RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
wareyin said:
Yes, her detractors claim that Clinton has done something illegal.
Click to expand...

No, I'm a Hillary detractor (I guess, since I don't like her and probably would never vote for her), and I'm not claiming she did anything illegal. I don't have enough information to make that claim. I think she probably did something illegal, but we won't know for sure yet.

The people supporting Hillary, on the other hand, are positive she did nothing wrong. That is not a skeptical position to take when someone is being investigated by hordes of FBI agents.

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.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. That's true only when the investigation is concluded. When the investigation is ongoing, lack of an indictment means nothing because we're all waiting to see whether the FBI will recommend charges be filed. If they do, her campaign will end, no matter what the DOJ does.

Based on what we know, I think it's probable the FBI will recommend she be charged for mishandling classified information. I base this on the nature of the emails that have been uncovered, and the experiences of other people who have gotten into a lot of trouble handling classified information in a manner similar to how Hillary has handled classified info.

We'll know pretty soon.
 
Last edited:
shuize said:
No, I wanted to know if she was really sticking with the "convenience" excuse. I suspect the truth has a lot more to do with the ability to shield email from freedom of information requests. However, even if we take her at her word, it is clear she believes her convenience trumps national security.
Click to expand...

You may suspect whatever you want. If you want to convince others they should also suspect these things, make an argument and provide evidence. Otherwise, meh.

TheL8Elvis said:
<>
Also, your question is loaded. No one (including you) has demonstrated her server was any more or less secure than systems at the state department.

No one (including you) has demonstrated that there were any additional security risks involved in using her server vice the state departments.

In fact, there hasn't been any evidence presented that the content of any of her emails sent to/from her on her HBC server would present any actual security risks. Just dozens (hundreds?) of posts asserting she didn't follow the rules, or how she lied about sending classified documents. It's all been about how "she's a congenital liar" , "Sid Blumenthal !!!11" etc. Not anything to do with any actual security repercussions. Because there haven't been and aren't any.
<>
Click to expand...

Still waiting for evidence that her mail server affected nomination security in any meaningful way ....
 
16.5 said:
No I am claiming that Hillary thought her emails stored on her cowboy server were immune from FOIA, and there is no doubt that she solicited a legal opinion from her lawyers that said just that.

She and her lawyers were wrong, of course.
Click to expand...

TheL8Elvis said:
You can read minds now ?
Evidence required ( But I won't hold my breath waiting )
Click to expand...

Good thing I didn't hold my breath waiting on your non-existent evidence.
 
shuize said:
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."
Click to expand...

Perhaps save the prognostication for the million dollar challenge ... :rolleyes:
 
16.5 said:
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
Click to expand...

NO goal posts moved. Just clarification of your sweeping generalizations, to make them clear.

As has been brought up numerous times in the past in this thread, all you have to do is show evidence the destroyed emails that should have been turned over.

We'll wait right here for you do so ....
 
Fudbucker said:
No, I'm a Hillary detractor (I guess, since I don't like her and probably would never vote for her), and I'm not claiming she did anything illegal. I don't have enough information to make that claim. I think she probably did something illegal, but we won't know for sure yet.

The people supporting Hillary, on the other hand, are positive she did nothing wrong. That is not a skeptical position to take when someone is being investigated by hordes of FBI agents.
Click to expand...

Or, we simply don't think she broke the law based on what has been known/released so far.

Fudbucker said:
Uh, no. That's true only when the investigation is concluded. When the investigation is ongoing, lack of an indictment means nothing because we're all waiting to see whether the FBI will recommend charges be filed. If they do, her campaign will end, no matter what the DOJ does.

Based on what we know, I think it's probable the FBI will recommend she be charged for mishandling classified information. I base this on the nature of the emails that have been uncovered, and the experiences of other people who have gotten into a lot of trouble handling classified information in a manner similar to how Hillary has handled classified info.

We'll know pretty soon.
Click to expand...

How hard is it to determine she mishandled email ? Months, really ? How is it possible that it takes months to figure this out ?

The longer they take to recommend anything, the less likely it becomes that they recommend charging her with anything, IMO.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
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.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The server was intentionally set so that the data would only be saved for 60 days then erased. the FBI is using advanced computer forensic strategies to attempt to recover some of them. That is also why the Shillaries freaked out when they learned that Datto had kept copies, although they were instructed not yo do so.

As such, not only are you wrong, your theory demonstrates that Hillary did make a big effort to cover up her malfeasance. Criminal cabal indeed!

Well done, skeptic ginger!:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
What are you talking about? The server was intentionally set so that the data would only be saved for 60 days then erased. the FBI is using advanced computer forensic strategies to attempt to recover some of them. That is also why the Shillaries freaked out when they learned that Datto had kept copies, although they were instructed not yo do so.

As such, not only are you wrong, your theory demonstrates that Hillary did make a big effort to cover up her malfeasance. Criminal cabal indeed!

Well done, skeptic ginger!:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Crickets!
 
Grizzly Bear said:
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,
Click to expand...

The hard time limit was added in 2011 by an executive memo. A memo you linked to. A memo she would have been bound by being a member of the head on an executive branch. However, the act still required the Secretary to take certain actions and had been the case since the 60's. Clinton took none of the actions required while she held that title. She can't claim to compliance with a law that required her to act as federal official without being a federal official. Two years after the fact does not create compliance of act she was required to take as the head of an agency.

She isn't afforded the right to that privacy when it comes to government records.
 
Leftus said:
The hard time limit was added in 2011 by an executive memo. A memo you linked to. A memo she would have been bound by being a member of the head on an executive branch. However, the act still required the Secretary to take certain actions and had been the case since the 60's. Clinton took none of the actions required while she held that title. She can't claim to compliance with a law that required her to act as federal official without being a federal official. Two years after the fact does not create compliance of act she was required to take as the head of an agency.

She isn't afforded the right to that privacy when it comes to government records.
Click to expand...
^^^^^
Easily...THIS!
 
Leftus said:
She isn't afforded the right to that privacy when it comes to government records.
Click to expand...

Nor do i think she is. Im dealing by letter of the law, not by my actual opinion of her trustworthiness or qualification. I find the excuses that she should have additional privacy as a valid reason to dodge foia laws to be not only stupid and hypocritical, but also terrible precedent overall irrespective of how much people can adequately argue whether kr not what she did counts as criminal
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Nor do i think she is. Im dealing by letter of the law, not by my actual opinion of her trustworthiness or qualification. I find the excuses that she should have additional privacy as a valid reason to dodge foia laws to be not only stupid and hypocritical, but also terrible precedent overall irrespective of how much people can adequately argue whether kr not what she did counts as criminal
Click to expand...

Not to open up another can of worms but there is also a long tradition of the POTUS' Cabinet having some privacy of Executive PrivilegeWP
In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government to access information and personnel relating to the executive branch. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case" (418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.
Click to expand...

There is still the matter that Clinton readily turned over what were determined to be government related emails. Personal emails were deleted, but the computer was not 'wiped' according to a dozen sources. So the deleted emails were recovered and some were not considered personal by other opinions.

This whole thing is being falsely presented by Hillary haters.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
There is still the matter that Clinton readily turned over what were determined to be government related emails. Personal emails were deleted, but the computer was not 'wiped' according to a dozen sources. So the deleted emails were recovered and some were not considered personal by other opinions.

This whole thing is being falsely presented by Hillary haters.
Click to expand...

False...

David Kendall, wrote that no Clinton emails during her tenure at the State Department "reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server." In an August letter, Kendall again stated the server "no longer contains data" from Clinton's email account.

End of story.

This whole thing is being falsely presented by Hillary fanatics.

here is an article containing the letter http://www.nationaljournal.com/twen...on-Wont-Hand-Over-Server-Says-Emails-Are-Gone
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Nor do i think she is. Im dealing by letter of the law, not by my actual opinion of her trustworthiness or qualification.
Click to expand...
That makes a lot of sense.
Grizzly Bear said:
I find the excuses that she should have additional privacy as a valid reason to dodge foia laws to be not only stupid and hypocritical, but also terrible precedent overall irrespective of how much people can adequately argue whether kr not what she did counts as criminal
Click to expand...
Never mind. Letter of the law seems to come in a distant second to your opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom