the people that worked for Arthur Anderson!

http://apps.americanbar.org/abastore/products/books/abstracts/5190497_chap1_abs.pdf

Footnote 6' presuit duty to preserve.

How fast was that to totally debunk that clown you cited?

ABA expert enough for you?
Click to expand...
You didn't read your source again. Spoliation applies to civil suits, even according to your latest source. (Try reading the very first paragraph)

Please do keep up the homebrew cowboy conspiracy theory school of law, though. It's highly amusing!
 
wareyin said:
You didn't read your source again. Spoliation applies to civil suits, even according to your latest source. (Try reading the very first paragraph)

Please do keep up the homebrew cowboy conspiracy theory school of law, though. It's highly amusing!
Click to expand...

The goalposts move again....

What do you want now? That spoliation applies in criminal cases?

http://www.jha.com/us/blog/?blogID=1381

Boom! Where will you move them next?
 
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?

ETA: Even your source doesn't agree with you:

My highlighting, and my lol-ing!
Click to expand...

This is a disingenuous reading of the article. In fact, 16.5 is absolutely correct. The reason the author doesn't think Hillary is going to jail is because Obama's DOJ won't prosecute (just as it decided not to prosecute Lois Lerner for contempt of Congress).
 
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...

These "breaking stories" are a godsend. This thread has all the leeway a certain OP was missing in the Benghazi!! thread. If someone at Breitbart digs up a rumor from an old sorority sister of Hillary's, the OP can post it and say... "Is this possibly the topic in one of the emails she deleted?"

It's a catchall thread and should be re-titled "Catchall Thread for HDS Sufferers".
 
sunmaster14 said:
This is a disingenuous reading of the article. In fact, 16.5 is absolutely correct. The reason the author doesn't think Hillary is going to jail is because Obama's DOJ won't prosecute (just as it decided not to prosecute Lois Lerner for contempt of Congress).
Click to expand...

I love watching conspiracy theorists explain away the problems with their theory with more conspiracy! No, it couldn't be my flawed interpretation of spoliation, it must be because the DOJ won't prosecute! No, my claims that Hillary being in possession of personal emails were theft of government property weren't ludicrous, it's that corrupt DOJ!

ETA: I almost forgot: My Bayesian calculations on Lerner's hard drive weren't just numbers pulled from my rectum, it was that DOJ!
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
I love watching conspiracy theorists explain away the problems with their theory with more conspiracy! No, it couldn't be my flawed interpretation of spoliation, it must be because the DOJ won't prosecute! No, my claims that Hillary being in possession of personal emails were theft of government property weren't ludicrous, it's that corrupt DOJ!
Click to expand...

It hardly requires an assumption of a vast conspiracy in order to believe that Hillary broke the law in several ways and that Obama's DOJ will refuse to prosecute the Democrats' leading Presidential nominee for political reasons. Also, there's nothing flawed about 16.5's theory of spoliation. Hillary's behavior is a classic example of spoliation. Who would even delete every single personal email for the last six years, a time period which includes the wedding of one's only child and the birth of one's only grandchild?

ETA: I almost forgot: My Bayesian calculations on Lerner's hard drive weren't just numbers pulled from my rectum, it was that DOJ!
Click to expand...

Nice little derail there. Technically a violation of the MA, but I'm happy to let it remain since it says more about you than it does about me.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It hardly requires an assumption of a vast conspiracy in order to believe that Hillary broke the law in several ways and that Obama's DOJ will refuse to prosecute the Democrats' leading Presidential nominee for political reasons. Also, there's nothing flawed about 16.5's theory of spoliation. Hillary's behavior is a classic example of spoliation. Who would even delete every single personal email for the last six years, a time period which includes the wedding of one's only child and the birth of one's only grandchild?
Click to expand...

Moar conspiracy theory! That Obama's DOJ is protecting those people I hate! <shakes fist>

Yes, 16.5's theory of spoliation, especially the "guilty until proven innocent" aspect, is obviously flawed. Just because he is using it to attack someone you don't like, you can't see why his interpretation is wrong, and spoliation does not apply.



sunmaster14 said:
Nice little derail there. Technically a violation of the MA, but I'm happy to let it remain since it says more about you than it does about me.
Click to expand...

Wait, you didn't bring up Lerner? Or you are claiming your own post was a derail?
 
16.5 said:
I sense that this doesn't bother you, nor the fact that she may have covered it up?

Ok.
Click to expand...

Wow. How'd you ever guess that this Hillary crap (and Benghazi, since you're the author of that thread as well) doesn't bother me? You must be psychic.

:rolleyes:

Dishonest politicians do bother me. I'd love to see honest, transparent politics. Not gonna happen. Ever. Never has.

Deaths at US diplomatic facilities do bother me as well.

What bothers me the most are partisan conspiracy theory attacks rather than facts. It looks like you're throwing anything at the wall hoping something will stick. What bothers me is that you weren't this upset when other SoS did this. What bothers me is that you weren't this upset a previous diplomatic facility attacks.

These issues have been pointed out to you more times than I can count. It's been hand-waved away, accused of being "tu quoque!" or a personal attack. You know what this is and so do the rest of us. Give it a rest.

plague311 said:
But...but...cowboy homebrew servers omgz!?!
Click to expand...

And add the term "handlers" etc. and all the "lol" to this and you've got weak sauce. Very weak sauce.

Foolmewunz said:
These "breaking stories" are a godsend. This thread has all the leeway a certain OP was missing in the Benghazi!! thread. If someone at Breitbart digs up a rumor from an old sorority sister of Hillary's, the OP can post it and say... "Is this possibly the topic in one of the emails she deleted?"

It's a catchall thread and should be re-titled "Catchall Thread for HDS Sufferers".
Click to expand...

Agree.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
<snip>

Wait, you didn't bring up Lerner? Or you are claiming your own post was a derail?
Click to expand...

The decision of the Department of Justice to not indict Lerner happened just in the last two weeks. It is relevant because it shows the reluctance of Obama's DOJ to prosecute Democrats who are hampering a Republican-led Congressional investigation. I expect that the DOJ will not prosecute Hillary for the same reason, even if the Congress holds her in contempt for spoliation or for not giving up her server.

However, the destruction of Lois Lerner's hard drive in 2011 has nothing to do with this, and especially not my analysis of the probability that she crashed it intentionally. It was Lerner's refusal to testify to Congress, despite waiving her 5th Amendment rights, and the subsequent failure of the DOJ to do anything about it, which is on point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom