RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, that would be particularly a fair idea if she applied the same logic to Republicans. But she wasn't too keen on it when they did it.

To review, are you talking about Bush/Cheney et al using the RNC email specifically to hide their using the Department of Justice to influence election outcomes?

Because that was a crime they were trying to hide. It is unfortunate they weren't prosecuted. The GOP would have been screaming for a special prosecutor had that happened under a Democratic POTUS.


You already know I don't agree with the rest of what you said.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

if we waited until we had all the "facts" to discus things on this board, there would be little to discuss around here

If we just preface the discussion with "based on what has been made public so far" many legal experts don't forsee any charges against Clinton, it's still relevant to the discussion. We have had many posters who are vehement that Clinton seriously broke the law regarding classified information, and have posted such, based on the information that has been released so far. So the disagreement from legal experts is relevant in that regard. Ditto with violations regarding FOIA laws.
<>

And then along comes sunmaster14 ...

Except that the "is" part is wrong. The facts that are already known are quite enough to support an indictment. I have gone over them frequently.

And for goodness sake, who should we listen to ... Actual people with law degrees who teach law, or someone on the Internet who's never met a republican position he didn't like ?

Even her so-called defenders don't ever actually make an argument. They just opine that the law was designed for people with malicious intent, and they claim, without any evidence at all, that Hillary's intent was not malicious.

Enough straw to make a scarecrow...

Putting aside the fact that her intent was to keep her communications out of the reach of any FOIA requests (which is arguably malicious), the scope of her intent, and how it interacts with the law, is for a judge or jury to decide. Yes, a prosecutor has discretion as to whether or not to indict, and she may decide that Hillary's intent was pure (just as she may decide Hillary's too politically important to indict), but that doesn't mean there isn't "enough." What we know is enough. That much is clear.

I'm glad you so clearly divine her intent. Must be nice to be able to mind read.
Especially when she asked for secure communication devices from the gov't first thing. Very clever of her to somehow know that her request would be denied and then she could hid all her communications.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Hillary's once hometown newspaper has an article titled:

Hillary Clinton email probe enters new phase as FBI interviews loom

And then Hillary...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-hillary-clinton-email-scandal-20160327-story.html

Hillary would be a fool to talk to the FBI of course, because she is incapable of telling the truth.

Good article. Sounds like things are going well for Clinton, and the "investigation" is wrapping up.

 

[The Big Dog]

And then along comes sunmaster14 ...



And for goodness sake, who should we listen to ... Actual people with law degrees who teach law, or someone on the Internet who's never met a republican position he didn't like ?



Enough straw to make a scarecrow...



I'm glad you so clearly divine her intent. Must be nice to be able to mind read.
Especially when she asked for secure communication devices from the gov't first thing. Very clever of her to somehow know that her request would be denied and then she could hid all her communications.

Oh gee, no one is reading her mind.

She set up a private server and hid her emails from scrutiny under foia, and rejected a blackberry that would allow her emails to be reviewed under foia.

I have yet to hear an innocent explanation from the Shillaries for that.

Plus there is the fact that she is a dishonest cretin.

No mind reading required!

 

[The Big Dog]

Good article. Sounds like things are going well for Clinton, and the "investigation" is wrapping up.

Lolz, famous last words.

Remember when the Shillaries kept saying that the FBI didn't care because rpthey had not interviewed the crime boss lately?

 

[WildCat]

I see nothing wrong with a woman who has every detail of her life scrutinized by her political enemies wanting some control over her emails.

Then she shouldn't have mixed them together with her public work emails.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Oh gee, no one is reading her mind.
She set up a private server and hid her emails from scrutiny under foia, and rejected a blackberry that would allow her emails to be reviewed under foia.
I have yet to hear an innocent explanation from the Shillaries for that.

Plus there is the fact that she is a dishonest cretin.

No mind reading required!

The highlighted phrases are contradictory. Perhaps you could show us where the DoJ, State, or FBI has indicated that they have the latter information. "Damp stain on Gowdy's comforter" doesn't count. I've probably read as much of this as anyone; I'm an avid reader, after all. I can't seem to locate a statement from anyone indicating that this was set-up to avoid FOIA review.

(Other) Avid Readers will know that you're all about evidence, so I'm sure you have those cites available. I'm just weak at Google Fu and can't seem to locate them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sounds like things are going well for Clinton

 

[sunmaster14]

The highlighted phrases are contradictory. Perhaps you could show us where the DoJ, State, or FBI has indicated that they have the latter information. "Damp stain on Gowdy's comforter" doesn't count. I've probably read as much of this as anyone; I'm an avid reader, after all. I can't seem to locate a statement from anyone indicating that this was set-up to avoid FOIA review.

(Other) Avid Readers will know that you're all about evidence, so I'm sure you have those cites available. I'm just weak at Google Fu and can't seem to locate them.

Here's a good analysis, with references:

Based in part on this email exchange, Judge Emmet Sullivan, a Clinton appointee, has said in open court that legitimate questions have been raised about whether Clinton’s staff was trying to help her to sidestep FOIA. Use of private email was an important part of that scheme.

It seems clear, then, that Clinton wasn’t using a personal BlackBerry tied to a private server for reasons of convenience or because she and her staff were “BlackBerry addicts.” She was using the device to keep her records secret.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Here's a good analysis, with references:

I'm sure it's a good analysis, if you already agree with the premises...

It also ignores the fact that Clinton asked for a secure BB right at the onset of her term, and was told essentially to **** off.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Oh gee, no one is reading her mind.

Except you.

She set up a private server and hid her emails from scrutiny under foia, and rejected a blackberry that would allow her emails to be reviewed under foia.

I have yet to hear an innocent explanation from the Shillaries for that.

No, you have been given explanations. You simply don't like them.

Plus there is the fact that she is a dishonest cretin.

No mind reading required!

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm sure it's a good analysis, if you already agree with the premises...

It also ignores the fact that Clinton asked for a secure BB right at the onset of her term, and was told essentially to **** off.

Hmmm, accepting your premise (and I am not saying that I do, because that "secure" blackberry she was requesting was accessing her "insecure" cowboy server back at the old Clinton Ranch) when it seems she was told that the NSA would not move heaven and earth to get her a black berry like the President's:
SHE KEPT RIGHT ON USING HER BLACKBERRY AND COWBOY SERVER.

Then, when State offered her a secure blackberry that masked her ID and was tied into a State dept email addy, with the down side that the emails "would be subject to FOIA," that was when Hillary's minion told State to essentially to **** off.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The highlighted phrases are contradictory. Perhaps you could show us where the DoJ, State, or FBI has indicated that they have the latter information. "Damp stain on Gowdy's comforter" doesn't count. I've probably read as much of this as anyone; I'm an avid reader, after all. I can't seem to locate a statement from anyone indicating that this was set-up to avoid FOIA review.

(Other) Avid Readers will know that you're all about evidence, so I'm sure you have those cites available. I'm just weak at Google Fu and can't seem to locate them.

Why dont you simply reference the consequences her email system set up? Up until it was made known she had a separate system and prior to any such releases... any FOIA requests made could not be satisfied because as far as the state department was aware those emails didnt exist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then she shouldn't have mixed them together with her public work emails.

If her political enemies were honest and not seeking to distort and lie about her record **coughBenhghazicough**, if they were only looking for actual wrong doing and not looking for things they could blow up into faux scandals you might have a point.

But you don't because the Gowdys and Issas don't care about facts or truth, they care about underhanded political hacking.

 

[sunmaster14]

If her political enemies were honest and not seeking to distort and lie about her record **coughBenhghazicough**, if they were only looking for actual wrong doing and not looking for things they could blow up into faux scandals you might have a point.

But you don't because the Gowdys and Issas don't care about facts or truth, they care about underhanded political hacking.

I hadn't realized that such an exemption existed in the Federal Records Act or the regulations it authorized. It certainly sounds controversial (SG's fantasy added):

[a]gencies with access to external electronic mail systems shall ensure that federal records sent or received on these systems are preserved in the appropriate recordkeeping system, unless meanie Republicans are in control of investigative committees in Congress.

Huh.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why dont you simply reference the consequences her email system set up? Up until it was made known she had a separate system and prior to any such releases... any FOIA requests made could not be satisfied because as far as the state department was aware those emails didnt exist.

Which is absurd, isn't it ?

 

[The Big Dog]

Which is absurd, isn't it ?

EXACTLY! My stars, I think he gets it!!

But unknown to diplomatic security and technology officials at the department, there was another looming communications vulnerability: Clinton’s Black*Berry was digitally tethered to a private email server in the basement of her family home, some 260 miles to the north in Chappaqua, N.Y., documents and interviews show.

Those officials took no steps to protect the server against intruders and spies, because they apparently were not told about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

Hillary and her Gang of Miscreants did not tell people that she was running the State Department off a cowboy server in her basement.

The scales fall from your eyes!

Hallelujah!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I hadn't realized that such an exemption existed in the Federal Records Act or the regulations it authorized. It certainly sounds controversial (SG's fantasy added):

Huh.

A point thats been made to SG many times before and ignored. I can deal with nuances in these regulations for one... but that argument being made is inventing rules that dont exist based on partisan thinking that what might have been one of the republicans' sweet spots is the only thing that matters in the context of what actual regulations stipulate. That politicians are acting the part of lying jackasses dies not surprise me in the least and should be brought up... but it ideally shouldnt overshadow concrete inplications resulting from such activity. But then again... politics and logic are a difficult mix

 

[TheL8Elvis]

EXACTLY! My stars, I think he gets it!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

Hillary and her Gang of Miscreants did not tell people that she was running the State Department off a cowboy server in her basement.

The scales fall from your eyes!

Hallelujah!

Sorry, the absurdity is the pretense that everyone didn't know it, and that the state dept "couldn't find" emails.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I hadn't realized that such an exemption existed in the Federal Records Act or the regulations it authorized. It certainly sounds controversial (SG's fantasy added):

[a]gencies with access to external electronic mail systems shall ensure that federal records sent or received on these systems are preserved in the appropriate recordkeeping system, unless meanie Republicans are in control of investigative committees in Congress. [which is not to be construed as a law giving Republicans carte blanche license to abuse their power or this law on fishing expeditions to attack their political opponents.]

ftfy