Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
plague311 said:
Link

Anytime.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link.

"How many emails were in Mrs. Clinton’s account is not clear, and neither is the process her advisers used to determine which ones related to her work at the State Department before turning them over."

It's a step in the right direction, but it's not enough. There needs to be someone independent of her going through those emails to verify which ones need to go to State.

I'd feel even better if she hadn't violated the law and used a private email account to begin with, but this is Hillary, after all.
 
maxpower1227 said:
I'm starting to doubt that Eric Hoteham is a real person. I can't help but notice that his name is an anagram of "Oh, Hate Crime!", which is surely an indication that he was concocted as some sort of scheme on the part of (obviously racist) Democrats to incite a race war after Obama seizes all of the guns from white people.
Click to expand...

It's also an anagram for "A Hermetic Ho." Which makes more sense to me.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Fair enough. What about this though ?
Click to expand...

The total number of emails which have been provided is meaningless without knowing the total number of emails which had existed at one time. For example, what if there were 60,000 emails? Would you feel confident that the 5,000 emails which were missing were random? Or do you think there might be some selection bias involved?
 
sunmaster14 said:
The total number of emails which have been provided is meaningless without knowing the total number of emails which had existed at one time. For example, what if there were 60,000 emails? Would you feel confident that the 5,000 emails which were missing were random? Or do you think there might be some selection bias involved?
Click to expand...

I can absolutely see how a Republican would, as that is their innate position when it comes to democrats. Why assume innocence when it's so much easier to be confident in tampering?
 
Ziggurat said:
... I'd feel even better if she hadn't violated the law and used a private email account to begin with, but this is Hillary, after all.
Click to expand...


Could you please specify the law you believe she violated?

The law you likely have in mind is the Presidential Records Act, which was enacted in 1978.

But that law as passed did not forbid the use of private e-mail accounts by government officials, which is why other Secretaries of State (such as Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel) and numerous other government officials (such as Karl Rove) were able to use them.

It was not until 2014 that changes took effect forbidding the use of private e-mail accounts by government officials. That affects John Kerry, the current Secretary of State -- but it would not have applied to Hillary Clinton, since she left the office in 2013.

If you believe that Hillary Clinton violated the law, it would appear there are a whole bunch of other people who did so as well. The fact that these people have not been charged or convicted of law-breaking would indicate the behavior was not illegal at the time they engaged in it.

If the Presidential Records Act is not the law you have in mind, and you think there is some other law Hillary Clinton violated, please specify which law you are referring to and provide a link to its text.
 
plague311 said:
I can absolutely see how a Republican would, as that is their innate position when it comes to democrats. Why assume innocence when it's so much easier to be confident in tampering?
Click to expand...

Because we know that she did not turn over all of them.

That is not a "republican" position, that is among others The New York Times and Slate's position.
 
I think most reasonable people would say this sounds sketchy and merits an investigation.
 
Congress subpoenaed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's personal emails on Wednesday as part of its probe into the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks.The House Select Committee on Benghazi issued the subpoenas, and also sent letters to Internet companies informing them of "their legal obligation to protect all relevant documents."

/n.b. I am placing this here because it appears that this request is for ALL emails, including those covered by FOIA requests from, among others, AP and Gawker Media which do not relate to the Benghazi attacks.
 
Nova Land said:
Could you please specify the law you believe she violated?

The law you likely have in mind is the Presidential Records Act, which was enacted in 1978.

But that law as passed did not forbid the use of private e-mail accounts by government officials, which is why other Secretaries of State (such as Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel) and numerous other government officials (such as Karl Rove) were able to use them.

It was not until 2014 that changes took effect forbidding the use of private e-mail accounts by government officials. That affects John Kerry, the current Secretary of State -- but it would not have applied to Hillary Clinton, since she left the office in 2013.

If you believe that Hillary Clinton violated the law, it would appear there are a whole bunch of other people who did so as well. The fact that these people have not been charged or convicted of law-breaking would indicate the behavior was not illegal at the time they engaged in it.

If the Presidential Records Act is not the law you have in mind, and you think there is some other law Hillary Clinton violated, please specify which law you are referring to and provide a link to its text.
Click to expand...

Well, since she didn't turn over the emails until late 2014, and only upon request of the State Department in an attempt to follow the law, she did not follow the law by turning them over when she was there.

The rules at the time, according to the Times stated, "Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records." and she intentionally violated those regulations.

Being caught and then turning over the records is not the same as turning over the records which she was required to do. It was neither the letter nor the spirit of the law to only turn over official government records when asked almost two years after leaving office.
 
The_Animus said:
I think most reasonable people would say this sounds sketchy and merits an investigation.
Click to expand...

Oh? What exactly sounds sketchy about it? The 55,000 emails she turned over? The fact she's complied, and openly said she would testify before this, what is it now? Like, 16th investigation? The fact that she has so much to hide that the democrat sitting on the commission is pushing for the emails to be available to the public?

I understand 16.5's.....position, but please. Explain to me in your own words exactly what is sketchy and what should be investigated? I've got time.

ETA: 16.5, I wasn't addressing you, please don't reply. I am fully aware of your position on the nefarious and evilness of the satan which is Hillary Clinton. I don't need anymore insight, thank you.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
Oh? What exactly sounds sketchy about it? The 55,000 emails she turned over? The fact she's complied, and openly said she would testify before this, what is it now? Like, 16th investigation? The fact that she has so much to hide that the democrat sitting on the commission is pushing for the emails to be available to the public?

I understand 16.5's.....position, but please. Explain to me in your own words exactly what is sketchy and what should be investigated? I've got time.

ETA: 16.5, I wasn't addressing you, please don't reply. I am fully aware of your position on the nefarious and evilness of the satan which is Hillary Clinton. I don't need anymore insight, thank you.
Click to expand...

Try not to use strawmen. I have posted New York Times, Slate and Gawker. You have posted nothing. Her aides turned over selected emails, not all emails, years after State Department represented to Congress and Courts that they had fully complied with their obligations under FOIA and Subpoenas.

They did not.

Post something about 50,000 emails again, no one cares.

Sorry to respond, tho, I am certain my comprehensive knowledge of the facts gets in your way.

Oh yeah, Hillary 2016!

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
16.5 said:
Try not to use strawmen. I have posted New York Times, Slate and Gawker. You have posted nothing. Her aides turned over selected emails, not all emails, years after State Department represented to Congress and Courts that they had fully complied with their obligations under FOIA and Subpoenas.

They did not.
Click to expand...

I should believe you over them...because?

16.5 said:
Post something about 50,000 emails again, no one cares.
Click to expand...

55,000 emails, actually and apparently you care enough to constantly comment on it. That's why I asked you not too, you and I will never get anywhere. You suffer from the same exact issues that you blame the opposition. This isn't about the truth for you. It isn't about 4 dead American's or you would have shown disdain for the war that killed thousands, or all the attacks for the last decade or more. This has nothing to do with any of that for you. It's purely partisan. Anything that the Repubs can do to "stick it" to Hillary. That's all you care about, and it's so blatantly clear with every single post you make that it's comical you deny it.

16.5 said:
Sorry to respond, tho, I am certain my comprehensive knowledge of the facts gets in your way.
Click to expand...

Comprehensive knowledge, huh? Reading through the Benghazi thread, and this one (which should be reported as it's the same damn thread, you're just bypassing the moderation), it appears that you've persuaded absolutely no one with this knowledge. You've parroted the same stuff for months, now you've got a new bone to sink your teeth into. The only problem is that, outside of a few reporters, everyone is saying what a non-story this is, and how it affects nothing in the overall aspect of the event. It's a huge deal to those that are represented by the elephant, it's nothing for the most part. Every Secretary before her did it, there was no law broken, there was no policy broken, there were no issues with it overall. Yet Republicans are touting it like they've just discovered the Holy Grail.

16.5 said:
Oh yeah, Hillary 2016!

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

*shrug* It's an inevitability. All she has to do is announce it and it's curtains for any Republican that tries. I don't even need to worry about it, she's a shoe in.
 
Leftus said:
Nova Land said:
Could you please specify the law you believe she violated?...

please specify which law you are referring to and provide a link to its text.
Click to expand...


Well, since she didn't turn over the emails until late 2014, and only upon request of the State Department in an attempt to follow the law, she did not follow the law by turning them over when she was there.
Click to expand...


What law?

I'm sorry I was not clear enough. My question to Ziggurat (and to you, if you care to respone) is what law, specifically, do you believe she broke?

There was a law in effect at the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. It is the same law that was in effect at the time Colin Powell was Secretary of State, that Chuck Hagel was Secretary of State, that Karl Rove was White House Deputy Chief of Staff, among others.

It would be nice if that law had required government officials not to use private e-mail accounts. But it didn't.

In 2014 the law was changed. Neither Karl Rove, Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel, nor Hillary Clinton was in office then.

If you believe the 1978 Presidential Records Act was violated, please cite the section these folks were violating.

I am aware that people have asserted that Hillary Clinton violated the law. I'm not looking for someone (be it Ziggurat or be it you) to repeat that assertion. I'm looking for someone to specify which law was broken.



Leftus said:
The rules at the time, according to the Times ...
Click to expand...


What rules, at what time? Please be specific.

As far as I know, Hillary Clinton followed the rules which were in effect at the time she was in office. If you know differently, please let me know what rule she didn't follow and when it was put into effect.
 
Mod, can we merge all these threads? There's 3 of them going for the same exact subject matter and it's obnoxious. Can we please combine them so we can keep track of this "ZOMGZ HILLUREE BROKED DA LAWZ" posts in the same spot? Thanks.
 
Fox News Legal Analysts: Hillary Clinton Didn’t Break the Law

“I’m going to say no, because at the time she did what she did when she used her own personal email, the law was very nebulous,” former prosecutor Jonna Spilbor said in response to Carlson’s question about Clinton breaking the law. “It didn’t say you couldn’t use your own email, it said any government use of email had to be preserved. So what did she violate?” she asked. As long as Clinton can still retrieve the emails in question, Spilbor said, “There’s no law broken.”
Click to expand...

So this is another non-scandal. Shocker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom