RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can distill this whole thread to a couple of claims:

Being investigated by the FBI is not good when you're running for office. It's prima facie bad because people know the FBI doesn't mess around when it investigates. They only will do it if they think something fishy might be going on. No one would voluntarily want to be on the receiving end of an FBI probe, so for Hillary to be in that situation suggests she might have done something illegal.

That being said, no one knows what the FBI knows, and no one knows what the DoJ will do if the FBI recommends criminal charges be filed. They've kept a tight lid on this so far.

We can all speculate, but to say it's likely/unlikely she'll be indicted is not supported by the evidence yet. At this point, it simply is a real possibility, and the DNC better have some contingency plans in place if it happens.
 
16.5 said:
The earliest cert is March. You claim something earlier? Prove it.
Click to expand...

plague311 said:
Your claim is a blog post by a company selling a product. We should at least include your evidence if you're going to headboard raise on such weak standards.
Click to expand...

STRIKE ONE! Nothing earlier.

protip: whining about a "company" "selling" a "product" does not move the date to earlier than late March 2009.
 
16.5 said:
STRIKE ONE! Nothing earlier.

protip: whining about a "company" "selling" a "product" does not move the date to earlier than late March 2009.
Click to expand...
Protip: Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. Have you found any evidence to support your claim, or are you stuck attempting to shift the burden of proof?
 
wareyin said:
Protip: Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. Have you found any evidence to support your claim, or are you stuck attempting to shift the burden of proof?
Click to expand...

Strike two! Nothin earlier than March!

Protip: all evidence shows late March. Got something earlier? Post it, truther.
 
wareyin said:
Stop shifting the burden of proof. Your claim, you support it.
Click to expand...

Prove that there is NO evidence, rather than you showing a certificate earlier than March? You call THAT shifting the burden?

Wow. Obviously strike three. Bit embarrassing for the Hilla-truthers tho.
 
16.5 said:
Prove that there is NO evidence, rather than you showing a certificate earlier than March? You call THAT shifting the burden?

Wow. Obviously strike three. Bit embarrassing for the Hilla-truthers tho.
Click to expand...
Strike 3, indeed. You have no evidence to support your claim, and are stuck attempting to shift the burden of proof. Hitchens' Razor:The burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with whoever made the claim; if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Until you provide evidence, your claim is dismissed.
 
wareyin said:
Strike 3, indeed. You have no evidence to support your claim, and are stuck attempting to shift the burden of proof. Hitchens' Razor:The burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with whoever made the claim; if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Until you provide evidence, your claim is dismissed.
Click to expand...

Irony meter explodes at the speed of light.

Earliest cert is March. You got something earlier? Post it.

Wareyin utterly failed.
 
16.5 said:
Irony meter explodes at the speed of light.

Earliest cert is March. You got something earlier? Post it.

Wareyin utterly failed.
Click to expand...
16.5 made the claim. 16.5 fails to support his claim. 16.5, your claim is dismissed unless you support it. Can you?
 
16.5 said:
Irony meter explodes at the speed of light.

Earliest cert is March. You got something earlier? Post it.

Wareyin utterly failed.
Click to expand...

The funny part is the irony meter should be broken. If your argument is that we are truthers, lets compare the sides shall we?

You are implying that there was no cert before March. You are citing a blog that didn't list their tactics, didn't list their method, and has absolutely no peer review to it at all. In other words, what they say could be true, but without anyone recreating the study it's all meaningless. That's the scientific method.

We are implying that we just straight up don't know. The few of us haven't said that there was one, just that it's easily likely since Office was equipped to simply make one whenever.

So yeah, play the truther game. It definitely works to your advantage LoL.
 
plague311 said:
The funny part is the irony meter should be broken. If your argument is that we are truthers, lets compare the sides shall we?

You are implying that there was no cert before March. You are citing a blog that didn't list their tactics, didn't list their method, and has absolutely no peer review to it at all. In other words, what they say could be true, but without anyone recreating the study it's all meaningless. That's the scientific method.

We are implying that we just straight up don't know. The few of us haven't said that there was one, just that it's easily likely since Office was equipped to simply make one whenever.

So yeah, play the truther game. It definitely works to your advantage LoL.
Click to expand...

Huh, no I am flat out saying that there is zero evidence at all that there was a cert before March and the insipid claims that there might have been is truther garbage.

Yer out!
 
16.5 said:
Huh, no I am flat out saying that there is zero evidence at all that there was a cert before March and the insipid claims that there might have been is truther garbage.

Yer out!
Click to expand...

Right, you're handwaving away fact and logic to accept unsubstantiated claims by a company that's selling a product, while simultaneously accepting their blog as fact. :thumbsup:
 
Fudbucker said:
You can distill this whole thread to a couple of claims:...
Click to expand...
I would distill it down to these two:

On the right you have partisans including legal scholars and other experts who've found specific laws that have (maybe) been broken and they are certain this is evidence of criminality that should result in criminal prosecution.

On the left you have partisans including legal scholars and other experts who while they find some technical violations see nothing that rises to the level of criminal activity and they can give example after example of other officials who violated the same laws, (for example: Classified Data Found in Personal Email of Colin Powell and Aides to Condoleezza Rice), and were not only not prosecuted, they weren't even investigated.


As I mentioned before, I am a consultant sometimes re workplace law including laws that mandate worker safety, and patient confidentiality. These laws are violated all the time. It's the nature of any workplace that tries to stay in compliance with the law but employees are human. Violating these laws results in notices to correct the deficiencies. They don't result in criminal charges. And some of them are critical laws, we aren't talking about paperwork here.

There was no criminal intent, there was no harm done to the country. It's not a low level worker that is going to end up demoted or fired.

From my perspective as a consultant involved in employee violations of the law regarding the workplace, I do not see any indictment arising from this. In fact, I find many of the partisan experts who insist laws were broken, Clinton is a criminal to be incredibly biased and unrealistic.

I suspect Comey is not among their ilk and expect him to treat the case rationally, it just doesn't rise to the level of a criminal indictment.
 
Last edited:
Drop the personalisation of the discussion, the topic is not and never is (in this thread) one another. If you can't post without insulting or belittling each other don't post and keep to the topic of this thread - you will find there is an entire section dedicated to the 2016 USA Presidential campaign.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Funny, I checked the Judicial Watch press room (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/) and thier front page, but I didn't find any news about this ruling...

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...win-in-clinton-email-lawsuit-over-bad-wording
State notches win in Clinton email lawsuit over bad wording
The State Department on Wednesday scored a victory in one of the multiple, ongoing open records lawsuits related to Hillary Clinton’s personal email server because the request was overly broad.

I wonder why that isn't mentioned on thier site ...
 
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis said:
Funny, I checked the Judicial Watch press room (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/) and thier front page, but I didn't find any news about this ruling...

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...win-in-clinton-email-lawsuit-over-bad-wording
State notches win in Clinton email lawsuit over bad wording
The State Department on Wednesday scored a victory in one of the multiple, ongoing open records lawsuits related to Hillary Clinton’s personal email server because the request was overly broad.

I wonder why that isn't mentioned on thier site ...
Click to expand...

Why do you think it would be mentioned on their site? It does not advance the public's interest in government transparency, which has, of course, been treated with contempt by the State Department since 2009.

Here is an interesting article avid readers should read:

In addition, regardless of Clinton's excuses, the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws. No president, no secretary of state, no public official at any level is above the law. She chose to ignore it, and must face the consequences.
Click to expand...

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinio...on-open-government-b99696012z1-374014501.html

Now Judicial Watch should take that ruling, issue a corrected FOIA and go after the documents again.
 
16.5 said:
Why do you think it would be mentioned on their site? It does not advance the public's interest in government transparency, which has, of course, been treated with contempt by the State Department since 2009.

.
Click to expand...

TheL8Elvis said:
Is this intended to be a serious question - Why should judicial watch report the results of their own lawsuits ???
Click to expand...

asked and answered.

The day everyone puts every little temporary setback on their resume is the day your question makes sense.

But kudos to the United States Government! This is indeed your time to gloat about forcing a FOIA requester to file suit and mangaing to keep information out of the hands of the public!

BIG DAY FOR INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENT AND SNEERING DISREGARD FOR TRANSPARENCY! HOORAY!
 
16.5 said:
asked and answered.

The day everyone puts every little temporary setback on their resume is the day your question makes sense.
Click to expand...

I GUESS ITS JUST JUDICIAL WATCH SNEERING DISREGARD FOR TRANSPARENCY OF THEIR OWN LAWSUITS.

16.5 said:
But kudos to the United States Government! This is indeed your time to gloat about forcing a FOIA requester to file suit and mangaing to keep information out of the hands of the public!

BIG DAY FOR INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENT AND SNEERING DISREGARD FOR TRANSPARENCY! HOORAY!
Click to expand...

Except the judge said it was due to the incompetence of Judicial watch for asking for the wrong thing, not the government.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom