RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[TheL8Elvis]

That about sums up the quality of the argument we have come to expect around here from Hillary supporters.

And your quoting random things out of context about sums up the quality of the evidence we have come to expect around here from HDS sufferers.

say you read the latest news?

That news from 2 months ago which is irrelevant to the discussion .. yes, what about it ?

 

[sunmaster14]

Do you ever get tired of using your mind reading as an argument? The more you post the more I notice that the majority of your posts are you claiming what judges, or people in higher up positions would do just based on what you think.

See what you call mind-reading, I would call application of logic and inference. I guess it's similar to how advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to a primitive culture.

If what you say is the case, why haven't they taken that course of action? Whatever that stupid watch groups name is hasn't been shy in doing everything in its power to this point, why wouldn't they follow your simple, laid out plan?

Because litigation is an extremely slow, laborious process. You have to go through the proper channels, and it takes years and lots and lots of money, and, in this case, you have the federal government (which has virtually unlimited legal resources at its disposal) fighting you every step of the way.

I'm going to assume because you're extremely wrong about something, that's generally the way it goes. You know, Occam's Razor and all.

Occam's Razor has no relevance to the issue at hand. If you want to know which way to bet, however, I'd advise you to bet on me being right, pretty much when it comes to anything.

 

[plague311]

See what you call mind-reading, I would call application of logic and inference. I guess it's similar to how advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to a primitive culture.

Ah, so it's not that you're mind reading, it's that your absolute knowledge just seems magical to me. Solid position to take.

Because litigation is an extremely slow, laborious process. You have to go through the proper channels, and it takes years and lots and lots of money, and, in this case, you have the federal government (which has virtually unlimited legal resources at its disposal) fighting you every step of the way.

It's been slow this whole time and they've kept going. They've gone through the proper channels and kept going. They've spent the money up to and including this point, and kept going. They've been fighting the federal government, with their resources, every stop of the way, and have kept going. Meaning everything you brought up was completely useless in supporting your argument.

I would be that if you thought this up, they probably have someone on their team that thought it up as well. If they aren't doing it I would bet that there are other reasons why. I'm sure you can use your powers to come up with other excuses as to why.

Occam's Razor has no relevance to the issue at hand. If you want to know which way to bet, however, I'd advise you to bet on me being right, pretty much when it comes to anything.

I invoked Occam's Razor because you are implying they should do something and you're obviously out on a reason why that's not happening. Occam's Razor would say...because you're wrong. It makes the most sense.

Do you have a record on how many times you're right? I've seen a few threads around here recently that would lead me to believe that you might not be as right as you think you are. Then again, visions of grandeur and what have you.

 

[DavidJames]

Do you have a record on how many times you're right? I've seen a few threads around here recently that would lead me to believe that you might not be as right as you think you are.

When it comes to being right, my money is on the groundhog, much safer.

 

[sunmaster14]

When it comes to being right, my money is on the groundhog, much safer.

Punxatawney Phil is only right 39% of the time, and I'm much better than that. Of course, he's only right so little due to a misinterpretation by humans. He's really right 61% of the time. I still have him beat though.

 

[Tony Stark]

So has Hillary been indicted yet?

LOL

 

[DavidJames]

Punxatawney Phil is only right 39% of the time, and I'm much better than that. Of course, he's only right so little due to a misinterpretation by humans. He's really right 61% of the time. I still have him beat though.

Phil is a ground hog.

 

[sunmaster14]

Phil is a ground hog.

Phil could be a pile of entrails, for all I care. But if he's right 61% of the time (or wrong 61% - doesn't matter for a binary choice), he's a pretty valuable predictor.

 

[The Big Dog]

FBI files another in camera secret document claiming that turning over documents related to Hillary's cowboy server it would compromise the FBI's ongoing criminal investigation into Hillary's misconduct.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2813379-FBI-response-to-Leopold-motion-for-redacted.html

Interestingly, they won't even disclose the name of the individual FBI agent who drafted and signed the declaration because that would "interfere with the investigation." That would be the case if for example it was in the FBI's Public Integrity Unit, which of course would be extremely revealing as would an indication that this is an "International" investigation.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

FBI files another in camera secret document claiming that turning over documents related to Hillary's cowboy server it would compromise the FBI's ongoing criminal investigation into Hillary's misconduct.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2813379-FBI-response-to-Leopold-motion-for-redacted.html

Interestingly, they won't even disclose the name of the individual FBI agent who drafted and signed the declaration because that would "interfere with the investigation." That would be the case if for example it was in the FBI's Public Integrity Unit, which of course would be extremely revealing as would an indication that this is an "International" investigation.

Or, the much more obvious answer .... they are simply a bunch of self-righteous ******** who think they are above the law.

Either way, it's quite clear that the theory espoused below was simply complete ********.

not only is the “information being submitted to the court classified, but its really more than that, it is information that if revealed there exists ‘reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged.'”

Here is the whole story about the FBI's investigation

 

[The_Animus]

FBI files another in camera secret document claiming that turning over documents related to Hillary's cowboy server it would compromise the FBI's ongoing criminal investigation into Hillary's misconduct.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2813379-FBI-response-to-Leopold-motion-for-redacted.html

Interestingly, they won't even disclose the name of the individual FBI agent who drafted and signed the declaration because that would "interfere with the investigation." That would be the case if for example it was in the FBI's Public Integrity Unit, which of course would be extremely revealing as would an indication that this is an "International" investigation.

But... but.... It's not an investigation, it's a security review. Clinton said so herself so it must be true!

 

[The Big Dog]

But... but.... It's not an investigation, it's a security review. Clinton said so herself so it must be true!

I had forgotten that...

Exemption (7)(A) provides for the withholding of a law enforcement record the disclosure of which would reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. This exemption protects an active law enforcement investigation from interference through premature disclosure. Therefore, determining the applicability of this Exemption 7(A) requires a two-step analysis focusing on (1) whether a law enforcement proceeding is pending or prospective and (2) whether release of information about it could reasonably be expected to cause some articulable harm. See, e.g., NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 224 (1978) (holding that government must show how records "would interfere with a pending enforcement proceeding").

 

[TheL8Elvis]

But... but.... It's not an investigation, it's a security review. Clinton said so herself so it must be true!

Cool. It doesn't make this:

Tony are you actually paying attention to what is going on anymore? Or have you given up on that in favor of straight trolling?

From what I understand the latest info basically says that Clinton claimed 30k of her e-mail were personal and contained no classified info so she deleted them but now based on the DOJ's own submission, they did in fact have classified information on it.

So she lied, and deleted information she knew she wasn't supposed to.

Is that the kind of thing you support?

Any less wrong.

 

[The Big Dog]

The State Department withheld a vital Hillary Clinton email for two years that would have showed that Hillary was using her cowboy server for confidential government business and should have been delivered to Judicial watch in November of 2014, which predates the time that Hillary and her lawyers claimed that the 30,000 "non-personal" records were wiped off the server.

Judicial Watch, the group that successfully sued in federal court for Clinton’s emails, claims the Sept. 29, 2012 email was withheld from them in 2014 by the State Department because it showed she was not using a government account for State Department business. They received the document last week from the State Department.

“Upon further review, the Department has determined that one document previously withheld in full in our letter dated November 12, 2014 may now be released in part."

Now AFTER Judicial Watch announced the coverup, State reaches back to the old misbegotten ploy that their April 18, 2016 letter, quoted above was "erroneous" due to "administrative oversight" and that despite what they just wrote a week ago, that in fact State only got the email in July of 2015. Where has been since then? Who knows? Where did they get it? "shrug."

The good news? The new explanation is ********, the email was sent to Jacob Sullivan and Cheryl Mills and specifically has her State.gov email address on it. State had it all the time.

the email: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/JW-v.-State-withheld-2012-email-01242.pdf

background: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...y-clinton-benghazi-email-from-judicial-watch/

another bang up job by Judicial Watch!!!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The State Department withheld a vital Hillary Clinton email for two years that would have showed that Hillary was using her cowboy server for confidential government business and should have been delivered to Judicial watch in November of 2014, which predates the time that Hillary and her lawyers claimed that the 30,000 "non-personal" records were wiped off the server.

Judicial Watch, the group that successfully sued in federal court for Clinton’s emails, claims the Sept. 29, 2012 email was withheld from them in 2014 by the State Department because it showed she was not using a government account for State Department business. They received the document last week from the State Department.

“Upon further review, the Department has determined that one document previously withheld in full in our letter dated November 12, 2014 may now be released in part."

Now AFTER Judicial Watch announced the coverup, State reaches back to the old misbegotten ploy that their April 18, 2016 letter, quoted above was "erroneous" due to "administrative oversight" and that despite what they just wrote a week ago, that in fact State only got the email in July of 2015. Where has been since then? Who knows? Where did they get it? "shrug."

The good news? The new explanation is ********, the email was sent to Jacob Sullivan and Cheryl Mills and specifically has her State.gov email address on it. State had it all the time.

the email: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/JW-v.-State-withheld-2012-email-01242.pdf

background: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...y-clinton-benghazi-email-from-judicial-watch/

another bang up job by Judicial Watch!!!

Do you have any evidence the state had that particular email Nov 12, and it wasn't actually, you know, a clerical error ?

LOL, actually, we already know the answer. No, you don't have any evidence.

IN FACT:

http://freebeacon.com/issues/watchdog-says-state-department-withheld-clinton-email-two-years/
Update 5:06 P.M.: A State Department official told the Free Beacon that the November 2014 date in the court filing was an administrative error. The State Department said it first received the document in June 2015, and disclosed the decision to withhold in July 2015. The department said it would be filing a correction.

“The State Department generally does not comment on matters in litigation,” said a State Department official. “Here, however, there is confusion arising from an administrative error in recent correspondence in which the Department said that the document in question was withheld in November 2014. That is incorrect. The complete facts surrounding this document are set forth in a public court filing from July 2015. As described in the attached filing, the Department received the document in June 2015 from members of former Secretary Clinton’s senior staff, and did not withhold it until that time. The Department regrets any confusion and will be sending corrected correspondence to Judicial Watch.”

Probably this:https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-co...partment-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment-1242.pdf

So, yeah. A giant nothing-burger.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

FBI files another in camera secret document claiming that turning over documents related to Hillary's cowboy server it would compromise the FBI's ongoing criminal investigation into Hillary's misconduct.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2813379-FBI-response-to-Leopold-motion-for-redacted.html

Interestingly, they won't even disclose the name of the individual FBI agent who drafted and signed the declaration because that would "interfere with the investigation." That would be the case if for example it was in the FBI's Public Integrity Unit, which of course would be extremely revealing as would an indication that this is an "International" investigation.

Because it's Comey, and he wants to keep his job after Hillary is elected president.

 

[The_Animus]

Because it's Comey, and he wants to keep his job after Hillary is elected president.

I'm glad you admit that Hillary is that sort of person.

 

[Tony Stark]

It seems Hillary wasn't indicted today. Not to fret, there is always tomorrow!

 

[The Big Dog]

FBI files another in camera secret document claiming that turning over documents related to Hillary's cowboy server it would compromise the FBI's ongoing criminal investigation into Hillary's misconduct.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2813379-FBI-response-to-Leopold-motion-for-redacted.html

Interestingly, they won't even disclose the name of the individual FBI agent who drafted and signed the declaration because that would "interfere with the investigation." That would be the case if for example it was in the FBI's Public Integrity Unit, which of course would be extremely revealing as would an indication that this is an "International" investigation.

Here's a bit more detail, including a follow up with Leopold's lawyers:

http://lawnewz.com/important/doj-claims-unsealing-fbi-declaration-could-jeopardize-clinton-email-investigation/

The investigation is so sensitive that they won't even say who is working on it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It seems Hillary wasn't indicted today. Not to fret, there is always tomorrow!

Predictions are worthless tripe as it is. Mocking critics in abstract of course is no better.