Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Roger Ramjets said:
No. I have extensively reviewed every post in this thread. So far no evidence of misconduct has been presented.

Sez you.

Yet I can't find those posts. How can this be?
Click to expand...
It appears the evidence of misconduct was the possibility of misconduct. Color me unconvinced.
 
16.5 said:
Sigh. Yes actually, American courts change the burden where there is evidence of misconduct in connection with the retention and production of documents.
Click to expand...

Maybe she needed a private email acct. so she could stay off the radar while managing the Benghazi cover-up.

Otherwise "Clinton had private email acct." ain't gonna rock the world for very long, no matter how hard you spin it.

It seems like, eventually, Republicans will have to offer something besides guns, war, religion and fear.

But maybe not. America is a fading power, and American living standards are in decline. The US public is terrified of everything from Ebola to ISIS, and the US gov't showcases its global impotence on a daily basis. Maybe a purely reactionary stance will be enough to carry the electorate in such a climate.

You can hope, eh?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
No. I have extensively reviewed every post in this thread. So far no evidence of misconduct has been presented.

Sez you.

Yet I can't find those posts. How can this be?
Click to expand...

Color me unsurprised that you were unable to find evidence of misconduct in this thread.

Take a look back at the article I posted regarding State Departments failure to turn over documents to Gawker, because Hilary failed to turn over the documents in her possession.

Put this in perspective, Hilary basically converted US Government documents when she became a private citizen.

If Joe Sixpack did that, he'd be in prison. Clinton is "negotiating" with the US Government regarding what she will turn over.

Put in jail for a couple of days, and we'll see whether we can shake loose the government's property.
 
wareyin said:
Did the government have that requirement at the time in question? Seems from reading this thread that it did not.
Click to expand...

The rules for record-keeping were in existence during her term in office.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politics/clinton-email-review-wrongdoing/index.html

The National Archives and Records Administration, the government agency that regulates the Federal Records Act, issued guidance in 2009 -- the same year Clinton took over at State -- that allowed agency employees to use personal accounts as long as they ensured "that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

Waiting for a request that came 2 years after she left office doesn't fit that criteria.
 
Leftus said:
The rules for record-keeping were in existence during her term in office.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politics/clinton-email-review-wrongdoing/index.html

The National Archives and Records Administration, the government agency that regulates the Federal Records Act, issued guidance in 2009 -- the same year Clinton took over at State -- that allowed agency employees to use personal accounts as long as they ensured "that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

Waiting for a request that came 2 years after she left office doesn't fit that criteria.
Click to expand...

That's an odd source to use to support your point.

From your link:

However, it is currently unclear whether Clinton broke a State guideline dating back to 2005 that suggested "normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an (authorized information system), which has the proper level of security control."

Those guidelines were filled with exemptions that could allow Clinton to use a private account.
Click to expand...
"Under federal regulations, there is no prohibition on using a personal email for official business as long as any records are preserved," the official said. "Reports claiming that by using personal email she is automatically in violation of that FAM [Foreign Affairs manual] are inaccurate."
Click to expand...

The National Archives and Records Administration, the government agency that regulates the Federal Records Act, issued guidance in 2009 -- the same year Clinton took over at State -- that allowed agency employees to use personal accounts as long as they ensured "that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."
Click to expand...
 
that allowed agency employees to use personal accounts as long as they ensured "that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.
Click to expand...

But they weren't "preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system". Not unless Hillary's private servers count as the "appropriate agency recordkeeping system".
 
Matthew Cline said:
But they weren't "preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system". Not unless Hillary's private servers count as the "appropriate agency recordkeeping system".
Click to expand...
Evidence that federal records were not preserved in an appropriate agency recordkeeping system?

Why are we even having this debate? Oh yeah, because we need something to pin on Hillary. :rolleyes:
 
Matthew Cline said:
But they weren't "preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system". Not unless Hillary's private servers count as the "appropriate agency recordkeeping system".
Click to expand...

This, and it bears repeating that she was a private citizen for the last two years.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Evidence that federal records were not preserved in an appropriate agency recordkeeping system?
Click to expand...

Wait, so:

1) The emails that were requested of Hillary aren't federal records?

2) The emails requested of Hillary were already in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system, but for some reason the government requested them from Hillary rather than using its own archive?

3) Something else?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Evidence that federal records were not preserved in an appropriate agency recordkeeping system?

Why are we even having this debate? Oh yeah, because we need something to pin on Hillary. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You think the new york times was looking to pin something on Hillary???:jaw-dropp
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Clinton doesn't need to do anything actually wrong for the low-information (R) to decide she most be guilty of some damn thing or another, mostly informed by echo chamber noise of dubious accuracy.
Click to expand...

This is astounding. President Clinton was getting BJ's in the oval office. His wife road his coat tales everywhere he went, they are a team of corruption that will only intensify if she's elected.
 
The reason Bill was able to get BJs in the Oval Office is because he was still on the job at 1am. The only 20th century presidents I would bet never ever got a bj on the job are Carter, because he is the most (possibly only) honest, decent, moral person to hold the job and Nixon because nobody would want him. Not that Bill getting willingly seduced by an admitted crush-junkie has anything to do with Hillary. And the only reason that even came to light is because an investigation of a land deal that metastasized into a "we're sure they did SOMEthing wrong, we just haven't found it yet" fishing expedition.
 
And thanks for proving my assertion. Bill's BJs affect hillary's record only in the echo chamber and only get brought up by the extra-low-information "voter."
 
quixotecoyote said:
That's an odd source to use to support your point.

From your link:
Click to expand...

Not if you understand the point I was making and the point I was not making. I've never said that she couldn't use a private account. In fact, I said the email account is the red herring.

I said she had a responsibility under the law to provide the emails to the archives and make available to the public under the FOIA laws. A duty she never met during her time in office. And never met until about 2 years after she left.

Even if everything in the emails are totally legit and she turned over everything she should have, it's the tardiness of doing so that is the problem. Her library book was over due and people are fighting over her right to check out the book or not and ignoring the fact she returned the book way past due. Whilst this library never had a time limit on when the book was due during her tenure, I find 6 years from day it was first checked out to be unacceptable.

Had the national archives not requested her to return her book, when do you think she planned on returning it? How much time should any politician be allowed to comply with the law?
 
ApolloGnomon said:
And thanks for proving my assertion. Bill's BJs affect hillary's record only in the echo chamber and only get brought up by the extra-low-information "voter."
Click to expand...

Oh I see, I suppose it doesn't alarm you that Hillary is married to a serial rapist/predator?
Remember Hillary saying if you elect one, you get two?

Why is it so difficult for liberals to admit what these two people are?
 
Last edited:
I mean beyond the obvious bit where she's ugly as a mud fence and any guy who already likes to get a bit of strange would take a BJ from a titsie groupie instead of wandering half way across the White House to wake her up for a midnight screw.

Or did you have something else in mind?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom