RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[DavidJames]

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.

My point was simple and obvious. I was questioning their lack of concern about due process, preferring guilty by Internet justice. I'm surprised anyone would think my point was lacking substance while proclaiming guilt w/o it was fine.

Actually, no I'm not. ;(

 

[sunmaster14]

My point was simple and obvious. I was questioning their lack of concern about due process, preferring guilty by Internet justice. I'm surprised anyone would think my point was lacking substance while proclaiming guilt w/o it was fine.

There is no such thing as due process in the Internet justice system, let alone a presumption of innocence. And that's a good thing from the perspective of seeking truth. Those principles are meant to protect the innocent from punishment at the expense of allowing the guilty to go free. They are not meant to get to the truth with the highest degree of precision.

 

[DavidJames]

There is no such thing as due process in the Internet justice system, let alone a presumption of innocence.

Of course, anyone with a browser and Internet connection can "presume" to the world whatever they want. Another lesson I tried to teach my children was just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

 

[sunmaster14]

Of course, anyone with a browser and Internet connection can "presume" to the world whatever they want. Another lesson I tried to teach my children was just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

What are some legitimate reasons not to do something that you can do?

 

[DavidJames]

What are some legitimate reasons not to do something that you can do?

Off topic, start a new thread.

 

[sunmaster14]

Off topic, start a new thread.

Then I think your complaints about internet justice are off-topic too. I don't think you can make claims/complaints, and then deem the rebuttals to those claims/complaints off-topic. Well, you can do that I suppose, but that doesn't mean you should.

 

[The Big Dog]

Then I think your complaints about internet justice are off-topic too. I don't think you can make claims/complaints, and then deem the rebuttals to those claims/complaints off-topic. Well, you can do that I suppose, but that doesn't mean you should.

Nowhere near patronizing enough. Try it like this:

Of course, anyone with a browser and Internet connection can "declare" to the world that the response is "off topic." Another lesson I tried to teach my children was just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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.

Asking me that question is like asking me what brand of puke I love eating for breakfast. Do you honestly think I have anything positive to say about either Trump or Sanders? Granted, I know this thread is about Hillary and her emails, but aside from a terribly incompetent judgement call I can't call it deal breaker off handedly. I literally have nothing positive to say about my GOP alternative to Clinton, nor have I anything to say for Clinton herself.

 

[uke2se]

Asking me that question is like asking me what brand of puke I love eating for breakfast. Do you honestly think I have anything positive to say about either Trump or Sanders? Granted, I know this thread is about Hillary and her emails, but aside from a terribly incompetent judgement call I can't call it deal breaker off handedly. I literally have nothing positive to say about my GOP alternative to Clinton, nor have I anything to say for Clinton herself.

So you actually meant to say that the alternatives to Clinton are "equally bad", and not "not much better". The wording there is important, as it opens you up to explain the virtues of Donald Trump.

 

[The Big Dog]

Judicial Watch President: State Dept. Official’s Deposition Was ‘Embarrassing’ For Hillary

“The testimony was not helpful for Clinton or the State Department,” Fitton told TheDC in a phone interview.

Lukens is of interest to Fitton and Judicial Watch because of emails that he sent just days into Clinton’s term in which he proposed the idea of setting up a stand-alone computer so that she could email from the agency’s executive offices....

Also, I think we should go ahead (but will await your green light) and set up a stand-alone PC in the Secretary’s office, connect to the internet (but not through our system) to enable her to check her emails from her desk,” he wrote in the email.

Not through our system...

Not through our system....

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Judicial Watch President: State Dept. Official’s Deposition Was ‘Embarrassing’ For Hillary



Not through our system...

Not through our system....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/ex-aide-to-hillary-clinton-testifies-on-email.html

Thomas Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, who took part in Mr. Lukens’s deposition, said afterward that he could not discuss the substance of the testimony because of the ground rules set by Judge Sullivan.

But Mr. Fitton predicted that once the testimony is publicly released — perhaps as early as next week — it would show “why the State Department and Mrs. Clinton have slow-rolled this and withheld a complete explanation of what went on with her email system. What we learned is going to be embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton and the administration — maybe more than embarrassing.”

He refused to elaborate, citing the court’s restrictions.

Top HDS sufferer Tom Fitton can't actually tell us what was said, but would like us to believe his impartial assurances that it will be "embarrassing"

 

[The Big Dog]

Judicial Watch President: State Dept. Official’s Deposition Was ‘Embarrassing’ For Hillary



Not through our system...

Not through our system....

by the way, the heroes at Judicial Watch want to expedite the release of the transcript, but:

Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee, agreed to the State Department’s request that information provided during the depositions not be shared with the news media or released in any other fashion. The State Department was also granted a three day window to review transcripts of the depositions for any classified information.

Gee, the Obama Administration slow walking the release of information? Must be a day that ends in "y." Most transparent administration ever my ass.

 

[plague311]

Judicial Watch President: State Dept. Official’s Deposition Was ‘Embarrassing’ For Hillary



Not through our system...

Not through our system....

So what does that mean?

 

[plague311]

by the way, the heroes at Judicial Watch want to expedite the release of the transcript, but:



Gee, the Obama Administration slow walking the release of information? Must be a day that ends in "y." Most transparent administration ever my ass.

What the hell? They're releasing it aren't they? So they aren't transparent because they aren't doing it as fast as you want them to? Man, anything you can do to make it sound as bad as possible, huh?

 

[Ziggurat]

What the hell? They're releasing it aren't they?

No, they aren't.

"Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee, agreed to the State Department’s request that information provided during the depositions not be shared with the news media or released in any other fashion."

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, they aren't.

I don't believe that's correct, but I could be wrong.

"Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee, agreed to the State Department’s request that information provided during the depositions not be shared with the news media or released in any other fashion."

I believe this quote just refers to anyone talking to the media about it, which is why Fitton said he couldn't say anything.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/u...-hillary-clinton-testifies-on-email.html?_r=0
After the deposition, State Department lawyers invoked a procedure to review Mr. Lukens’s testimony for three days before deciding whether to ask the judge to keep any parts of it confidential for security or legal reasons.

 

[plague311]

No, they aren't.

"Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee, agreed to the State Department’s request that information provided during the depositions not be shared with the news media or released in any other fashion."

And 16.5's complaint was about slow walking, not denying release.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Notice the latest 'leak' from a right wing source is about 'embarrassment' not indictment.

Interesting.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Notice the latest 'leak' from a right wing source is about 'embarrassment' not indictment.

Interesting.

 

[The Big Dog]

Notice the latest 'leak' from a right wing source is about 'embarrassment' not indictment.

Interesting.

This was not a "leak." Judicial Watch's action is a "civil action" not a "criminal action."

Judicial Watch is a "party" to the "civil" action.

Judicial Watch, and a few others like Jason Leopold, were instrumental in getting to the bottom of Hillary's cowboy server and the steps she took to thwart FOIA.

The FBI is in charge of the indictment.

Pretty simple stuff.