RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[wareyin]

Not at all. It is the facts that have been revealed, many of the probative ones being undisputed, which have led to the claim by her detractors that she has done something illegal. Her detractors just don't consider the lack of an indictment (yet!) to be evidence of anything at all. The flacks defending Hillary, on the other hand, are the ones that think the lack of an indictment (so far!) is meaningful.

Yes, her detractors claim that Clinton has done something illegal. They claim that this is based on the facts, yet time after time, their view of the facts doesn't line up with reality. HDS sufferers keep making positive claims that are proven wrong, over and over again, yet those whom you call "flacks defending Hillary" have consistently advocated a "wait and see" approach. In reality, the lack of an indictment is as meaningful as it gets with investigations.

 

[The Big Dog]

True. But in this case, if an actual indictment were to take place, all the Clinton supporters who've argued the lack of charges is proof of no wrongdoing will turn 180 degrees and argue the indictment is an "unfair rush to prosecute."

That and the HDS sufferers will repeat the old canard that a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich....

when the bar is already set as low as possible (not being indicted yet) it would not surprise me if the HDS brigade starts digging

 

[Grizzly Bear]

2 - Zero compliance with FOIA and national record keeping acts.

This... and the reason it's a legal issue is because of an update to the records keeping regulations. One thing to note though on this one is it wasn't signed into law until late 2014. It means that by the literal letter of the law Hillary didn't break anything for activity before the effective date unless the classified emails really have teeth to override that. (and note #2 is that there are two legal arguments being discussed rather than just one that the discussion flow implies).

This is likely the argument you'll get from people interpreting a purely legal standpoint. On the other hand, from a trust perspective I don't think it helps her case... but recall in politics hardly anything is really objective as some argue what she did was for additional privacy to avoid unnecessary prying by folks who want to find dirt on every little thing she does; while any other party that has done the same is clearly hiding something,

 

[wareyin]

This... and the reason it's a legal issue is because of an update to the records keeping regulations. One thing to note though on this one is it wasn't signed into law until late 2014. It means that by the literal letter of the law Hillary didn't break anything for activity before the effective date unless the classified emails really have teeth to override that. (and note #2 is that there are two legal arguments being discussed rather than just one that the discussion flow implies).

This is likely the argument you'll get from people interpreting a purely legal standpoint. On the other hand, from a trust perspective I don't think it helps her case... but recall in politics hardly anything is really objective as some argue what she did was for additional privacy to avoid unnecessary prying by folks who want to find dirt on every little thing she does; while any other party that has done the same is clearly hiding something,

This is a bit of a problem for those, such as the poster you quoted, who insist on criminality because it was "technically" against the law, even if the act predated the law.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not to mention the continued claim about thwarting FOIA when the emails are being reviewed and released.

 

[The Big Dog]

This... and the reason it's a legal issue is because of an update to the records keeping regulations. One thing to note though on this one is it wasn't signed into law until late 2014. It means that by the literal letter of the law Hillary didn't break anything for activity before the effective date unless the classified emails really have teeth to override that. (and note #2 is that there are two legal arguments being discussed rather than just one that the discussion flow implies).

This is likely the argument you'll get from people interpreting a purely legal standpoint. On the other hand, from a trust perspective I don't think it helps her case... but recall in politics hardly anything is really objective as some argue what she did was for additional privacy to avoid unnecessary prying by folks who want to find dirt on every little thing she does; while any other party that has done the same is clearly hiding something,

It appears that you are conflating two different regulations (a presidential memorandum and a law passed by Congress). Further, neither changes the preexisting requirements under FOIA nor do they excuse the State Department's failure to comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Requests for Documents.

Plus, it is my recollection that Hillary destroyed the documents and wiped her server AFTER the effective date of both.

 

[applecorped]

Plus, it is my recollection that Hillary destroyed the documents and wiped her server AFTER the effective date of both.

this

 

[wareyin]

Plus, it is my recollection that Hillary destroyed the documents and wiped her server AFTER the effective date of both.

As the State Department is about to finish releasing 55000 emails (unless they are granted the snow-delay), your recollection that they were destroyed is faulty. This is not surprising, as reality has steadfastly refused to comply with the "lack of evidence is proof of guilt" crowd.

 

[The Big Dog]

As the State Department is about to finish releasing 55000 emails (unless they are granted the snow-delay), your recollection that they were destroyed is faulty. This is not surprising, as reality has steadfastly refused to comply with the "lack of evidence is proof of guilt" crowd.

She admitted that she destroyed over half her emails and destroyed all originals maintained in electronic format, and the associated transmission data for all her emails.

This is not disputed, at all.

 

[wareyin]

She admitted that she destroyed over half her emails and destroyed all originals maintained in electronic format, and the associated transmission data for all her emails.

This is not disputed, at all.

Oh, the personal emails that were not work related? That were not subject to FOIA requests? Ok.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh, the personal emails that were not work related? That were not subject to FOIA requests? Ok.

There go those goal posts!

All electronic copies? Destroyed
All transmission data? Destroyed
All copies of more than half of the emails? Destroyed

But Hillary claims that the catagory three documents were "personal." I guess we'll have to take her word for it, because the congenital liar destroyed them.

HDS indeed

 

[wareyin]

There go those goal posts!

All electronic copies? Destroyed
All transmission data? Destroyed
All copies of more than half of the emails? Destroyed

But Hillary claims that the catagory three documents were "personal." I guess we'll have to take her word for it, because the congenital liar destroyed them.

HDS indeed

I'm surprised to see you admitting HDS, after the complaint you made about one of your threads being tagged with the term. Self-awareness is commendable, however, so good on you.

Yes, you have to take Clinton's word that her personal emails were personal. Even Secretaries of State are allowed private communications, no matter how much some obsess over them.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm surprised to see you admitting HDS, after the complaint you made about one of your threads being tagged with the term. Self-awareness is commendable, however, so good on you.

Yes, you have to take Clinton's word that her personal emails were personal. Even Secretaries of State are allowed private communications, no matter how much some obsess over them.

I don't think you understand what HDS means these days.

No, actually no one has to, should or will take Hillary's word for it. Beyond the fact that she has lied daily about the emails, the presumption arising from the intentional destruction of documents is that it is evidence of a guilty conscience.

I understand that Shillaries think people should take her word for it, the fact of the matter is she is a fraud.

 

[wareyin]

I don't think you understand what HDS means these days.

No, actually no one has to, should or will take Hillary's word for it. Beyond the fact that she has lied daily about the emails, the presumption arising from the intentional destruction of documents is that it is evidence of a guilty conscience.

I understand that Shillaries think people should take her word for it, the fact of the matter is she is a fraud.

Oh, I am well aware of what HDS means. The same thing it meant when you complained to forum management about it.

Claiming that one not releasing all of one's private communication to the public is evidence of a guilty conscience is laughably incorrect. It is, however, quite demonstrative of the lengths some will go in order to find something they can point to as evidence that vindicates their obsession with Clinton.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh, I am well aware of what HDS means. The same thing it meant when you complained to forum management about it.

Claiming that one not releasing all of one's private communication to the public is evidence of a guilty conscience is laughably incorrect. It is, however, quite demonstrative of the lengths some will go in order to find something they can point to as evidence that vindicates their obsession with Clinton.

Talk about laughably incorrect, you intentionally misrepresented my statement. HDS is action!

I didn't talk about "releasing them" I talked about the fact that she intentionally destroyed them before those people at State actually responsible for reviewing them for release had a chance to do so.

 

[wareyin]

Talk about laughably incorrect, you intentionally misrepresented my statement. HDS is action!

I didn't talk about "releasing them" I talked about the fact that she intentionally destroyed them before those people at State actually responsible for reviewing them for release had a chance to do so.

No one was responsible for reviewing Clinton's personal emails. Yes, claiming that Clinton (and only Clinton) has no right to privacy because 16.5 doesn't like her is certainly HDS in action. As I said, self-awareness is a good thing.

 

[The Big Dog]

No one was responsible for reviewing Clinton's personal emails. Yes, claiming that Clinton (and only Clinton) has no right to privacy because 16.5 doesn't like her is certainly HDS in action. As I said, self-awareness is a good thing.

MAGNIFICENT Fallacy! They were private because Hillary said they were and no one can check whether indeed they were private because Hillary destroyed them because they were private!

Couple that with "no right to privacy" straw man misrepresentation and the HDS of the fanatical Hiillary apologist is made clear.

Hillary chose to store governmental documents on her own private server, as such it is hypocritical to claim that the government cannot review those records to make sure all their data was recovered.

I am certainly willing to concede that the government need not release purely private info, however, but I don't think anyone really believes that a congenital liar like Hillary can be trusted to make that decision.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

this

Not exactly.

Clinton turned over 30,000 emails they determined were official government communications. They deleted the ones determined to be personal.

The government then asked for the server and retrieved the deleted emails which, by the way, were only deleted. Had there been some big effort to cover up those emails, they would have wiped the server. No attempt to wipe the server was made.

Regardless of attempts to imply Clinton didn't know the difference between delete and wipe, it's ludicrous to think her advisors didn't. It makes more sense she was simply deleting personal emails before turning over the official ones.

Going over the deleted emails, other people with other opinions decided some of them weren't private but amounted to official communications.

Big deal! There is no secret criminal cabal here.

 

[wareyin]

MAGNIFICENT Fallacy! They were private because Hillary said they were and no one can check whether indeed they were private because Hillary destroyed them because they were private!

Couple that with "no right to privacy" straw man misrepresentation and the HDS of the fanatical Hiillary apologist is made clear.

Hillary chose to store governmental documents on her own private server, as such it is hypocritical to claim that the government cannot review those records to make sure all their data was recovered.

I am certainly willing to concede that the government need not release purely private info, however, but I don't think anyone really believes that a congenital liar like Hillary can be trusted to make that decision.

Wait, you seem to think that Hillary Derangement Syndrome is best represented by someone who is not obsessed with how evil Clinton is, no matter the lack of proof? Sadly, it appears your understanding of this rivals your understanding of private communication and FOIA requests; ie diametrically opposed to reality.

 

[applecorped]

Not exactly.

Clinton turned over 30,000 emails they determined were official government communications. They deleted the ones determined to be personal.

The government then asked for the server and retrieved the deleted emails which, by the way, were only deleted. Had there been some big effort to cover up those emails, they would have wiped the server. No attempt to wipe the server was made.

Regardless of attempts to imply Clinton didn't know the difference between delete and wipe, it's ludicrous to think her advisors didn't. It makes more sense she was simply deleting personal emails before turning over the official ones.

Going over the deleted emails, other people with other opinions decided some of them weren't private but amounted to official communications.

Big deal! There is no secret criminal cabal here.

not this