Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[The Big Dog]

I imagine you were pained to see that Whitey Bulger was finally arrested, even though he was a "washed up husk of no further significance" as well?

Or does that only count to political opponents that you personally deem to be "washed up husks"?

Whitey Bulger = Hillary Clinton?

Hmm, had not thought about that, but that is one hell of a fine comparison.

The wheels of justice turn slowly, perhaps one day soon we will see Hillary keeping Whitey company in the Big House.

great points

 

[snoop_doxie]

Um, I said do not take my word for it, read the statute.

That article you posted was a *********** dumpster fire as it invloves a prosecution under another section of the statute that DOES NOT MENTION GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

Yes, it certainly does mention gross negligence.

I will have to assume now that you are incapable of seeing anything
that does not agree with your hyper partisan view.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Ad hominem fallacy.

 

[phiwum]

This is not a justice system, this is the Internet, so you don't decide the innocence or guilt of anybody.

You have just made an argument against your own position, namely that you on the Internet can be a justice system.

Honestly, this is nonsense.

If we believe you, then the hijackers committed no crime on 9/11, because they were never prosecuted. You and I know bloody well that a crime was committed and (barring a remarkably fanciful conspiracy) we know who did it.

It is true that Hillary was not convicted, just as it's true that the hijackers were not convicted. It does not follow that Hillary broke no law. All that follows is that there is no official judgment that she did so.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, it certainly does mention gross negligence.

I will have to assume now that you are incapable of seeing anything
that does not agree with your hyper partisan view.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Ad hominem fallacy.

Here you go folks, a copy of the 1941 Supreme court opinion, which in Footnote 1 specifically details the language of the statute under which the defendant was indicted.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/19/case.html#F1

We have a claimant who asserts that the case and statutes mention "gross negligence" that I am "incapable of see anything" and have a "hyper partisan view."

I simply and humbly stand by what I said before.

Gentle readers, I invite you to Judge for yourself.

Faithfully submitted,

TBD

 

[WilliamSeger]

No, he did not consider gross negligence which was why he was wrong.

Yes, he did, and he explicitly rejected it in his testimony. You think he was wrong. So?

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, he did, and he explicitly rejected it in his testimony. You think he was wrong. So?

Sounds like, hell IS, after the fact rationalizing after it was pointed out that there was no intent requirement in the statute.

Further:

“Clearly intentional conduct,” Comey said of Petraeus. “Knew what he was doing was a violation of the law.”

So did Hillary

 

[NoahFence]

Whitey Bulger = Hillary Clinton?

Hmm, had not thought about that, but that is one hell of a fine comparison.

The wheels of justice turn slowly, perhaps one day soon we will see Hillary keeping Whitey company in the Big House.

great points

Except Hillary isn't hiding from the law, is she?

Nope.

Strange that. Perhaps it's because there are no republican lawmakers out to get her? Or anyone outside toothless keyboard warriors? Seems to me again- that right now is the time to get her.

Hell, even the president, the most insane and retarded piece of **** on the planet knows he's got nothing on her.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Sorry, but this is nonsense. One can break the law without being convicted. I broke the law decades ago when I drank beer before my 21st year. I was never convicted, but I certainly did break the law.

ETA: More interestingly, Aaron Hernandez was convicted of murder, but killed himself while awaiting appeal. In Massachusetts, when one dies after conviction but before a pending appeal, the conviction is vacated. Now, if we apply your reasoning, then it was true that he had committed murder before his suicide, but afterwards it was false that had done so.

Honestly, this is nonsense.

If we believe you, then the hijackers committed no crime on 9/11, because they were never prosecuted. You and I know bloody well that a crime was committed and (barring a remarkably fanciful conspiracy) we know who did it.

It is true that Hillary was not convicted, just as it's true that the hijackers were not convicted. It does not follow that Hillary broke no law. All that follows is that there is no official judgment that she did so.

You are a philosopher, right?!! So you know how truth, reason and logic works.
TBD claimed HRC committed a criminal offence; i.e. a crime. She has not committed a crime unless you accept that a crime in the context of this thread is and is not at the same time and in the same sense a sentence of guilt given by a court of law based on criminal law.
A sentence is not given by you, me or TBD here on the Internet.

As for you, you may have broken the law in an everyday sense, but you have not committed a crime unless you accept that a crime in the context of this thread is and is not at the same time and in the same sense a sentence of guilt given by a court of law based on criminal law.

As for Aaron Hernandez, he wasn't guilty, because all appeals wasn't done, so there was no final verdict and it would make sense to vacate the preliminary verdict, since there was no final verdict, because he died before the appeal had been decided. (Innocent until all appeals have been tried).

This leads to 9/11. The acts of people, who die, while committing a crime, can be view in this manner. If we trust the police to be honest, we accept the report of the police, because we don't hold a trial in a court of law in these cases.
So HRC is guilty as per 9/11, because she died in the act, while committing a crime?!! Well, no, 9/11 is not relevant because she is not dead. You do remember the phrase - equal under the law? So you want to apply a rule about dead people on HRC. Is that justice? Do we do that with other people?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Still an internet forum, where people like me cite case law to explain the law to people who thirst for knowledge.

I appreciate your doggedness on making sure people know that this forum is not a court!

kudos.

Have you cited actual law cases for what gross negligence means and connected them to the other words you claim are the same in a criminal sense?

If yes, please please cite the post, where you did that.
Otherwise you are just playing with words.

 

[The Big Dog]

Except Hillary isn't hiding from the law, is she?

Nope.

Strange that. Perhaps it's because there are no republican lawmakers out to get her? Or anyone outside toothless keyboard warriors? Seems to me again- that right now is the time to get her.

Hell, even the president, the most insane and retarded piece of **** on the planet knows he's got nothing on her.

Not prosecuting Hillary is not because they "have nothing on her," as I have already demonstrated in detail.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Not prosecuting Hillary is not because they "have nothing on her," as I have already demonstrated in detail.

No you haven't. You have to show that the relevant words in play have the same legal meaning and so far you haven't. This is the Internet and unless you can produce actual legal references, it means nothing as to what you think.

 

[The Big Dog]

Have you cited actual law cases for what gross negligence means and connected them to the other words you claim are the same in a criminal sense?

If yes, please please cite the post, where you did that.
Otherwise you are just playing with words.

Umm, I already did and you already replied to the post where I did so.

sheesh...

 

[The Big Dog]

No you haven't. You have to show that the relevant words in play have the same legal meaning and so far you haven't. This is the Internet and unless you can produce actual legal references, it means nothing as to what you think.

well i guess that is why I already did that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What the hell is a "cowboy server"?

I run my own email server in my home. Does that qualify as a cowboy server? It's in the closet in the living room, not a repurposed bathroom. Is that disqualifying?

Start here

 

[phiwum]

You are a philosopher, right?!! So you know how truth, reason and logic works.
TBD claimed HRC committed a criminal offence; i.e. a crime. She has not committed a crime unless you accept that a crime in the context of this thread is and is not at the same time and in the same sense a sentence of guilt given by a court of law based on criminal law.
A sentence is not given by you, me or TBD here on the Internet.

As for you, you may have broken the law in an everyday sense, but you have not committed a crime unless you accept that a crime in the context of this thread is and is not at the same time and in the same sense a sentence of guilt given by a court of law based on criminal law.

As for Aaron Hernandez, he wasn't guilty, because all appeals wasn't done, so there was no final verdict and it would make sense to vacate the preliminary verdict, since there was no final verdict, because he died before the appeal had been decided. (Innocent until all appeals have been tried).

This leads to 9/11. The acts of people, who die, while committing a crime, can be view in this manner. If we trust the police to be honest, we accept the report of the police, because we don't hold a trial in a court of law in these cases.
So HRC is guilty as per 9/11, because she died in the act, while committing a crime?!! Well, no, 9/11 is not relevant because she is not dead. You do remember the phrase - equal under the law? So you want to apply a rule about dead people on HRC. Is that justice? Do we do that with other people?

Let me address your final question first. I don't claim Clinton committed a crime. I know very little about the relevant law and I am perfectly willing to defer to Comey's opinion.

I disagree that we can say a person has committed a crime only if (iff?) he has been convicted. There is very little doubt that the (alleged) hijackers committed a crime and even less doubt that a crime was committed by someone. It is true that no one was convicted and so no court has declared that Atta, et al., committed a crime, but so what?

Criminal laws of the sort we are talking about state that it is illegal to do X, where X is the description of a kind of action. Anyone who does X has therefore broken the law and committed a crime, regardless of whether he is later convicted. In exactly the same way, a person who did not do X did not break that particular law, regardless of whether he is (wrongly) convicted.

Conviction doesn't make it a fact that a law was broken. Rather, conviction means that a court determined that a law was broken. Such determination doesn't make it so, any more than an experiment makes a law of nature true.

My post seems to be getting off-topic, so perhaps we shouldn't pursue this point further. My argument was not intended to show that Hillary was guilty of breaking the law, but rather that your argument that she did not do so (because she was not convicted) is, to be frank, a poor argument.

 

[phiwum]

Start here

I didn't see a definition, but just a use.

There is a server called "Cowboy" evidently, but it's a web server. And Trisha Yearwood evidently sells a cowboy server, but it's a set of three wooden dishes.

So, I'm afraid your pointer gave me no satisfaction.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I love this focusing on Clinton as if the election is still being fought and it's something of high importance. All it means is that when 2020 rolls around the GOP will suddenly realise that they didn't spend the last four years tarnishing whoever it is that the Dems put up next time.

 

[Meadmaker]

I love this focusing on Clinton as if the election is still being fought and it's something of high importance. All it means is that when 2020 rolls around the GOP will suddenly realise that they didn't spend the last four years tarnishing whoever it is that the Dems put up next time.

Unless it's Chelsea.


(I think I'm joking.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't have a clue why something so simple can't be understood.....

Me either. I am a consultant (as part of my clinical practice) for employers in regards to many regulatory laws involving workplace safety and infection control. Employers are almost never 100% in compliance with these laws. And only on rare occasions do employers get charged with crimes. And the employees that were not in compliance with said workplace law, even less often is it something criminal. And Comey confirmed my assessment of the situation when he said, "no prosecutor would prosecute this".

But none of these Yahoos in this forum, who believe because they can find a law (OMG) that was violated, understand that reality.

 

[The Big Dog]

Me either. I am a consultant (as part of my clinical practice) for employers in regards to many regulatory laws involving workplace safety and infection control. Employers are almost never 100% in compliance with these laws. And only on rare occasions do employers get charged with crimes. And the employees that were not in compliance with said workplace law, even less often is it something criminal. And Comey confirmed my assessment of the situation when he said, "no prosecutor would prosecute this".

But none of these Yahoos in this forum, who believe because they can find a law (OMG) that was violated, understand that reality.

"Yahoos in this forum."

The argument that Hillary Clinton was breaking "workplace" laws is utterly specious.

Ask Reality Winning about whether she was breaking 'workplace' laws.

Furthermore if one were to set up an entire system (i.e. an off site cowboy server) in order to evade laws governing your so called "workplace" (i.e. FOIA and government records laws) and in the process violate another set of laws (i.e. laws regarding maintaining classified documents) while lying about it (i.e. lying about it), they ought to throw the book at her.