Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
applecorped said:
referring to the missing 18 minutes
Click to expand...

That could have been an accident. Probably was. Even if it wasn't, though, Nixon coughed up enough of the tapes to cause his downfall. It's scary to think that Hillary Clinton is possibly more ruthless than Nixon. Admittedly, Nixon was facing a very hostile press and had little support from his party, so perhaps he would have destroyed the evidence if he thought he would get away with it.

I have to say that Hillary's arrogant defiance of the law does scare me. I am far less concerned about her politics, which I think on foreign policy would dovetail with mine, and which on domestic policy is probably closer to the center than that of most viable Democrats. I think successfully getting away with breaking the law only encourages further law-breaking, just as her husband's successful philandering only encouraged more philandering. If she becomes President, I think her capacity for shady dealings is almost unlimited.
 
sunmaster14 said:
...It's scary to think that Hillary Clinton is possibly more ruthless than Nixon ... If she becomes President, I think her capacity for shady dealings is almost unlimited.
Click to expand...
Seriously? I'm not a Clinton fan but this is so over the top that it's positively ridiculous.
 
sunmaster14 said:
That could have been an accident. Probably was. Even if it wasn't, though, Nixon coughed up enough of the tapes to cause his downfall.
Click to expand...

Ummmmm, no. The FBI concluded that the missing section of tape was manually erased between five and nine times. That was not an accident. And, yes, he coughed up the tapes, but he dragged his heels all the way, and he would have had a big bonfire on the South Lawn except that he would have been indicted for obstruction of justice.

It's scary to think that Hillary Clinton is possibly more ruthless than Nixon. Admittedly, Nixon was facing a very hostile press and had little support from his party, so perhaps he would have destroyed the evidence if he thought he would get away with it.
Click to expand...

He surely would have, if he could have. He was all about saving Richard Nixon.

I have to say that Hillary's arrogant defiance of the law does scare me. I am far less concerned about her politics, which I think on foreign policy would dovetail with mine, and which on domestic policy is probably closer to the center than that of most viable Democrats. I think successfully getting away with breaking the law only encourages further law-breaking, just as her husband's successful philandering only encouraged more philandering. If she becomes President, I think her capacity for shady dealings is almost unlimited.
Click to expand...

Can you enlighten us as to just what law she is supposed to have broken?
 
sunmaster14 said:
That could have been an accident. Probably was. Even if it wasn't, though, Nixon coughed up enough of the tapes to cause his downfall. It's scary to think that Hillary Clinton is possibly more ruthless than Nixon. Admittedly, Nixon was facing a very hostile press and had little support from his party, so perhaps he would have destroyed the evidence if he thought he would get away with it.
Click to expand...

It is more likely that Hillary never sent anything classified on her personal email than the 18.5 minutes were accidentally erased. But Clinton and Nixon are certainly cut from the same cloth.
 
Here's my solution to the Clinton emailgate;
if she runs for president, or runs for congress again, use it in the political ads and bring it up in debates. It's legit enough for reasonable people to consider without making complete hyperbole of it. The behavior she did just confirms that I won't give any votes to her if I have that ability in an election.
 
Leftus said:
It is more likely that Hillary never sent anything classified on her personal email than the 18.5 minutes were accidentally erased. But Clinton and Nixon are certainly cut from the same cloth.
Click to expand...

I don't think so.
Nixon seems to have been anti-Semitic. I don't know of anything that has ever been released that suggests that Clinton is.
Nixon released Jimmy Hoffa in return for a bribe from the Teamsters. I don't know of anything like that kind of corruption that has been reliably attributed to Clinton.
Nixon sold routes to airlines in return for campaign contributions. Again I don't know of anything that Clinton has done remotely like this.
Nixon and Kissinger seem to have conspired to prolong the Vietnam war for political purposes. Perhaps Clinton would do something like that but I doubt it.
And of course, Nixon attempted to cover up the illegal activities of his cronies by engaging in his own illegal activities. Would Clinton have done something like that? I don't know but I'll give you a maybe on that one.

What the people that are so critical of Clinton here for her use of a private email server don't seem to get is that a lot of us think her activities with regard to that were inappropriate and maybe even a bit sleazy.

But how does that compare with a candidate who attempted to sabotage peace talks for political purposes? Not even a close call. I not only would vote for Clinton, I'll donate money to her campaign if one of those Republican idiots in the Senate happened to get the nomination. Or how does what Clinton did compare to a bunch of juvenile Republican legislators shutting down a part of government for no apparent reason other than that they are selfish idiots. I don't need to waste a whole lot of neurons pondering this one. Vote for a selfish idiot or a person that handled her email differently than I think she should have.

Despite some claims to the contrary it looks like Clinton has done nothing illegal here. You can argue that maybe she didn't turn over every email that she should have to the government. OK, maybe you're right, but maybe you're wrong. My guess is that you are wrong. The emails that Clinton probably destroyed are politically oriented ones and she reasonably enough didn't want a bunch of partisan Republicans fishing endlessly through those, like the ones that have turned the tragedy of Benghazi into a shameless partisan witch hunt.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Here's my solution to the Clinton emailgate;
if she runs for president, or runs for congress again, use it in the political ads and bring it up in debates. It's legit enough for reasonable people to consider without making complete hyperbole of it. The behavior she did just confirms that I won't give any votes to her if I have that ability in an election.
Click to expand...

davefoc said:
Despite some claims to the contrary it looks like Clinton has done nothing illegal here. You can argue that maybe she didn't turn over every email that she should have to the government. OK, maybe you're right, but maybe you're wrong. My guess is that you are wrong. The emails that Clinton probably destroyed are politically oriented ones and she reasonably enough didn't want a bunch of partisan Republicans fishing endlessly through those, like the ones that have turned the tragedy of Benghazi into a shameless partisan witch hunt.
Click to expand...


Agree with both. Good posts.
 
davefoc said:
Despite some claims to the contrary it looks like Clinton has done nothing illegal here. You can argue that maybe she didn't turn over every email that she should have to the government. OK, maybe you're right, but maybe you're wrong. My guess is that you are wrong. The emails that Clinton probably destroyed are politically oriented ones and she reasonably enough didn't want a bunch of partisan Republicans fishing endlessly through those, like the ones that have turned the tragedy of Benghazi into a shameless partisan witch hunt.
Click to expand...

Benghazi is what it is because The Administration and State Department have willfully withheld evidence.
 
It appears clear that Hillary deliberately destroyed copies of the emails on the server LATE LAST YEAR.

The question is whether she searched Huma's emails too before destroying them.
 
Here is a very good article on the obstruction mess.

The State Department made its last production of materials to the House Oversight Committee on April 17, 2014. In all the time from the very first document request, State had never turned over a single email to or from Clinton.

On May 8, 2014, the House Select Committee on Benghazi was created, taking over all aspects of the Benghazi investigation. Three months later, on Aug. 11, 2014, State sent a few new documents to the Benghazi committee, including a small number — less than 10 — of emails to or from Clinton. Investigators immediately noticed those emails were from an previously unknown address, hdr22@clintonemail.com.

On Nov. 18, 2014, the Benghazi committee sent a document request to the State Department and to Clinton specifically demanding emails from the @clintonemail.com address. On Feb. 13, 2015, the State Department sent the Benghazi committee 850 pages of emails from two different @clintonemail.com accounts.

State said that was all the material that Clinton had given the department dealing with Benghazi. Those materials had been covered by a committee document request since Sept. 20, 2012, — nearly two and a half years earlier — and were arguably covered by the Aug. 1, 2013, subpoena. There is no doubt that Clinton withheld the 850 pages for all that time.
Click to expand...

Clinton clearly broke the law by not complying with the Federal Records Act. She further broke the law by willfully preventing the State Department from fully complying with a Congressional subpoena, since she obviously knew about the investigation and the subpoenas and knew that she had responsive documents which were not in the possession of the State Department.

If Clinton destroyed the emails before January 2015, they would have been still covered by the Oversight Committee's original Sept. 20, 2012, request for documents. That request and others, as well as the Aug. 1, 2013, subpoena, were in effect through the end of 2014, but expired in January 2015 as the 113th Congress came to an end. As far as the subpoena is concerned, there is still an argument about whether it covered just the materials already available in the reading room or a broader range of material. (Whatever the case, both the request and the subpoena demanded that documents originally produced in electronic form — including emails — should be turned over to the committee in electronic form. Clinton decided on her own to print them out and destroy the data-rich electronic versions.)
Click to expand...

Clinton clearly broke the law by destroying documents subject to a subpoena. For those who have no experience with litigation, this might seem like a small matter, but I assure you it is not. It is a grave breach to destroy documents, and it is treated very harshly by the courts.

And what if a secretary of state simply refuses to comply with a requests and subpoenas? "We can hold them in contempt or run to the U.S. attorney," notes the Republican. "But guess what? Nothing is going to happen."

The bottom line is that the system of congressional investigations has a very difficult time dealing with an official who acts in bad faith, as Clinton did in the Benghazi affair. She hid documents from investigators for more than two years, and then, when investigators wanted to see the larger group of documents from which she selected what would be released, she destroyed the whole thing.
Click to expand...

That's the fundamental problem. Ultimately, it is up to the executive branch to police itself, and this one simply won't do it.
 
The State Department made its last production of materials to the House Oversight Committee on April 17, 2014. In all the time from the very first document request, State had never turned over a single email to or from Clinton.

I have yet to see an explanation for how this was not an immediate giant red flag. ZERO emails, but no one thought to look into it until 2 years later ?

sunmaster14 said:
<snip> Ultimately, it is up to the executive branch to police itself, and this one simply won't do it.
Click to expand...

Which of the prior ones do you think were doing it ? Or is it really a case of business as usual ?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
The State Department made its last production of materials to the House Oversight Committee on April 17, 2014. In all the time from the very first document request, State had never turned over a single email to or from Clinton.

I have yet to see an explanation for how this was not an immediate giant red flag. ZERO emails, but no one thought to look into it until 2 years later ?
?
Click to expand...

Sounds like victim blaming.

No question, they ********** up: they trusted Hillary Clinton and the State Department when they claimed that they had produced all responsive documents and when Hillary testified she was being transparent.

Lessons learned, Hillary Clinton is not to be trusted.
 
16.5 said:
It seems that a few of Hillary's pals knew all about the cowboy server address, while running off the books intelligence operations for Hillary and illegally lobbying Hillary on behalf of Russian oligarchs.

Did Clinton's Backdoor Adviser Illegally Lobby for Putin Ally?

Leaked Private Emails Reveal Ex-Clinton Aide's Secret Spy Network

"Can you imagine" what other shenanigans are hidden behind the tens of thousands of destroyed emails?
Click to expand...
I'm sure if they (and BeAChooser) dig deep enough they'll see she is behind Vince Fosters death.
 
DavidJames said:
I'm sure if they (and BeAChooser) dig deep enough they'll see she is behind Vince Fosters death.
Click to expand...

anything on topic about the two articles and the emails that are attached, or just going to dazzle us with your snarky wit?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom