Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[Fudbucker]

If Obama wore a crown, he'd have a lot easier time getting his program through Congress.

The Presidential pardon question is interesting. I doubt that Clinton will be indicted for anything; at worst, there might be some kind of misdemeanor agreement that she failed to secure documents and promises not to do it again. But there wouldn't be anything to stop the President from pardoning her, and anybody who works for her.

Bush I pardoned half-a-dozen Reagan officials, including the SecDef, accused of Iran-Contra misconduct.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11344320

Clinton pardoned big contributor Marc Rich, Whitewater figure Susan McDougal, ex-HousingSec Henry Cisneros, and CIA Director John Deutch.

Obama could easily say that after reviewing the matter, he's determined that Clinton had no criminal intent and did no harm to U.S. interests, and that therefore a pardon was appropriate. I don't even think it would hurt her much against Trump.

That would cost her the election. I would never vote for Hillary under those circumstances. I doubt I'm unique. On the other hand, Republicans would crawl over broken glass to vote against pardoned Hillary Clinton. Turnout on their side would probably be universal.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Oh, the cackling of Hillary as she did after the sodomization and murder of Qadaffi tells us all we need to know in conjunction with one key fact:

Obama not only knew, but used the email himself. So whatever you are charging Hillary with for communicating with the President this way... uh, what about the president himself?

This is so blindingly obvious even if he only knew but did not act. He is in charge. Why did he tolerate it? Obama comes out looking bad no matter what.

So Obama has been out there excusing Hillary, saying there was no foul. How can he know? What he really means is that HE committed no foul in doing it himself and tolerating his Secretary of State conducting her corruption, using political office for personal gain, instead of putting a stop to it.

So he has to pardon, even if he can impede indictments up to his last day in office.

If I understood anything in that gibberish ... are you claiming you believe the president will pardon clinton for .... something ? Sending him emails ?

 

[Newtons Bit]

That would cost her the election. I would never vote for Hillary under those circumstances. I doubt I'm unique. On the other hand, Republicans would crawl over broken glass to vote against pardoned Hillary Clinton. Turnout on their side would probably be universal.

Vs. Trump? I bet you would. I would.

 

[plague311]

That would cost her the election. I would never vote for Hillary under those circumstances. I doubt I'm unique. On the other hand, Republicans would crawl over broken glass to vote against pardoned Hillary Clinton. Turnout on their side would probably be universal.

I had a hard time believing you actually meant any of this. Your claim of being unique is completely and entirely justified. Besides, don't lie, you wouldn't vote for Hillary anyway. This is just the cherry.

 

[Fudbucker]

I had a hard time believing you actually meant any of this. Your claim of being unique is completely and entirely justified. Besides, don't lie, you wouldn't vote for Hillary anyway. This is just the cherry.

Of course I would and I plan to. But not if she's indicted. AND pardoned? Sorry. I'll write in Mickey Mouse or something.

 

[plague311]

Of course I would and I plan to. But not if she's indicted. AND pardoned? Sorry. I'll write in Mickey Mouse or something.

I never said I didn't understand what you wrote, I said I didn't believe it. It's all a red herring anyway. No matter what people think, there's a minuscule chance she'll face anything more than typical right wing whining.

 

[Fudbucker]

I never said I didn't understand what you wrote, I said I didn't believe it. It's all a red herring anyway. No matter what people think, there's a minuscule chance she'll face anything more than typical right wing whining.

As long as we're being completely outlandish, let's suppose a video of Clinton surfaced where she's taking a bribe. And is indicted.

Still vote for her? Are there any circumstances where you wouldn't support her?

 

[wareyin]

As long as we're being completely outlandish, let's suppose a video of Clinton surfaced where she's taking a bribe. And is indicted.

Still vote for her? Are there any circumstances where you wouldn't support her?

Does anyone else get tired of all the efforts to associate Clinton with criminal activity? From outlandish hypotheticals, to attempts to get others to create more hypotheticals, to constantly hyping of the (un)likelihood of an indictment, it just gets old. Can you find a new drum to beat?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

As long as we're being completely outlandish, let's suppose a video of Clinton surfaced where she's taking a bribe. And is indicted.

Still vote for her? Are there any circumstances where you wouldn't support her?

As long as we're being completely outlandish ... against Trump - probably very few scenarios.

But that's just me

 

[Meadmaker]

That would cost her the election. I would never vote for Hillary under those circumstances. I doubt I'm unique. On the other hand, Republicans would crawl over broken glass to vote against pardoned Hillary Clinton. Turnout on their side would probably be universal.

Needing a pardon would indeed cost her the election, unless her opponent was Donald Trump, in which case she would still stand a fighting chance. I would vote for the ghost of Richard Nixon before I would vote for Trump.



But unless something significant comes out, she won't need a pardon. I think this talk of indictment is wishful thinking.



I read that scathing Inspector General report on the use of email by current and former Secretaries of State, and it wasn't all that scathing. There was a mild rebuke in it.

As for the handling of classified data, unless there's something a whole lot more significant than anything in the press so far, there's nothing. There are rumours of big leaks and major breaking news Real Soon Now, and if those rumours are true, then that could change things. Right now, there's nothing worth paying attention to. I know that a lot of people really, really, want to see something, but it isn't there.

You'd* be better off focusing on the foundation stuff. That, at least, sure looks a lot like influence peddling, and a lot of voters would be none too happy about it if the GOP could drive the point home, but this email story is just nothing. Hillary haters have latched onto it because it might include the word "indictment" some day, but it looks to me like that isn't going to happen.

People apparently didn't learn the lesson of Bill Clinton. They tried so hard to find anything they could to get some wrong doing, and they ended up just looking stupid. They actually voted to impeach the President, and what did they accomplish? They lost a few congressional seats, and they got hundreds of thousands of junior high school US history teachers to say, "Can we please talk about Andrew Johnson?"

*Not meant to be directed at Fudbucker or any other specific individual.

 

[Fudbucker]

As long as we're being completely outlandish ... against Trump - probably very few scenarios.

But that's just me

I get that. Trump would be such a catastrophe we have a moral obligation to prevent him from being president. When is that moral obligation trumped by the failings of the other candidate?

As a Bernie supporter, I realize my guy lost and I have to suck it up and vote for someone not as progressive. It won't be that hard. If the FBI report says Clinton broke some minor rules, I'll still pick her over Trump. However, if the FBI recommends charges, and the case looks really damaging, I would have a real problem voting for her.

I don't think it will come to that though. I don't believe the FBI could keep something this high profile this air-tight with a dozen agents working on it. They either aren't sure themselves what to do, or are just tidying things up.

 

[The Big Dog]

Cause of Action sues Secretary of State John Kerry and the National Archivist

for failing to preserve former Secretary Clinton’s electronic records

In the first federal action filed to mandate retrieval of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s records and declare her actions unlawful, Cause of Action filed a lawsuit today to compel Secretary of State John Kerry and U. S. Archivist David Ferriero to comply with their statutory duty to initiate legal action through the Attorney General for the recovery of federal records former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unlawfully removed from the State Department and stored on her personal server. Federal law requires these agency heads to notify Congress when such action has been taken.

http://causeofaction.org/cause-of-a...legality-of-hillary-clintons-email-practices/

Sounds like Wiki leaks already has them

 

[sunmaster14]

Needing a pardon would indeed cost her the election, unless her opponent was Donald Trump, in which case she would still stand a fighting chance. I would vote for the ghost of Richard Nixon before I would vote for Trump.



But unless something significant comes out, she won't need a pardon. I think this talk of indictment is wishful thinking.



I read that scathing Inspector General report on the use of email by current and former Secretaries of State, and it wasn't all that scathing. There was a mild rebuke in it.

As for the handling of classified data, unless there's something a whole lot more significant than anything in the press so far, there's nothing. There are rumours of big leaks and major breaking news Real Soon Now, and if those rumours are true, then that could change things. Right now, there's nothing worth paying attention to. I know that a lot of people really, really, want to see something, but it isn't there.

You'd* be better off focusing on the foundation stuff. That, at least, sure looks a lot like influence peddling, and a lot of voters would be none too happy about it if the GOP could drive the point home, but this email story is just nothing. Hillary haters have latched onto it because it might include the word "indictment" some day, but it looks to me like that isn't going to happen.

People apparently didn't learn the lesson of Bill Clinton. They tried so hard to find anything they could to get some wrong doing, and they ended up just looking stupid. They actually voted to impeach the President, and what did they accomplish? They lost a few congressional seats, and they got hundreds of thousands of junior high school US history teachers to say, "Can we please talk about Andrew Johnson?"

*Not meant to be directed at Fudbucker or any other specific individual.

I'm pretty surprised by your take on things. I'd be interested to know what you think Nixon did that was worse than what Hillary has done.

 

[DavidJames]

I'm pretty surprised by your take on things. I'd be interested to know what you think Nixon did that was worse than what Hillary has done.

Your phrasing is pathetic.
That correct phrasing should be things that Nixon admitted (explicitly or implicitly) vs. What HRC has admitted.

Of course things with HRC may change, then we can change the question.

 

[wareyin]

Cause of Action sues Secretary of State John Kerry and the National Archivist

for failing to preserve former Secretary Clinton’s electronic records

In the first federal action filed to mandate retrieval of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s records and declare her actions unlawful, Cause of Action filed a lawsuit today to compel Secretary of State John Kerry and U. S. Archivist David Ferriero to comply with their statutory duty to initiate legal action through the Attorney General for the recovery of federal records former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unlawfully removed from the State Department and stored on her personal server. Federal law requires these agency heads to notify Congress when such action has been taken.

http://causeofaction.org/cause-of-a...legality-of-hillary-clintons-email-practices/

Sounds like Wiki leaks already has them

Koch funded, former Darrell Issa employee hates Clinton enough to file another lawsuit? What a shock.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm pretty surprised by your take on things. I'd be interested to know what you think Nixon did that was worse than what Hillary has done.

Got caught.








In all seriousness, no one has the goods on Hillary right now, at least with what we know.

I've read the email report. There's nothing there worth mentioning. As for mishandling classified data, there is nothing worth mentioning in anything that has so far been publicly revealed.

Of all the things that right wingers are foaming at the mouth about, only the potential influence peddling via the Clinton Foundation is a story that is currently in the press and might be given legs, if only your party's wolf packs would back off on the stupid things they are pursuing now.

 

[Tony Stark]

You may be right. However, I'll tell you this. If the report is not thorough in justifying why she's not being indicted, specifically and very, very clear, then she will be impeached not later than three months in office, if she wins. If you don't mind going thru that hell, then by all means vote for her.

I won't predict what will happen if King Obama pardons her. I fear for the future of my country.

It is slightly possible that the Republicans (assuming the Trump disaster doesn't cost them the House) will impeach her. Then the Senate doesn't convict and the Republicans look stupid and vindictive. You know, like the last time they impeached a Clinton.

Are you going to vote for the guy that is about to go to trial for his fraudulent "university"? LOL

 

[plague311]

As long as we're being completely outlandish ... against Trump - probably very few scenarios.

But that's just me

^ this.

Plus, I've never once stated that I'm voting for Hillary. I'm more than likely voting third party or writing something in. Considering I live in North Dakota, which is about as blood red as it can be, my Presidential vote doesn't really matter that much. I'm mostly voting for legal weed and local elections. Which, again in all honesty, doesn't matter to me as much since I'm moving to Colorado to accept a Network Administrator job.

ETA: As I said before, lets not pretend that Trump isn't having his legal issues. He's being sued by multiple states for *********** over people to the tune of $30,000. Say what you will about this email junk, but there's no evidence that it hurt Joe Workingman or the U.S. in general. It's all speculation. Trump literally ********** over people in the middle class, then said, "You can't give in to these people" like he doesn't owe them anything. So what I do know is I'd never vote for Trump, I just haven't decided if I'm voting for Hillary or not.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Got caught.








In all seriousness, no one has the goods on Hillary right now, at least with what we know.

I've read the email report. There's nothing there worth mentioning. As for mishandling classified data, there is nothing worth mentioning in anything that has so far been publicly revealed.

Of all the things that right wingers are foaming at the mouth about, only the potential influence peddling via the Clinton Foundation is a story that is currently in the press and might be given legs, if only your party's wolf packs would back off on the stupid things they are pursuing now.

Really? Discussing an future drone strike on a non-classified network doesn't sound like something worth mentioning?

 

[wareyin]

^ this.

Plus, I've never once stated that I'm voting for Hillary. I'm more than likely voting third party or writing something in. Considering I live in North Dakota, which is about as blood red as it can be, my Presidential vote doesn't really matter that much. I'm mostly voting for legal weed and local elections. Which, again in all honesty, doesn't matter to me as much since I'm moving to Colorado to accept a Network Administrator job.

ETA: As I said before, lets not pretend that Trump isn't having his legal issues. He's being sued by multiple states for *********** over people to the tune of $30,000. Say what you will about this email junk, but there's no evidence that it hurt Joe Workingman or the U.S. in general. It's all speculation. Trump literally ********** over people in the middle class, then said, "You can't give in to these people" like he doesn't owe them anything. So what I do know is I'd never vote for Trump, I just haven't decided if I'm voting for Hillary or not.

Are you certain? Because I have it on good authority from certain posters that you are a "shillary", as is anyone else who doesn't get their news from Fox or further right sources.