Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[DavidJames]

dj: What crime did Hillary commit?
regular poster: cite statute
dj: LOL, internet vigilante!
regular people: face palm

Do you plan on providing my actual quote or are you going to let this dishonest quote stand?

 

[The Big Dog]

dj: What crime did Hillary commit?
regular poster: cite statute
dj: LOL, internet vigilante!regular people: face palm

Lol another Internet vigilanteString her up[SNIP].

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

Do you plan on providing my actual quote or are you going to let this dishonest quote stand?

Yeah, so that just happened....

 

[Leftus]

Perhaps this is why?

DJ: What crimes has Clinton been charged with?
"Regular poster": None, but I just know she's guilty!
Everyone else: If she's guilty, why hasn't she been charged?
"Regular poster": Because there is a conspiracy at the highest levels of government to protect her!
Everyone else: So this is a conspiracy theory? Ok....

First of all, I was responding to a statement by Kestrel. Seems an odd thing to miss since not only was it quoted in full but nary a few posts above. The statement is not what you have bolded. It was "Normal investigations start with the discovery of a crime." I pointed out the crime. Now there is a massive difference between someone committing a crime and being charged with a crime (RE - Bill Cosby). To say that not being charged is not to have committed an offense is incorrect.

Rather than explain why Clinton was not required to turn over documents, why she allowed her department to withhold public records from the public during her tenure and 2 years after it, and be allowed to violate record keeping laws in place during her time in office, what I got was ad-homs.

The statement to which I responded did not ask why she hasn't been charged, but that is not that hard to understand if you understand people and politics. It doesn't require a vast conspiracy. It just requires you to understand that people turn a blind eye to the wrongdoings of their allies. That they may not be as gung-ho to start an investigation against someone who is the presumptive nominee to be their boss.

It's not a conspiracy. It's not even corruption. It's just people doing what people do.

 

[DavidJames]

dj: What crime did Hillary commit?
regular poster: cite statute
dj: LOL, internet vigilante!regular people: face palm





Yeah, so that just happened....

Wow, did you think avid readers would miss the important thing you left out. I'm sure it wasn't blatant dishonesty.

"dj: What crime did Hillary commit?" - Please provide a quote or retract it, if you have the integrity?

 

[DavidJames]

To say that not being charged is not to have committed an offense is incorrect.

I agree with you, did anyone say that? Not that I'm aware of.

 

[Leftus]

I agree with you, did anyone say that? Not that I'm aware of.

You might want to re-read what you wrote to, and about, me in my response to Kestrel.

I responded to a statement that there was no crime with what the Department of Justice wrote in a 2004 statement about the Freedom of Information Act. You took that statement and had me convicting her (stringing her up) as well as being an "internet vigilante."

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The intentional withholding of government records is a crime.

5 USC 552 (FOIA).

http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide-2004-edition-procedural-requirments

The Freedom of Information Act requires federal agencies to make their
records promptly available to any person who makes a proper request for them.

Eight years after the fact can not fit into the definition of promptly. By keeping them away from the National Archives and off State Department records, she violated the record keeping acts as well as FOIA requirements. Since her aide also used a clintonemail account, it can not be said that everything she sent went to a .gov account either.

She may or may not have violated some parts of some the record keeping acts. IDK. It has been far from "proven", no matter what some posters keep asserting.

If she had used a governement email server, would the state department have had all the records ? Everything I have read suggests it still would have been up to HRC to decide what was important and print it out and turn in a paper copy. IOW, even the mails sent to the state dept were not actually archived in any automated fashion by the state department. (note, I have already admitted as the head of the state department, that is certainly something to blame HRC for - but is not reasonable to say that it is her fault the archiving worked that way) It seems likely we got more email archives from her because she had a private server than if she didn't.

First of all, I was responding to a statement by Kestrel. Seems an odd thing to miss since not only was it quoted in full but nary a few posts above. The statement is not what you have bolded. It was "Normal investigations start with the discovery of a crime." I pointed out the crime. Now there is a massive difference between someone committing a crime and being charged with a crime (RE - Bill Cosby). To say that not being charged is not to have committed an offense is incorrect..

If you are really happy with your understanding of federal record keeping laws, and are convinced that HRC committed crimes, so be it.

But your assertion, like others on the internet that there was a crime, is not going to cut it, at least for me.

Rather than explain why Clinton was not required to turn over documents, why she allowed her department to withhold public records from the public during her tenure and 2 years after it, and be allowed to violate record keeping laws in place during her time in office, what I got was ad-homs.

The statement to which I responded did not ask why she hasn't been charged, but that is not that hard to understand if you understand people and politics. It doesn't require a vast conspiracy. It just requires you to understand that people turn a blind eye to the wrongdoings of their allies. That they may not be as gung-ho to start an investigation against someone who is the presumptive nominee to be their boss.

It's not a conspiracy. It's not even corruption. It's just people doing what people do.

Actually, it does require a conspiracy. Without public pressure and exposure, perhaps I could understand people "overlooking" what they consider minor wrongdoing or things interpreted as merely political games.

But at this point, to claim she has clearly committed a crime but is still not being charged requires an actual conspiracy.

 

[The Big Dog]

Actually, it does require a conspiracy. Without public pressure and exposure, perhaps I could understand people "overlooking" what they consider minor wrongdoing or things interpreted as merely political games.

But at this point, to claim she has clearly committed a crime but is still not being charged requires an actual conspiracy.

Of course it does not require a conspiracy, or every person who committed a crime would be charged. Further, a person with prosecutorial discretion does not need an agreement, let alone a quid pro quo to refuse to charge.

But this is, of course, not really the point, the point is whether Hillary's dishonesty and contempt for governmental transparency renders her unelectable.

 

[applecorped]

God, please let Hillary and Donald Trump be secret lovers!!!!!

 

[Leftus]

She may or may not have violated some parts of some the record keeping acts. IDK. It has been far from "proven", no matter what some posters keep asserting.

If she had used a governement email server, would the state department have had all the records ? Everything I have read suggests it still would have been up to HRC to decide what was important and print it out and turn in a paper copy. IOW, even the mails sent to the state dept were not actually archived in any automated fashion by the state department. (note, I have already admitted as the head of the state department, that is certainly something to blame HRC for - but is not reasonable to say that it is her fault the archiving worked that way) It seems likely we got more email archives from her because she had a private server than if she didn't.





If you are really happy with your understanding of federal record keeping laws, and are convinced that HRC committed crimes, so be it.

But your assertion, like others on the internet that there was a crime, is not going to cut it, at least for me.



Actually, it does require a conspiracy. Without public pressure and exposure, perhaps I could understand people "overlooking" what they consider minor wrongdoing or things interpreted as merely political games.

But at this point, to claim she has clearly committed a crime but is still not being charged requires an actual conspiracy.

The fact that she may have also had to print out the documents, a task she failed to do while in office as well almost 2 years post office, doesn't change the fact that she didn't comply with any of the federal record keeping acts. The manner in which she didn't comply is wholly irrelevant. It was her responsibility as the head of the agency to preserve her records and she chose not to comply with the law.

Whatever the law stated at the time, and going by the piles of FOIA request that went unfilled because the State Department didn't have access to her records, is proof positive that she didn't comply with the law. The case that 16.5 pointed out where the AP requested documents four years ago, while she was in office, is proof of that. She withheld public records. The manner in which she did it is irrelevant.

The Federal Records act and the FOIA both require that agencies and employees provide records timely. Do you consider 2 years after leaving office to be timely? If she could hold on to them for that long, does she ever have to turn them over? Even if you were being generous and saying that since the law didn't have an exact definition of timely at the time you would have to ignore the fact that it required a specific person to take a specific act. That specific person, the head of the State Department, never took that act when acting in that role.

Bill Cosby clearly committed a crime, as far as I can tell. What conspiracy is causing him to have never been charged?

People turning a willing blind eye on friends or potential bosses, doesn't require a conspiracy because a conspiracy requires a plan by definition. The same things that allow people to point out the flaws in their opponents and miss those flaws in their friends is the same mechanism at work. The fact that Eric "Too Big to Jail" Holder did nothing when this came out is not surprising. He protected his friends, no conspiracy required.

The new head of the DOJ, Loretta Lynch, has but 2 real options were she to start an investigation. She could press the issue and certainly lose her job either by a GOP win after the scandal or resignation upon Clinton taking office. However, were she to just look the other way and call this a political scandal, she could potentially keep her job during the change of administration. And you don't need to conspire with anyone to make those choices.

 

[DavidJames]

dj: What crime did Hillary commit?
regular poster: cite statute
dj: LOL, internet vigilante!
regular people: face palm

Edit - Avid readers will see my words weren't quoted. Astute readers will know why.

dj: What crime did Hillary commit?
regular poster: cite statute
dj: LOL, internet vigilante!regular people: face palm





Yeah, so that just happened....

Wow, did you think avid readers would miss the important thing you left out. I'm sure it wasn't blatant dishonesty.

"dj: What crime did Hillary commit?" - Please provide a quote or retract it, if you have the integrity?

Have you been able to find the quote you attributed to me? If so please post. If not please retract it.

 

[The Big Dog]

Have you been able to find the quote you attributed to me? If so please post. If not please retract it.

The hell? I just quoted it, I linked to it, you just linked to it.

Are you denying writing:

"Lol another Internet vigilante."

I mean, you should but...

Most bizarre posts ever.... Do not know why I respond to this nonsense.

Anything about the dozens of articles I posted?

 

[DavidJames]

The hell? I just quoted it, I linked to it, you just linked to it.

Are you denying writing:

"Lol another Internet vigilante."

I mean, you should but...

Most bizarre posts ever.... Do not know why I respond to this nonsense.

Anything about the dozens of articles I posted?

Ok, it's clear you have difficulty reading. I'll post AGAIN, your quote of mine. This time I'll make it as close to in crayon as I can.

dj: What crime did Hillary commit?
regular poster: cite statute
dj: LOL, internet vigilante!
regular people: face palm

DO YOU SEE IT NOW???????

Yes, I said Internet Vigilate. I never, however, said the other "quote".

Avid readers - is it me, am I being obtuse? I know at least one posters knew exactly what I was saying.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ok, it's clear you have difficulty reading. I'll post AGAIN, your quote of mine. This time I'll make it as close to in crayon as I can.

DO YOU SEE IT NOW???????

Avid readers - is it me, am I being obtuse?

Jesus Christ.... you are *********** whining about the sentence "What crime did Hillary commit?"

Are you *********** serious????? It never occurred to me in a million years that anyone could ever complain about that when he posted "Lol another Internet vigilante" in response to an informative post regarding what crimes Hillary might have committed.

Absolutely blown away..... When I thought that "Lol another Internet vigilante" might have been the most ludicrous statement of the recent thread, I find out that the author of that statement is outraged because of the single most ridiculous *********** thing I have seen...

Well, you managed to detract everyone from the recent disclosures regarding the AP suit against Hillary and all the other substantive things, so big win for DJ!

Un-***********-lievable

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Of course it does not require a conspiracy, or every person who committed a crime would be charged. Further, a person with prosecutorial discretion does not need an agreement, let alone a quid pro quo to refuse to charge.

But this is, of course, not really the point, the point is whether Hillary's dishonesty and contempt for governmental transparency renders her unelectable.

Most honest post in the thread.

Also, clearly already answered ... she is certainly electable.

 

[DavidJames]

Jesus Christ.... you are *********** whining about the sentence "What crime did Hillary commit?"

Are you *********** serious????? It never occurred to me in a million years that anyone could ever complain about that when he posted "Lol another Internet vigilante" in response to an informative post regarding what crimes Hillary might have committed.

Absolutely blown away..... When I thought that "Lol another Internet vigilante" might have been the most ludicrous statement of the recent thread, I find out that the author of that statement is outraged because of the single most ridiculous *********** thing I have seen...

Well, you managed to detract everyone from the recent disclosures regarding the AP suit against Hillary and all the other substantive things, so big win for DJ!

Un-***********-lievable

You really need to calm down.

Based on your response, you aren't able to provide a quote from me that you attributed to me. Did you misread, did you misremember, did you out and out lie? Attributing words to a member they didn't say? Is that a rules violation?

Regarding a distraction, it's actually right on topic, if the topic is honesty and integrity of HRC and the posts of those accusing her. Thanks for showing us what's really going on here.

 

[The Big Dog]

Most honest post in the thread.

Also, clearly already answered ... she is certainly electable.

Perhaps I should have written unfit to be elected... it seems that there are clearly a few people (some of whom are posting in this thread) who would vote for her even if there were a video showing her blowing up her cowboy server while lighting a huge blunt with the Bill of Rights.

She's Ready!

 

[DavidJames]

it seems that there are clearly a few people (some of whom are posting in this thread) who would vote for her...

Please tell us who you think those posters are? Please include the quotes which you think suggest they would vote for her and allow them to respond to your claims.

Let me take the initiative. At this point my vote is going to Bernie. If HRC gets the nomination, I would probably vote for her if one of the currently declared Republicans is nominated. I will use the lessor of two evils approach. I have a thread in the politics section allowing people to express their opinions about the list of Republican candidates. I welcome your and others opinions.

 

[Kestrel]

Courts have routinely allowed the government to delay FOIA requests for years.

This is rather clearly a fishing expedition. An investigation that didn't start with a crime but will continue as long as certain GOP operatives remain in a position to keep it going.

 

[NoahFence]

Perhaps I should have written unfit to be elected... it seems that there are clearly a few people (some of whom are posting in this thread) who would vote for her even if there were a video showing her blowing up her cowboy server while lighting a huge blunt with the Bill of Rights.

She's Ready!

You're absolutely right!! (busted clock, twice a day, etc....)

But not out of any love of her. Because the alternatives are worse. MUCH worse.

**I should note that opinion is based on not enough people voting for Sanders, whom I would much rather see wipe the floor with any Republikkkan candidate.