RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Newtons Bit said:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-to-public-corruption-track.html?intcmp=hpbt1
Click to expand...

Obama will allow Hillary to survive politically (hence the NDAs agents are forced to sign in advance of throwing out the whole investigation a few months from now). But he's going to make it clear to Hillary that he knows she screwed up big-time and he's doing her a big favor by eventually deep-sixing the investigation. It must be very gratifying to have the Clintons at your mercy. Of course, there will be little reward in the end. The Clintons are not known for showing gratitude.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Obama will allow Hillary to survive politically (hence the NDAs agents are forced to sign in advance of throwing out the whole investigation a few months from now). But he's going to make it clear to Hillary that he knows she screwed up big-time and he's doing her a big favor by eventually deep-sixing the investigation. It must be very gratifying to have the Clintons at your mercy. Of course, there will be little reward in the end. The Clintons are not known for showing gratitude.
Click to expand...

I think the NDAs are about the content of the classified emails, as they don't normally have a "need to know" for that information. Disclosure/leaks regarding details of investigation itself is already covered under normal FBI rules.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Obama will allow Hillary to survive politically (hence the NDAs agents are forced to sign in advance of throwing out the whole investigation a few months from now). But he's going to make it clear to Hillary that he knows she screwed up big-time and he's doing her a big favor by eventually deep-sixing the investigation. It must be very gratifying to have the Clintons at your mercy. Of course, there will be little reward in the end. The Clintons are not known for showing gratitude.
Click to expand...

I think you meant to post this in the conspiracy theory section....
 
sunmaster14 said:
Obama will allow Hillary to survive politically (hence the NDAs agents are forced to sign in advance of throwing out the whole investigation a few months from now). But he's going to make it clear to Hillary that he knows she screwed up big-time and he's doing her a big favor by eventually deep-sixing the investigation. It must be very gratifying to have the Clintons at your mercy. Of course, there will be little reward in the end. The Clintons are not known for showing gratitude.
Click to expand...

An NDA doesn't cover waste, fraud and abuse.

http://www.justice.gov/employees/wh...d-non-disclosure-policies-forms-or-agreements

Also, it doesn't do Obama any good by letting her off the hook because the truth will always come out. He gains nothing by letting her stand on her own deeds. Any favors he would gain would do him no good.

The one who would have anything to gain would be the AG, Loretta Lynch. If she indicts, she is essentially out of work. GOP candidate wouldn't keep her, Clinton wouldn't keep her Clinton won the White House, and the damage done to the Dem's would be really hard to overcome. Lynch seems to be an equal-opportunity prosecutor as well.

The thing to watch for is resignations if there is no indictment and the FBI investigators believed there should have been. Current FBI Director James Comey once threatened to resign his previous position if the Bush white house over-ruled their determination on wire tapping. If the decision is made on politics rather than the law, I'm fairly certain that Comey and others will resign.

If the story is true that they have 150 plus agents working on this because they are adding more it's not because there is nothing there. I can't see Comey being so principled to actually prepare a letter of resignation of someone he probably voted for over someone he probably wouldn't.

From Wikipedia - Comey is a registered Republican who donated to U.S. Senator John McCain’s campaign in the 2008 presidential election and to Governor Mitt Romney’s campaign in 2012 presidential election.
 
Any charges yet?

No, didn't think so. But now we have more investigating of the Clinton Foundation as if accusations or investigations were evidence of guilt.

It's ridiculous.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Any charges yet?

No, didn't think so. But now we have more investigating of the Clinton Foundation as if accusations or investigations were evidence of guilt.

It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Here's another clue for you all...the FBI is doing what is called an investigation. Everyone should hope they are being meticulous as they are investigating a presidential candidate and former Secretary of State. It is the FBI, not a congressional committee. Charges will be decided upon once they complete the investigation. The walrus was Paul.
 
Wolrab said:
Here's another clue for you all...the FBI is doing what is called an investigation. Everyone should hope they are being meticulous as they are investigating a presidential candidate and former Secretary of State. It is the FBI, not a congressional committee. Charges will be decided upon once they complete the investigation. The walrus was Paul.
Click to expand...

TRUE!
I would have preferred a Bowie reference, in honor of the Thin White Duke passing. He did however write one of his greatest hits with John, so...
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Any charges yet?

No, didn't think so. But now we have more investigating of the Clinton Foundation as if accusations or investigations were evidence of guilt.

It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The FBI is ridiculous?

Lolz.

Hillary isn't in prison yet, so vote Hillary 2016!
 
Wolrab said:
Here's another clue for you all...the FBI is doing what is called an investigation. Everyone should hope they are being meticulous as they are investigating a presidential candidate and former Secretary of State. It is the FBI, not a congressional committee. Charges will be decided upon once they complete the investigation. The walrus was Paul.
Click to expand...

Here's a clue for you: The Clinton's have been accused of crime after crime, always by right wing interests. The only thing they were ever found to be actually guilty of was Bill's entrapped perjury.


It's spelled 'FALSE ACCUSATIONS'.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's spelled 'FALSE ACCUSATIONS'.
Click to expand...
In an investigation that is ongoing she is presumed innocent of a crime until PROVEN guilty of anything irrespective of what her criti s feel is the case. To jump the gun is partisan and wrong. If no charges are made at the end of this or there is insufficient evidence, then that's how it is.... Which is where i agree.

On the other hand you have argued that any criticism of her at all is contrived and have tried to argue that what she did was simply for privacy and had absolutely no drawbacks. So far that's been a partisan argument, not a reasoned one.

The arguement that what she did was proper in any degree while it tarnishes the reputation of other parties and vice versa is good exercize in demonstrating the lack of skepticism in politics more than it indicates Clintons innocence or guilt of a perceived crime
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Bill's entrapped perjury.
Click to expand...

If Bill's perjury was "entrapped", then almost all perjury is "entrapped", because people almost always commit perjury to protect themselves. So logically either we should get rid of perjury as a general offense (is that your position?), or "entrapped" (as you are using it) is irrelevant.
 
16.5 said:
I guess asking Bill a question under oath, in a deposition, IS sufficient to entrap him into lying.

He cannot help himself! :D
Click to expand...

Baby, I only hit you lied under oath because I love you the law so much! You made me hit you lie under oath! It's your fault for leaving asking me!
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Here's a clue for you: The Clinton's have been accused of crime after crime, always by right wing interests. The only thing they were ever found to be actually guilty of was Bill's entrapped perjury.


It's spelled 'FALSE ACCUSATIONS'.
Click to expand...
Just because someone has been accused of a crime in the past does not mean they have not committed a crime. This is the real deal. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (there is that word again!) is ....investigating. Not Ken Star, not Issa, not congress.
 
Wolrab said:
Just because someone has been accused of a crime in the past does not mean they have not committed a crime. This is the real deal. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (there is that word again!) is ....investigating. Not Ken Star, not Issa, not congress.
Click to expand...
Of course you are correct. Some of us are waiting for the results.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom