Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[NoahFence]

I have documented her crimes in detail in this thread and its predecessor parts. There is plenty to convict her. It is a crime, in and of itself, that she wasn't prosecuted. There's currently an 18% or so probability that you'll eventually be forced to take your head out of the sand.

HAHAHA

 

[Newtons Bit]

I dont think she will get nailed on crime(s). What you can compellingly argue though is that her exclusive use of the server effectively hampered freedom of information act requests and that falls squarely on record keeping regulations and dependent on how strict they were at the time she was in charge. Bottom line is the position she's vying for right now is determined by vote. Not a traditional job interview. Many of the standards that would apply to employees of major firms wont be applied to the criteria for a presidential election. Certainly not in the same manner even though I think they should be.... the security issues are serious enough on their own that any additional time spent as part of an administration HAS to be addressed. Whether that happens or not I'm doubtful

She told the FBI that she didn't know what the little (c) next to paragraphs meant. Martha Stewart went to jail for that kind of lie.

 

[Ziggurat]

I actually agree with that, and in other forums (and in person), I have said as much to my far more-Hillary-loving friends.

In my own shorthand, which is by definition insufficient but good for brevity:

There is plenty in the email thing for which one can seriously fault Clinton; there is precious little to convict her.

Given that the FBI's investigation was hobbled from the start, the fact that they didn't find something to prosecute her with doesn't mean she didn't do anything worth prosecuting.

 

[Garrette]

Given that the FBI's investigation was hobbled from the start, the fact that they didn't find something to prosecute her with doesn't mean she didn't do anything worth prosecuting.

Even granting your first clause, which I do not, it certainly doesn't mean that she did.

 

[sunmaster14]

Seems like there is some turmoil at both the FBI and the DOJ because of Comey's decision (probably made before the investigation even had begun) not to prosecute Hillary:

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

...

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”

“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”

Isn't it weird that no news sources left of Fox have covered this?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... I will continue to be amazed at those who try to gloss over her server issues even in cases where criminality isnt the primary concern

You are confusing not being outraged beyond all outrage with glossing over.

I'm concerned how poorly the government and the two major parties are with email and internet security.

I'm not outraged that a single person had a home server. So far it seems that's the one source that hasn't been hacked.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Given that the FBI's investigation was hobbled from the start, the fact that they didn't find something to prosecute her with doesn't mean she didn't do anything worth prosecuting.

You have no evidence of this.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Seems like there is some turmoil at both the FBI and the DOJ because of Comey's decision (probably made before the investigation even had begun) not to prosecute Hillary:



Isn't it weird that no news sources left of Fox have covered this?

No. This is the same FOX news that had "anonymous sources" telling us how many agents would be walking off the job if she wasn't prosecuted, how there were "100's of agents" working on her case, and how she was going to be indicted "any day now."

Meh.

This is a conspiracy theory that fits your bias, so you agree with it, nothing more.

ETA: thought it was funny that two "sources" contradicted each other - one claiming it was unanimous, the other saying it wasn't. But yeah, spot on

 

[Ziggurat]

You have no evidence of this.

Yes, actually, I do. The fact that they had to ask nicely for evidence in exchange for immunity instead of being able to compel the production of that evidence demonstrates that I'm right.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, actually, I do. The fact that they had to ask nicely for evidence in exchange for immunity instead of being able to compel the production of that evidence demonstrates that I'm right.

So imaginary evidence then. Got it.

 

[The Big Dog]

So imaginary evidence then. Got it.

Rule of so!

 

[Ziggurat]

So imaginary evidence then. Got it.

So you have an imaginary counter-argument then. Got it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced it submitted questions to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concerning her email practices. Clinton’s answers, under oath, are due on September 29. On August 19, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch further discovery on the Clinton email matter and ordered Clinton to answer the questions “by no later than thirty days thereafter….” Under federal court rules, Judicial Watch is limited to twenty-five questions.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...linton-written-answers-oath-due-september-29/

Keep up the good work judicial watch!

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...new-hillary-clinton-email-answers-given-oath/

Judicial Watch today released received responses under oath from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concerning her email practices. Judicial Watch submitted twenty-five questions on August 30 to Clinton as ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.


Perhaps TBD can do us a favor and post the smoking gun that surely will be found in her answers...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Seems like there is some turmoil at both the FBI and the DOJ because of Comey's decision (probably made before the investigation even had begun) not to prosecute Hillary:


Isn't it weird that no news sources left of Fox have covered this?

It is wierd that there appears to be no news source for this story outside of fox. Every link I checked referred back to fox.

If comey was so blatantly lying, wouldn't more than one agent would come out and say say so to other news organizations, considering they "unanimously" wanted her indicted ?? And why would they wait so long ?

I look forward to more "theories"

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Rule of so!

So you have an imaginary counter-argument then. Got it.

Thanks for the chuckle Ziggurat

 

[sunmaster14]

It is wierd that there appears to be no news source for this story outside of fox. Every link I checked referred back to fox.

If comey was so blatantly lying, wouldn't more than one agent would come out and say say so to other news organizations, considering they "unanimously" wanted her indicted ?? And why would they wait so long ?

I look forward to more "theories"

My theory is that the mainstream media don't want to report on the story because they don't want to hurt Hillary's chances of winning. They consider Trump losing the election to be way more important than any journalistic integrity they might have retained (which, admittedly, was barely detectable even before the campaign).

There's actually been a lot of interesting stuff that has come out in the last few weeks, from Wikileaks, Judicial Watch, and the Congressional investigation of the FBI investigation. Almost none of it has shown up in mainstream news sources.

Instead we have wall-to-wall coverage of the fact that Trump is the sleazy womanizer that everybody knew he was already, conveniently peaking one month before the election when all of this stuff had been out in the open for years. Just as an aside, I remember several raunchy conversations between Howard Stern and Donald Trump that I heard with my own ears (having listened to quite a bit of Stern during my one hour long morning drive to work for 8 straight years).

Anyhoo, I've seen rumblings from various "FBI-connected" people in the right-wing blogosphere for some time about deep disenchantment within the FBI due to Comey's kneecapping of the investigation. I would have been shocked if there weren't frankly. Having spent a little time working in a classified environment, I know how seriously most people in those places take national security. Hillary's (and her cronies') success in skating away from this mess must really stick in those people's craws, regardless of their political leanings.

 

[NoahFence]

Have patience.


First thing's first - eliminate the threat to America (Trump)

then go after Hillary. I doubt the republican't congress will take much prodding there.

 

[Ziggurat]

Thanks for the chuckle Ziggurat

She wanted to play the "So" game, who am I not to oblige her?

 

[Steve]

My theoryis that the mainstream media don't want to report on the story because they don't want to hurt Hillary's chances of winning. They consider Trump losing the election to be way more important than any journalistic integrity they might have retained (which, admittedly, was barely detectable even before the campaign).

There's actually been a lot of interesting stuff that has come out in the last few weeks, from Wikileaks, Judicial Watch, and the Congressional investigation of the FBI investigation. Almost none of it has shown up in mainstream news sources.

Instead we have wall-to-wall coverage of the fact that Trump is the sleazy womanizer that everybody knew he was already, conveniently peaking one month before the election when all of this stuff had been out in the open for years. Just as an aside, I remember several raunchy conversations between Howard Stern and Donald Trump that I heard with my own ears (having listened to quite a bit of Stern during my one hour long morning drive to work for 8 straight years).

Anyhoo, I've seen rumblings from various "FBI-connected" people in the right-wing blogosphere for some time about deep disenchantment within the FBI due to Comey's kneecapping of the investigation. I would have been shocked if there weren't frankly. Having spent a little time working in a classified environment, I know how seriously most people in those places take national security. Hillary's (and her cronies') success in skating away from this mess must really stick in those people's craws, regardless of their political leanings.

This is not a theory. Theories are backed up with reliable evidence. This is more like unfounded speculation.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You are confusing not being outraged beyond all outrage with glossing over.

I'm concerned how poorly the government and the two major parties are with email and internet security.

I'm not outraged that a single person had a home server. So far it seems that's the one source that hasn't been hacked.

I'm not amazed by people who aren't outraged just because someone had a home server. I'm amazed by the fact that people try to make it out that just because nothing happened it makes the risks she took as a high level state official acceptable by any measure. I am equally disturbed that people would not only find it acceptable, but argue that there are legitimate reasons to use those setups and take those risks knowingly, as well as knowingly creating impediments to the government's ability to abide by it's own record keeping laws.

You can argue all you want about how you think her set up was superior, great, unhacked, etc.... fact of the matter is even if you can argue that what she did didn't violate the spirit of the law, she certainly took a risk that no responsible entity would ever allow. But here we are, actually having a discussion that debates whether she did anything wrong at all... Forget whether or not she broke the law... you're telling me basically that her decision was fine because nothing bad happened. No, her decisions were still stupid. She was just "fortunate" nothing happened to make her liable for her actions.