Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
wareyin said:
Despite your hopes, the FBI has plainly stated that Clinton is not the target of their investigation, and the DOJ has stated that Clinton was within the law.
Click to expand...

the target claim is as naive a claim as I have ever seen, and the DOJ line is utter nonsense as I have explained repeatedly.
 
16.5 said:
the target claim is as naive a claim as I have ever seen, and the DOJ line is utter nonsense as I have explained repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Did the FBI state that Clinton is not the target of their investigation? Yes. Did the FBI state who is the target of their investigation? Yes, the people who sent Clinton Top Secret info. So, despite your hopes, you are wrong.

Did the DOJ state that Clinton did not break the law? Yes, arguments before a judge are statements, despite your handwaving. So, despite your hopes, you are wrong.
 
davefoc said:
Has the real identity of Eric Hoteham been publicly acknowledged? Was he the one that advised Clinton to use a private email server? Who did she discuss the issue with and did they express concerns about the idea?
Click to expand...
Do you have a crime in mind?:cool:
 
davefoc said:
If the premise of your question is that the consequences of Clinton's action with regard to the emails server are small compared to the consequences of actions taken by others then we are in complete agreement. I said as much many pages ago when I put forth the example of the corruption and incompetence of the Bush administration as an example of something that was vastly more damaging to the interests of the US than anything Clinton has done here.
Click to expand...
At least we agree on this much.

davefoc said:
But your question misses the point. The point is that the decision for her to use her own server was stupid and the fact that she could make such a bizarrely stupid mistake suggests there is something very wrong with Clinton's management style. What kind of sycophants were associated with her that wouldn't have confronted her with the reasons that this was a really bad idea? Apparently they were the kind of sycophants that not only didn't advise her that she was making a very bad error, they decided to get in on the scheme themselves and get their own email addresses on Clinton's server.

Even now Clinton has given us no insight into the people that advised her about this. Why? does she have advisers she's not proud of?
Click to expand...
In your opinion (and others) the decision was stupid. But you don't know what the reason was or the alternatives. You can't judge the wiseness of the decision without knowing what went into it.

If you are constantly scrutinized by the right wing, private communications could have been a very wise decision.

Your assessment seems to lack consideration of a number of other possible variables.

There is little corroborating evidence that Clinton is stupid or politically naive. It suggests other variables were operating.
 
Last edited:
Leftus said:
The DOJ, through the FBI, has an active investigation ongoing. How is that not more than a blip.
Click to expand...
Why are you going with the NYTs erroneous report they have since retracted?

Just one little problem: it’s not true, according to the Justice Department. Oops!

A statement issued by the Department said it had received a “referral” on the matter, although it did not say who originated it.

“It is not a criminal referral,” the statement said.


Read more at http://wonkette.com/592018/new-york...on-criminal-investigation#Eqrr8Ysr0AuOk7LV.99
Click to expand...
 
wareyin said:
Did the FBI state that Clinton is not the target of their investigation? Yes. Did the FBI state who is the target of their investigation? Yes, the people who sent Clinton Top Secret info. So, despite your hopes, you are wrong.

Did the DOJ state that Clinton did not break the law? Yes, arguments before a judge are statements, despite your handwaving. So, despite your hopes, you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Hillary's emails on Hillary's cowboy server regarding the Department that Hillary was in charge of. Yeah, they are not looking at her at all.:rolleyes:

Arguments by ADA's advocating on behalf of a "client" (state department) are not a "statement of the DOJ"

I get that Hillary is ready, but c'mon man....
 
wareyin said:
Did the FBI state that Clinton is not the target of their investigation? Yes.
Click to expand...
They always say that, with every investigation. They simply, as a matter of policy, do not have "targets" in their investigations. Do you know how many times they say that, and then the subject at hand gets indicted, charged, and convicted?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Why are you going with the NYTs erroneous report they have since retracted?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government’s possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral––it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes.

so much better.

the contention that the FBI does not have an active investigation going is utterly frivolous
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Or clever and politically calculating.
Click to expand...

There must have been a real **** storm as the alternative to make this one the politically viable alternative.

Maybe it really was just an ill advised choice that wasn't well thought out. And, as I said earlier, without benghazi, this might have been a non-issue.

Unlike some other posters here, I don't think that makes her an idiot, or corrupt. She's arragont, as anyone running for political office/president likely is.
 
WildCat said:
They always say that, with every investigation. They simply, as a matter of policy, do not have "targets" in their investigations. Do you know how many times they say that, and then the subject at hand gets indicted, charged, and convicted?
Click to expand...
What a dishonest snip to pretend this wasn't already addressed in that post. Also previously, directly to you, with links to the statements by the FBI as reported by a legitimate news organization.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
There must have been a real **** storm as the alternative to make this one the politically viable alternative.

Maybe it really was just an ill advised choice that wasn't well thought out. And, as I said earlier, without benghazi, this might have been a non-issue.

Unlike some other posters here, I don't think that makes her an idiot, or corrupt. She's arragont, as anyone running for political office/president likely is.
Click to expand...

hell, except for Benghazi, she would have gotten away with it?

Jesus.... and people are going to vote for this scum bag?
 
wareyin said:
What a dishonest snip to pretend this wasn't already addressed in that post. Also previously, directly to you, with links to the statements by the FBI as reported by a legitimate news organization.
Click to expand...
Can you quote the ones where the FBI says Clinton did nothing wrong? :rolleyes:
 
Ziggurat said:
Politically calculating? Perhaps. But if so, she calculated wrong, which makes it really not so clever.
Click to expand...

Latest poll, Clinton still 19 points higher than her closest rival in national polls. The news media has moved on to Muslims, Fiorina's lies, Trump still being Trump, and Walker's resignation.

Stay tuned. Have some popcorn.
:popcorn1
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Away with it ? Yeah, you have quite the imagination.

Likely more than for the scum bags running against her, yes.
Click to expand...

You know, gotten away with her sneering contempt for governmental transparacy and maybe covered up her raging paranoia?

I don't think Bernie, OMalley and likely Biden are scumbags.

Certainly not to the level of Hillary anyway....
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Why are you going with the NYTs erroneous report they have since retracted?
Click to expand...

What do you think the FBI investigates?

Why would the Obama Administration allow the DOJ to waste resources and Special Agents on an investigation one something that (according to you) the DOJ said nothing was wrong?

Not that you'll read it, but http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.../2006/04/the_prosecutor_is_out_to_get_me.html

Pretend for a moment that it was a criminal referral. What would expect the FBI to say? They always say that the target of their investigation is not the target. It's never a criminal probe until they take it to the grand jury. Asking the FBI to comment on an active investigation will usually get you denials.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-state-cant-help-you-hillary-emails-n431021

"At this time, consistent with long-standing Department of Justice and FBI policy, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation, nor are we in a position to provide additional information at this time," the FBI told the State Department in a letter dated today, according to a court filing in one of the email FOIA cases.

The FBI, flat out, does not tip their hand. However, the FBI investigates crimes. They don't commit resources to what they don't think are crimes. They won't tell you if they have or have not built a case. Nor what the status of the investigation of it is. They just don't do it.
 
16.5 said:
You know, gotten away with her sneering contempt for governmental transparacy and maybe covered up her raging paranoia?

I don't think Bernie, OMalley and likely Biden are scumbags.

Certainly not to the level of Hillary anyway....
Click to expand...

I don't think Bernie, OMalley and likely Biden are scumbags either.

But that's not who I was talking about....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom