RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

I don't understand why you keep harping on this. Your certainly entitled to your opinion that she is untrustworthy, but beyond that, I don't get it.

It's not clear at all that she broke any laws.

And s far as charging her with breaking any laws regarding FOIA stuff, that ship sailed long ago.

So what's to be gained arguing about specific legalities on an Internet forum ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Good thing I didn't hold my breath waiting on your non-existent evidence.

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 ....

...

And that's the story of this thread, in a nutshell.

 

[The Big Dog]

...

And that's the story of this thread, in a nutshell.

Absolutely, it shows the disengenuous arguments amounting to intellectual fraud that have been made by Hillary fans.

All you have to do is meet this impossible burden by showing the contents of emails that you don't have access to because Hillary destroyed them.

Under the circumstances, the burden shifts to Hillary to show they were private.

Fortunately, the FBI is making progress in recreating those emails she intentionally destroyed, thanks to Datto.

Uh oh!

 

[Leftus]

I don't understand why you keep harping on this. Your certainly entitled to your opinion that she is untrustworthy, but beyond that, I don't get it.

It's not clear at all that she broke any laws.

And s far as charging her with breaking any laws regarding FOIA stuff, that ship sailed long ago.

So what's to be gained arguing about specific legalities on an Internet forum ?

When people argue that "she did nothing wrong" it's 100% on point to show what she did wrong and the laws that existed at the time she didn't take the required actions.

Those things I point to? Those are laws. Those laws require specific steps by specific people. She never took them. Ergo, she broke them. I'm not sure how much more clear that can get.

When was the last day she could have complied with the law (and please provide cite and reasoning)?

When did she turn over the records?

It's not any more complex than that. An act required by a specific actor. It never happened. Law broken.

The other issue at hand, all of that security stuff, is what is going to land her in real trouble. Sure, she wouldn't suffer any negative consequences from the FOIA stuff alone because of partisan reasons, but the reams of classified material coming out of her personal storage isn't something so easily dismissed.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

.Never mind. Letter of the law seems to come in a distant second to your opinion.

As usual you attack my position with no indication of having bothered to read any of the context in the posts leading up to what you quoted and wound up with an empty counter argument. Give me a reasoned counter argument understanding the context if you want me to respond to your arguments in the future.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When people argue that "she did nothing wrong" it's 100% on point to show what she did wrong and the laws that existed at the time she didn't take the required actions.

Those things I point to? Those are laws. Those laws require specific steps by specific people. She never took them. Ergo, she broke them. I'm not sure how much more clear that can get. [].

It must be so frustrating for you that people don't see the world the way you do.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Absolutely, it shows the disengenuous arguments amounting to intellectual fraud that have been made by Hillary fans.

All you have to do is meet this impossible burden by showing the contents of emails that you don't have access to because Hillary destroyed them.

Under the circumstances, the burden shifts to Hillary to show they were private.

Fortunately, the FBI is making progress in recreating those emails she intentionally destroyed, thanks to Datto.

Uh oh!

You make claims, then complain it's too diffcult to provide evidence.


Maybe you should stop making claims you can't/won't support instead of crying about how hard it is ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

When people argue that "she did nothing wrong" it's 100% on point to show what she did wrong and the laws that existed at the time she didn't take the required actions.

Those things I point to? Those are laws. Those laws require specific steps by specific people. She never took them. Ergo, she broke them. I'm not sure how much more clear that can get.

When was the last day she could have complied with the law (and please provide cite and reasoning)?

When did she turn over the records?

It's not any more complex than that. An act required by a specific actor. It never happened. Law broken.

The other issue at hand, all of that security stuff, is what is going to land her in real trouble. Sure, she wouldn't suffer any negative consequences from the FOIA stuff alone because of partisan reasons, but the reams of classified material coming out of her personal storage isn't something so easily dismissed.

As I thought. Conspiracy section is --->

Unless, of course, you have a more reasonable explanation as to why she so clearly (to you) broke laws, but the only people claiming she did so are right wing opinion piece authors and people on the Internet.

I look forward to you explanation.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Not to open up another can of worms but there is also a long tradition of the POTUS' Cabinet having some privacy of Executive Privilege^WP.

None of which is relevant to the reasons you gave for her set up to be justified or for that matter privacy at all. Further, suits had to be filed in order to get any of the emails released... and further still their release was delayed before the releases went under way.

I'm well aware that people want to await word from the actual FBI probe before anything gets completely pushed and this is reasonable, but it certainly doesnt give me any confidence in her to differentiate her trustworthiness from the establishment crowd

 

[The Big Dog]

You make claims, then complain it's too diffcult to provide evidence.


Maybe you should stop making claims you can't/won't support instead of crying about how hard it is ?

Lolz, what claim was that again? That she destroyed them? CHECK!
That she failed to show that the documents were private? CHECK!
That she lied about well, everything? CHECK!

You flip the burden of proof and declare victory? That ain't how that works.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

None of which is relevant to the reasons you gave for her set up to be justified or for that matter privacy at all. Further, suits had to be filed in order to get any of the emails released... and further still their release was delayed before the releases went under way.

I'm well aware that people want to await word from the actual FBI probe before anything gets completely pushed and this is reasonable, but it certainly doesnt give me any confidence in her to differentiate her trustworthiness from the establishment crowd

I wasn't intending it to be directly related. I was pointing out the scrutiny of every thing the Secretary of State did in her job is a new development that has only been applied to Clinton.

Unless you know of a single other Secretary of State who has had their every move gone over with a fine-toothed comb?


Perhaps you could point to a post of mine where I gave a reason "for her set up to be justified". I don't recall giving any such reasons. I've merely said the attack is baseless. And the supposed crimes can't be shown to have caused any harm.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Lolz, what claim was that again? That she destroyed them? CHECK!
That she failed to show that the documents were private? CHECK!That she lied about well, everything? CHECK!

You flip the burden of proof and declare victory? That ain't how that works.

Because she doesn't have to.

And then, of course, there was this gem...

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.

 

[The Big Dog]

Because she doesn't have to.

She does not have to show that her claim that the documents she destroyed were private, despite making that very claim?

That is remarkable..... The number of so called skeptics who not only take the word of a politician as gospel, but expect other people to do so as well is simply remarkable.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

She does not have to show that her claim that the documents she destroyed were private, despite making that very claim?
<snip>

Now you get it.

If you think she is required to prove to you or anyone else that her private emails were private emails, please provide evidence for that requirement.

Also, you keep forgetting to provide evidence for your claim below ... perhaps you would just rather retract it ?

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.

 

[The Big Dog]

At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails -- emails about planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.

Oh Hillary, we'll take your word for it! Private emails like yoga... family foundations... massive donations to her family foundation.... I mean, you have not been dishonest about this at all...

I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.
So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.

Ooopppsss...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Oh Hillary, we'll take your word for it! Private emails like yoga... family foundations... massive donations to her family foundation.... I mean, you have not been dishonest about this at all...

So just like your other claims ... no evidence.

As I said earlier, its the story of this thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

Also, you keep forgetting to provide evidence for your claim below ... perhaps you would just rather retract it ?

wait....you aren't suggesting that she thought that her emails were not immune from FOIA are you? That would be a BOLD statement....

Make your case.

 

[sackett]

Oh Hillary....

Forget her, 1.65, she's no good for you.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Unless you know of a single other Secretary of State who has had their every move gone over with a fine-toothed comb?

You're talking about all of politics... The only thing unique to Clinton is her name recognition. If you think she has a monopoly over people trying to find every nook and cranny about things she's done for attack ads one has to wonder exactly how much you've followed politics. She hasn't exactly helped her own image, but this happens widespread through every election cycle.

Perhaps you could point to a post of mine where I gave a reason "for her set up to be justified". I don't recall giving any such reasons. I've merely said the attack is baseless. And the supposed crimes can't be shown to have caused any harm.

Here:

Had Clinton not turned over all her emails or had some sinister plot been uncovered one might say the same about Clinton. But instead of sinister quid pro quos or something else, what we find is exactly the reason she had for additional privacy as one would expect. Her political foes are going over every single email with a fine tooth comb looking for any and everything they might possibly use against her.

And it remains a rather poor characterization for her having the set up, especially having it at her own place of residence.
Yet again I can suspend my opinions about the legality pending the inquiries already underway, but she had no business doing that set up irrespective and I will count it as a negative to my confidence in her. It's up to her and the nature of the other candidates beyond this issue to determine if it pushes "me" to vote for her or not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're talking about all of politics... The only thing unique to Clinton is her name recognition. If you think she has a monopoly over people trying to find every nook and cranny about things she's done for attack ads one has to wonder exactly how much you've followed politics. She hasn't exactly helped her own image, but this happens widespread through every election cycle.

Complete question and point dodge noted.

nd it remains a rather poor characterization for her having the set up, especially having it at her own place of residence.
Yet again I can suspend my opinions about the legality pending the inquiries already underway, but she had no business doing that set up irrespective and I will count it as a negative to my confidence in her. It's up to her and the nature of the other candidates beyond this issue to determine if it pushes "me" to vote for her or not.

IOW, you can't name a single harmful thing having a private email server resulted in.