RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grizzly Bear said:
I will only say this.... This election cycle is a complete cluster bugger. As many negatives as hillary has the alternatives in my opinion are not much better...
Click to expand...

In my opinion, Hillary belongs in jail (or a suspended sentence). But even if she was in jail, I'd vote for her over Trump. :boggled:

I hate this election.
 
here is the schedule for the discovery into Hillary's cowboy server and why the Government of the United States allowed her to treat laws about government accountability and transparency with unmitigated contempt:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...e-deposition-testimony-clinton-email-lawsuit/

You might as well stick Hillary on the end of the schedule because the watchdogs at Judicial Watch have already petitioned the court for her dep too.

wonder how many of those jamokes will take the fifth.
 
16.5 said:
here is the schedule for the discovery into Hillary's cowboy server and why the Government of the United States allowed her to treat laws about government accountability and transparency with unmitigated contempt:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...e-deposition-testimony-clinton-email-lawsuit/

You might as well stick Hillary on the end of the schedule because the watchdogs at Judicial Watch have already petitioned the court for her dep too.

wonder how many of those jamokes will take the fifth.
Click to expand...

Can they even take the fifth? I thought this was a civil trial against the Department of State. There's even going to be a 30(b)(6) deposition. That's where they depose somebody appointed by the government to, in effect, be the Department of State and answer questions as if he had all of the institutional knowledge of the department in his head. I'm pretty sure that guy, i.e. the Department of State, can't take the fifth.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Can they even take the fifth? I thought this was a civil trial against the Department of State. There's even going to be a 30(b)(6) deposition. That's where they depose somebody appointed by the government to, in effect, be the Department of State and answer questions as if he had all of the institutional knowledge of the department in his head. I'm pretty sure that guy, i.e. the Department of State, can't take the fifth.
Click to expand...

yes, you absolutely can take the fifth in a civil setting.

the 30b6 deponent cannot, of course, but I certainly expect that Hillary's cowboy server wrangler Brian Pagliano will do so.

Of course it is the Clintons, they might know what the definition of "is" is, but they loves them some perjury!:D
 
sunmaster14 said:
Can they even take the fifth? I thought this was a civil trial against the Department of State.
Click to expand...

Google says yes.
Fifth Amendment privilege “can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory.” Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445 (1972).


sunmaster14 said:
There's even going to be a 30(b)(6) deposition. That's where they depose somebody appointed by the government to, in effect, be the Department of State and answer questions as if he had all of the institutional knowledge of the department in his head. I'm pretty sure that guy, i.e. the Department of State, can't take the fifth.
Click to expand...

Without evidence to the contrary, I would think he can, but IDK.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Google says yes.
Fifth Amendment privilege “can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory.” Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445 (1972).
Click to expand...

Of course the actual words of the 5th Amendment (i.e. "... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ...") refer only to criminal cases, but I think the courts have ruled that it can be invoked in any type of proceeding, provided that there is a legitimate risk of self-incrimination. What matters are the specific questions being asked, not the nature of the proceeding, but of course in a civil action against a government agency, I suspect it would be difficult to claim one is at risk of self-incrimination. But who knows? It would be kind of ridiculous if they could take the fifth and answer no questions whatsoever.

Without evidence to the contrary, I would think he can, but IDK.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm pretty sure that a government agency can't be criminally prosecuted, so there is no worry about self-incrimination there.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Of course the actual words of the 5th Amendment (i.e. "... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ...") refer only to criminal cases, but I think the courts have ruled that it can be invoked in any type of proceeding, provided that there is a legitimate risk of self-incrimination. What matters are the specific questions being asked, not the nature of the proceeding, but of course in a civil action against a government agency, I suspect it would be difficult to claim one is at risk of self-incrimination. But who knows? It would be kind of ridiculous if they could take the fifth and answer no questions whatsoever.

Well, I'm pretty sure that a government agency can't be criminally prosecuted, so there is no worry about self-incrimination there.
Click to expand...

Yes, that makes sense. That also limits what kinds of questions and answers you'll have though, I would think.

IOW - I don't understand what kind of questions you may be envisioning that would be damaging to Clinton and might cause whoever this 30(6)(b) respondent to want to "plead the 5th"
 
uke2se said:
So HDS then.
Click to expand...

If this is something you attribute to my point then you should search the thread for my posts and read them and then explain to me how you reached the conclusion that such a point is Hillary derangement syndrome. That term has become such a catch on to anything that's anti-hillary that it's gotten really old and generally doesn't justify repeating my previous arguments to if fhats the only argument.

DavidJames said:
Not a big fan of due process, eh?
Indeed
Click to expand...
As always your arguments are so full of substance...
 
Grizzly Bear said:
As always your arguments are so full of substance...
Click to expand...

Careful there. I was recently reported and had my post removed for pointing out the same thing. Apparently it's considered attacking the poster rather than the argument even when said poster makes no arguments or counter arguments.
 
Please don't confuse not agreeing with a comment as no "substance" or no "arguments or counter arguments". All my posts make a point. It's sad you feel the need to attack me.
 
My remark was only referring to the content of the counterargument. Your character is absolutely off limits period - end of story. Not going there. Either report me or don't. But I'm moving on regardless without further comment. That should both clarify my point and diffuse the off topic tangent.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
If this is something you attribute to my point then you should search the thread for my posts and read them and then explain to me how you reached the conclusion that such a point is Hillary derangement syndrome. That term has become such a catch on to anything that's anti-hillary that it's gotten really old and generally doesn't justify repeating my previous arguments to if fhats the only argument.
Click to expand...

No, I attributed that to Mike!'s reply to my question about your post. My question still stands to you.

What's better about the alternatives to Hillary? Especially the GOP alternatives.
 
uke2se said:
No, I attributed that to Mike!'s reply to my question about your post. My question still stands to you.

What's better about the alternatives to Hillary? Especially the GOP alternatives.
Click to expand...

Turning it back to the subject of the thread:

they didn't ineptly run the State Department out of a cowboy server in their basement and then lie and dissemble about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom