RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[mgidm86]

From SEPTEMBER ... YAWN....



From the link:The FBI has been investigating the security of Clinton’s e-mail setup. Officials have said Clinton is not a target of the inquiry.

Keep trying, though. I am sure those un-biased un-named FOX news sources are right on top of .... something.

And if the security of the server is found to have been lacking, the server will be indicted.

You think the IG's made a national security intelligence referral to the FBI of documentsthat contained top secret information so that the FBI could review them for foia reasons?

That is utterly ridiculous, so much so that it seems like active disinformation designed to mislead people reading tbe thread.

Ridiculous is not a strong enough word.

I thought this thread had breathed its last breath but I guess not. It's reached a point where any new information is just more of the same - Clinton lied and deceived.

It can only get more interesting if and when the FBI comes to some kind of conclusion, which it seems will either be that the server will not be indicted, or that the server will be indicted. I feel sorry for the poor email server, the situation must be very stressful.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And if the security of the server is found to have been lacking, the server will be indicted.

You are making the false assumption the only goal of the FBI is a criminal indictment.

They have made it clear that is not what they are investigating.

But go on dreaming.

 

[sunmaster14]

Notice that sunmaster14 changed the word "e-mails" used by the official wording to "Clinton's actions".

I did that because "emails" are a result of actions. They didn't just create themselves. The fact that classified information ended up on Clinton's computer is a direct result of her actions. You cannot investigate the emails for evidence of criminality without, at the same time, investigating the actions of the person in possession of those emails for criminality. And thus the person herself for criminality.

And, by the way, the FBI is a police force, with the power to investigate and enforce the criminal statutes of the United States. They don't investigate matters that would end up in civil court. Here is a link to what they think their mission is:

the mission of the FBI is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners.

Any investigation by the FBI, is, by definition, an investigation that could lead to criminal prosecution, and hence a criminal investigation. Yes, it may be unfair to conclude already that a crime has been committed (although, personally, I think the violation of the Federal Records Act is obvious, as I have argued in Part I of this thread), but that doesn't mean it's not a criminal investigation. Rarely in fact do the police know that a crime has actually been committed before they start an investigation. Even a corpse that has been brutally hacked to death is not proof that a crime has been committed. It could have been an accident, or a justified killing done in self-defense, or even an elaborate suicide.

No, looking at emails to determine if any of them need to be addressed doe not mean one is looking for someone to blame for something. I said this way back at the beginning of the thread, there are FOIA requests to release the emails into the public sphere. Before that is done with any of these kinds of documents, they must be reviewed and either redacted or the request denied if need be.

Given that batches of emails are being released into the public sphere is evidence that is indeed what the FBI is doing and that most of what was in the emails was not considered confidential. That a small amount of it was, is something that would be found in any equally large batch of similar documents.

It is the State Department that is in charge of releasing the emails into the public sphere. The FBI doesn't do classifications work, nor public relations work. The FBI is the one still trying to recover the emails that Hillary deleted, which is a forensic operation that could lead to charges of obstruction of justice, or worse. It is obviously a criminal investigation. Who knows what they might find in Hillary's deleted files? They can't say for sure that it won't provide evidence of serious criminality.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I did that because "emails" are a result of actions. ...

And, by the way, the FBI is a police force, with the power to investigate and enforce the criminal statutes of the United States. They don't investigate matters that would end up in civil court. Here is a link to what they think their mission is...

It is the State Department that is in charge of releasing the emails into the public sphere. The FBI doesn't do classifications work, nor public relations work. The FBI is the one still trying to recover the emails that Hillary deleted, which is a forensic operation that could lead to charges of obstruction of justice, or worse. It is obviously a criminal investigation. Who knows what they might find in Hillary's deleted files? They can't say for sure that it won't provide evidence of serious criminality.

If the FBI were simply looking to see if there is any evidence of hackers intruding on the Clinton server, then they would not necessarily be investigating Clinton.

There are other possibilities besides a criminal investigation of Clinton.

There is also the possibility they will report no crimes occurred. But as usual the right wing wants Clinton to look guilty. They keep accusing, and nothing keeps being found, but they know full well they are trying her in the public sphere because they can't try her in any actual court.

Imply she's guilty of outrageous crimes, when she simply isn't.

 

[Dog Town]

If...

Indeed!

 

[The Big Dog]

If the FBI were simply looking to see if there is any evidence of hackers intruding on the Clinton server, then they would not necessarily be investigating Clinton.

There are other possibilities besides a criminal investigation of Clinton.

There is also the possibility they will report no crimes occurred. But as usual the right wing wants Clinton to look guilty. They keep accusing, and nothing keeps being found, but they know full well they are trying her in the public sphere because they can't try her in any actual court.

Imply she's guilty of outrageous crimes, when she simply isn't.

The only possibility that SG does not consider is that Hillary is guilty. Sure it is her server and sure she was in charge, but how dare someone suggest that she is responsible.

 

[Dog Town]

but how dare someone suggest that she is responsible.

How dare!:

 

[Fudbucker]

This isn't very complicated. The FBI will eventually end their investigation. They might conclude Hillary didn't do anything criminal, or they might recommend charges be filed against her. If the latter, the DOJ will indict her and her candidacy will come to an end. We'll probably know in a couple months. Based on all that's been released, I think there's a good chance the FBI will recommend Hillary be charged for mishandling classified information.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the FBI were simply looking to see if there is any evidence of hackers intruding on the Clinton server

... that would mean they were concerned about the security of the server.

Strange, then, that you were not.

Imply she's guilty of outrageous crimes, when she simply isn't.

Your argument is that we cannot yet know that she is guilty of a crime, since we don't know all the facts yet. And that's true. But on what basis can you conclude that she is innocent of a crime? Especially since, from the start, you've never wanted people to even find out all the facts?

Your position is entirely hypocritical.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your argument is that we cannot yet know that she is guilty of a crime, since we don't know all the facts yet. And that's true. But on what basis can you conclude that she is innocent of a crime? Especially since, from the start, you've never wanted people to even find out all the facts?

Your position is entirely hypocritical.

My argument is that the GOP has been trying to pin crimes on the Clinton's since Bill was POTUS, spending millions of taxpayer dollars from Ken Starr to Trey Gowdy and guess what? They couldn't find any actual evidence except Bill's entrapped perjury.

At some point it's time to call a spade a spade, these are false charges, faux outrage, ludicrous exaggerations, all geared to assassinate Clinton's character because that's the only way the Pubbies can weaken and/or defeat Clinton. They did it for 8 years interfering with Bill's Presidency, they did it for 7+ years trying to emasculate Obama's Presidency, and now they are attacking Hillary.

They can't win legitimately so they simply interfere, obstruct, and attack people with false charges.

It's not like there is no evidence this is going on. I can claim you're a sleazy criminal. All I need are charges to ruin your reputation, the accusations need not be true. That's the GOP strategy.

 

[Ziggurat]

My argument is that the GOP has been trying to pin crimes on the Clinton's since Bill was POTUS, spending millions of taxpayer dollars from Ken Starr to Trey Gowdy and guess what? They couldn't find any actual evidence except Bill's entrapped perjury.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know who that is a picture of, Zig. But yes, lying about cheating is one thing. Forcing someone to lie under oath was entrapment. Paying Jones' lawyers' fees giving her the possibility of a big payout for little cost was also entrapment. Not only would Jones have never brought that suit, she lost her case in a court of law. Clinton supporters paid for her to go away after that rather than to keep appealing the case, but she lost in court. If Clinton getting BJ's in the Oval Office was a criminal offense, they should have charged him with that. But coercing a confession under oath then calling it perjury was entrapment.

 

[shuize]

Forcing someone to lie under oath was entrapment. Paying Jones' lawyers' fees giving her the possibility of a big payout for little cost was also entrapment. Not only would Jones have never brought that suit, she lost her case in a court of law. Clinton supporters paid for her to go away after that rather than to keep appealing the case, but she lost in court. If Clinton getting BJ's in the Oval Office was a criminal offense, they should have charged him with that. But coercing a confession under oath then calling it perjury was entrapment.

That was some awesome reading. Internal contradictions aside, I especially liked the bolded part about how they "forced" poor ol' Bill to lie under oath by asking him what he did.

 

[Dog Town]

But coercing a confession under oath then calling it perjury was entrapment.

Yawn...no one believes this!

 

[Mike!]

Yawn...no one believes this!

I might argue, there's at least one person who does.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I might argue, there's at least one person who does.

More than one person.

Criminal Law and Procedure

…the Forth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that, “Perjury entrapment occurs when a government agent coaxes a defendant to testify under oath for the sole purpose of eliciting perjury”

It comes down to whether Starr had a legitimate reason to compel Clinton to testify under oath or just did so with the hopes Clinton would lie under oath.

Starr was on a witch hunt, there is no doubt about that. And because of his ulterior motive, Starr made an unethical move, he sent Linda Tripp to talk to Paula Jones' lawyers.
Hoosier State Chronicles

There is a difference between public misconduct and private misconduct. It bears repeating. Bill Clinton's private behavior is beyond naughty. I, in no way condone it. Yet, in my opinion, the entire nightmare is totally out of perspective. It's all about sex.... Our entire legal system has been polluted by the zeal with which the special prosecutor has conducted himself. He has, at our expense, twisted the law.

Thank G-d the point was finally brought out about the many conflicts of interest that Kenneth Starr had in taking this case. They include not telling Attorney General Janet Reno he was working with and, had consulted earlier with lawyers for Paula Corbin Jones. Also, setting President Clinton up for a perjury entrapment by having Linda Tripp meet with the Jones attorneys to plan the questions in their upcoming questioning of President Clinton. When is something going to be done about the illegal wiretapping by Starr and Linda Tripp which was in done in Maryland? It is against the law in that state.

... I was delighted to see Maxine Waters of California bring up the issue of having Starr investigated for his own perjury in his statements to the committee. I'd also like his direct ties to the tobacco industry to be fully investigated with the same zealous enthusiasm. He has represented this industry and been on their payroll while the president was fighting them. As late as 1995 Mr. Starr was closely involved with the tobacco interests. How much did it overlap? During this five-year nightmare that he has put us through, Kenneth Starr has been earning a million dollars a year from the same law firm that represents the tobacco industry. He's also closely connected with the Paula Jones law firm. Conflict of interest? I think so.

The New Yorker op ed

Speak of perjury if you will, but to me the whole thing smells of entrapment. In my head I keep hearing the voice of the late Joseph Welch, the attorney who said to Joe McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” I would ask Kenneth Starr this question.

So you can believe what you want, but my conclusions are not solely my own, nor are they made up of whole cloth.

 

[The Big Dog]

My argument is that the GOP has been trying to pin crimes on the Clinton's since Bill was POTUS, spending millions of taxpayer dollars from Ken Starr to Trey Gowdy and guess what? They couldn't find any actual evidence except Bill's entrapped perjury.

At some point it's time to call a spade a spade, these are false charges, faux outrage, ludicrous exaggerations, all geared to assassinate Clinton's character because that's the only way the Pubbies can weaken and/or defeat Clinton. They did it for 8 years interfering with Bill's Presidency, they did it for 7+ years trying to emasculate Obama's Presidency, and now they are attacking Hillary.

They can't win legitimately so they simply interfere, obstruct, and attack people with false charges.

It's not like there is no evidence this is going on. I can claim you're a sleazy criminal. All I need are charges to ruin your reputation, the accusations need not be true. That's the GOP strategy.

Lolz, absolutely ridiculous Hillary apologist.

Everything so called skeptic ginger says about Hillary is a *********** lie.

 

[Dog Town]

It comes down to whether Starr had a legitimate reason to compel Clinton to testify under oath or just did so with the hopes Clinton would lie under oath.

To lie under oath is still perjury, regardless of the 4th, and your spin! FACT!
Faux news would be proud of the spin though, you should apply!

 

[The Big Dog]

when questioned under oath, Attorney Bill Clinton had no choice but to lie!

And that is from a Clinton supporter? Oh lordy....

By the way, he then lied about it, again. They forced him to lie by asking him a question!

Fantastic!

 

[sunmaster14]

More than one person.

Criminal Law and Procedure

It comes down to whether Starr had a legitimate reason to compel Clinton to testify under oath or just did so with the hopes Clinton would lie under oath.

Clinton lied under oath in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit, not in his grand jury testimony. There was no compulsion in the civil suit. He could have just settled, as he did later, after it became known that his semen was on Lewinsky's dress and he couldn't dream up an innocent explanation for that (although I'm sure he tried!). Clinton of course also suborned perjury by encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit in the case, and Lewinsky suborned perjury by encouraging Linda Tripp to lie in the case. The suborning of perjury happened before Linda Tripp gave the tapes to Ken Starr.

Starr was on a witch hunt, there is no doubt about that. And because of his ulterior motive, Starr made an unethical move, he sent Linda Tripp to talk to Paula Jones' lawyers.
Hoosier State Chronicles


The New Yorker op ed


So you can believe what you want, but my conclusions are not solely my own, nor are they made up of whole cloth.

As far as I know, Linda Tripp was being advised by Lucianne Goldberg, not Ken Starr. Even if Ken Starr put Tripp in touch with Paula Jones' lawyers, that strikes me as a perfectly acceptable thing to do. After all, she was coming forward with evidence that justice was being obstructed by the defendant in that trial, so it seems reasonable that the plaintiff's lawyers should know. Do you think Ken Starr should have gone directly to the judge, Susan Weber Wright? I don't know. I think sending her to the plaintiff's lawyers (the ones being hurt by the injustice) was the right thing to do. As for whether or not Jones' lawyers were able to use the knowledge gained from Tripp to ask more detailed questions, that's possible, but in any case Judge Wright threw out the definition of "sexual relations" Jones' lawyers wanted to use. Anyway, who cares? That is not even in the same ballpark as the entrapment that the 4th Circuit refers to. Clinton went into his deposition knowing that he would be asked about Lewinsky, and he went in there knowing he was going to hide his relationship with her. The fact that Paula Jones' lawyers might have gotten detailed information from Linda Tripp, so as to better box Clinton in, has absolutely nothing to do with entrapment.