Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[The Big Dog]

That doesn't address the question of whether she did anything illegal.

You've claimed that she deleted them fraudulently but provided no evidence to support the fraudulent part.

The purpose of course was to destroy this claim made in this thread,

Re the supposed 33,000 missing emails, they weren't all missing. That number is false.

This claim was deliberately false.

Moving on from there,

Hillary claimed that the 33,000 she deliberately destroyed were personal. We know now that this excuse was FALSE, as various investigators have discovered 100's of Hillary's State Department emails through other sources.

see e.g.: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...secured-emails-special-favors-clinton-donors/

This is of course public knowledge, but I am as always happy to make sure that the record is accurate.

 

[The Big Dog]

Your case is that the person who lost the election may have done shady things. She was investigated by the FBI and by Congress. Nothing proved. ......

What was proved that she was a liar. And as such, we have President Trump

As far as your, Trump derail/ad hominem, there are dozens of Trump threads and I urge you in the strongest possible terms to use those thread to make your case and I will stand foursquare behind you!

Godspeed.

 

[NoahFence]

That article was from yesterday, do keep up.

So what?

 

[The Big Dog]

So what?

So, the head of data at the DNC was irate at Hillary's finger pointing.

Not Safe for Work language

 

[NoahFence]

So, the head of data at the DNC was irate at Hillary's finger pointing.

Not Safe for Work language

So what?

 

[wareyin]

So what?

So, just after whining about off-topic posts, TBD has to make an off-topic post.

 

[The Big Dog]

In another bit of auspicious timing, just moments ago Judicial Watch released more new emails.

“These shocking new Clinton emails show why the Justice Department should reevaluate, reopen, or reinvigorate Clinton, Inc. investigations,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The casual violation of laws concerning classified material and noxious influence peddling show the Clinton State Department was ‘corruption central’ in the Obama administration. No wonder Clinton’s allies in the State and Justice Departments had been slow-walking and hiding these emails.”

Judicial Watch: New Clinton Emails Show Classified Information Sent to Clinton Foundation Employees

So what a 'skeptic" might say?

So, the whole damn group ought to be in jail.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That she did illegal things is incontrovertible: the law required her to turn over her emails for archiving and record keeping, which she did not do.

Not her personal emails.

 

[NoahFence]

TBD, totally silent on Trump giving out his unsecured probate phone number to world leaders....

 

[Meadmaker]

In another bit of auspicious timing, just moments ago Judicial Watch released more new emails.



Judicial Watch: New Clinton Emails Show Classified Information Sent to Clinton Foundation Employees

So what a 'skeptic" might say?

So, the whole damn group ought to be in jail.

There was an interesting article I saw over the weekend. It seems that three government employees who leaked classified information to the press have been identified. These are leakers during the first few months of the Trump administration.

The article didn't give names, but it said they would be fired.

Now, isn't that interesting? It didn't say they would be prosecuted. This wasn't a case of mishandling classified data. These people gave it away, on purpose, and yet, no charges filed. What's up with that?

It will be interesting to see how that develops.

 

[Newtons Bit]

There was an interesting article I saw over the weekend. It seems that three government employees who leaked classified information to the press have been identified. These are leakers during the first few months of the Trump administration.

The article didn't give names, but it said they would be fired.

Now, isn't that interesting? It didn't say they would be prosecuted. This wasn't a case of mishandling classified data. These people gave it away, on purpose, and yet, no charges filed. What's up with that?

It will be interesting to see how that develops.

There's a narrow band of topics that can result in criminal prosecution for mishandling (intentionally or through negligence). IIRC, those topics are national defense, cryptology methods and human intelligence sources.

 

[The Big Dog]

There was an interesting article I saw over the weekend. It seems that three government employees who leaked classified information to the press have been identified. These are leakers during the first few months of the Trump administration.

The article didn't give names, but it said they would be fired.

Now, isn't that interesting? It didn't say they would be prosecuted. This wasn't a case of mishandling classified data. These people gave it away, on purpose, and yet, no charges filed. What's up with that?

It will be interesting to see how that develops.

well that seems a bit vague, but I can understand why people would want to throw the book at them, right after they finish with Hillary, huh?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

well that seems a bit vague, but I can understand why people would want to throw the book at them, right after they finish with Hillary, huh?

Buttery males.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Whatever happened to the hearings about Benghazi/Emails anyway? Did they covfefe?

 

[NoahFence]

Whatever happened to the hearings about Benghazi/Emails anyway? Did they covfefe?

They did their job. Fooled fools into thinking there was something there just long enough to be a talking point in the election.

It worked, so so need to continue.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They did their job. Fooled fools into thinking there was something there just long enough to be a talking point in the election.

It worked, so so need to continue.

Most of us know this, so why are certain people pretending that this was about anything else?

 

[NoahFence]

Because certain people are idiots.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Because certain people are idiots.

Anyone who voted for DJT because they think Hillary Clinton is liar is certainly an idiot, and so is anyone who thinks that's a convincing rationalization for hating Hillary.

 

[The Big Dog]

Anyone who voted for DJT because they think Hillary Clinton is liar is certainly an idiot, and so is anyone who thinks that's a convincing rationalization for hating Hillary.

The fact that Hillary Clinton was and is a liar was not a convincing reason not to vote for her?

That is absurd.

 

[NoahFence]

The fact that Hillary Clinton was and is a liar was not a convincing reason not to vote for her?

That is absurd.

You need to hang out with one of two people on a desert island for 4 years.

One was caught punching someone.
The other is a known rapist and mass murderer.

Who do you pick?

YOU pick the mass murderer.

*yes, I know Trump isn't a mass murderer. Yet. But it seems lying isn't really what you're concerned with, so bear with me.