Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Grizzly Bear]

I guess people are suffering debate burnout if this is now being labeled as conspiratorial. Partisan, yes, but what she did will have consequences and are therefore tangible And dont meet the CT criteria. The issue is and has always been that what she did was questionable, what she continues to do is questionable, and not entirely unexpected of a politician.

Dont vote for her if the emailgate ruins your trust in her. Still not voting for her myself

In the mean time, let us continue not discussing ways to discourage such behavior among our elected officials. i get it already....

 

[wareyin]

I guess people are suffering debate burnout if this is now being labeled as conspiratorial. Partisan, yes, but what she did will have consequences and are therefore tangible And dont meet the CT criteria. The issue is and has always been that what she did was questionable, what she continues to do is questionable, and not entirely unexpected of a politician.

Dont vote for her if the emailgate ruins your trust in her. Still not voting for her myself

In the mean time, let us continue not discussing ways to discourage such behavior among our elected officials. i get it already....

What is it that she did, again? We know that the personal server was not illegal, nor was withholding personal emails. So what, exactly has she done that "will have consequences"?

Obviously some claim to know she did...something, but instead of evidence, we have conjecture. We have charlatans hawking books full of sketchy information, but no evidence. We have no consensus on what we need Clinton's personal emails to find, we're just lurching from one wild claim of what could be in them to another.

 

[sunmaster14]

What is it that she did, again? We know that the personal server was not illegal, nor was withholding personal emails.

What do you mean "we," Kemo Sabe? There's no question she broke the law. By her own admission she withheld work-related emails from the federal record-keeping system for almost two years after she left office. There isn't a substantive difference between that and stealing borrowing a piece of art from a museum and returning it two years later. If you did that, would everything be just honky-dory under the law?

 

[sunmaster14]

I guess people are suffering debate burnout if this is now being labeled as conspiratorial. Partisan, yes, but what she did will have consequences and are therefore tangible And dont meet the CT criteria. The issue is and has always been that what she did was questionable, what she continues to do is questionable, and not entirely unexpected of a politician.

Dont vote for her if the emailgate ruins your trust in her. Still not voting for her myself

In the mean time, let us continue not discussing ways to discourage such behavior among our elected officials. i get it already....

The way to discourage such behavior among our elected officials is to investigate it thoroughly and prosecute it to the full extent of the law. The partisans who are defending Hillary are in effect providing support and encouragement for the very kind of behavior you find objectionable. Regardless of their motives, the partisans who are attacking Hillary are performing a valuable public service.

 

[wareyin]

What do you mean "we," Kemo Sabe? There's no question she broke the law. By her own admission she withheld work-related emails from the federal record-keeping system for almost two years after she left office. There isn't a substantive difference between that and stealing borrowing a piece of art from a museum and returning it two years later. If you did that, would everything be just honky-dory under the law?

No question? Too bad you aren't in charge if the investigation, then, because the guy that is said:

“We haven’t seen any evidence of a crime,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I've mentioned this at least half a dozen times...

the reason why the select committee was created was because it was discovered that the Administration was improperly withholding evidence (the Rhodes memo). Now we have discovered that the State Department withheld evidence (the Clinton emails) and that Hillary is refusing to turn over other evidence (the emails she destroyed and the server).

This is part of the story where it turns into a conspiracy theory. Hillary is conspiring to "destroy evidence".

Evidence of what, exactly ?

Evidence of all her wrongdoing, had she not destroyed the emails ... and how do you know there is evidence of guilt there ... well, because reasons. Spoliation !

This is despite numerous representations that they were cooperating and had turned over everything.

For the umpteenth time in this thread ... do you have any evidence she did not provide everything she was required to provide ?

I'll save you the trouble of answering ... no, you don't.

Despite the fact it should be relatively easy to find ... after all, she sent all those emails to other people ... so it's not as if Hillary has the only copy.

Yet, still ... no evidence.

The ARB documents were just turned over last week. 4000 pages that were never seen before by any committee. Last week jhunter. You knew that right?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-usa-clinton-emails-idUSKBN0NL28V20150430

The ARB report, released in December 2012, did not find Clinton responsible for security lapses, but outlined widespread failings within her department.

If the committee had only seen this earlier, then they would already know Hillary wasn't responsible, right ?

Seriously, what was your point about this ? It's scary because 4000 pages ? Please, explain.

Sure, blame "Republicans" not the people with sneering contempt for governmental transparency.

The blame is for dragging these hearings for political purposes. We can blame them for that, and the people you claim have contempt for transparency. It's not an either/or.

Oh yeah, Hillary's foundation filed false tax returns. No biggee

Hillary 2016!

Since there is a legal process in place to amend tax returns ...
you are indeed correct this time. It is "no biggee".

 

[sunmaster14]

No question? Too bad you aren't in charge if the investigation, then, because the guy that is said:

“We haven’t seen any evidence of a crime,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

He was either just being diplomatic, or was more focused on bigger crimes like obstruction of justice or mishandling of classified information. The jury is still out on that kind of stuff, in part because of the issue of intent.

But Clinton clearly violated record handling regulations, which counts as breaking the law. Whether or not you want to call that a crime (and Hillary Clinton a criminal), I suppose depends on whether or not you want to escalate the controversy at this time. Even I think language like that is over-the-top. I wouldn't call Hillary a criminal, but I am convinced that she broke the law, and did so willfully.

 

[The Big Dog]

This is part of the story where it turns into a conspiracy theory. Hillary is conspiring to "destroy evidence"....

Spoliation !

Spoliation !

That is all you need to read when looking at Elvis's posts. Fundamental principles of evidence in civil and criminal law. Use those against our Hillary?

It isn't as if she has a history of hiding evidence (Rose law firm records showing up in a broom closet in the White House).

She withheld documents, then intentionally destroyed relevant evidence rather than turning them over for an independent review, or even having them properly reviewed, and hell, even lied about how they were reviewed.

People don't get to benefit from their own misconduct, which is why there are rules and laws in place. For the reasons expertly discussed above if someone destroys documents, not only is that misconduct evidence of a guilty mind it creates a presumption that the documents were harmful.

She blatantly violated her memorandum of understanding with Obama, yet there are so many people willing to give her a pass.

/by the way, the ARB report was also expertly demolished in the Benghazi thread by yours truly. Read it, you might learn something.

 

[DavidJames]

He was either just being diplomatic, or was more focused on bigger crimes like obstruction of justice or mishandling of classified information.

LOL, another example of you reading someone's mind and deciding (shocking), despite what they say, really agree with you. Based on body of work, your batting average reading people's minds is well below the Mendoza line, possibly even 000%.

Such is the beauty of real life versus the right wing echo chamber. Real life doesn't rely on armchair Internet self proclaimed experts. The rest of us can see reality play out in front of our eyes.

 

[The Big Dog]

He was either just being diplomatic, or was more focused on bigger crimes like obstruction of justice or mishandling of classified information. The jury is still out on that kind of stuff, in part because of the issue of intent.

But Clinton clearly violated record handling regulations, which counts as breaking the law. Whether or not you want to call that a crime (and Hillary Clinton a criminal), I suppose depends on whether or not you want to escalate the controversy at this time. Even I think language like that is over-the-top. I wouldn't call Hillary a criminal, but I am convinced that she broke the law, and did so willfully.

The Hillar-ious (se what I did there?) thing is that her apologists are reduced to arguing that she is not a criminal.

Sure she is a sleazy operator who withholds evidence and skirts the edges of the law while breaking agreements with Obama that she never had any intention whatsoever of keeping and using a Canadian subsidiary of her "foundation" while filing false tax returns to cover it up, but she hasn't actually been convicted of a felony yet, so:

Hillary 2016, Has not Been Convicted of a Felony!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Spoliation !

That is all you need to read when looking at Elvis's posts. Fundamental principles of evidence in civil and criminal law. Use those against our Hillary?

It isn't as if she has a history of hiding evidence (Rose law firm records showing up in a broom closet in the White House).

She withheld documents, then intentionally destroyed relevant evidence rather than turning them over for an independent review, or even having them properly reviewed, and hell, even lied about how they were reviewed.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/the-hillary-spoliation.php

NOTE: In the original post, I didn’t place quotation marks in the title. I added them because spoliation is a litigation phenomenon and Clinton’s destruction of evidence didn’t occur in the context of a lawsuit.

Is this all you need to know when reading 16.5's legal theories ?

So ... yes. Spoliation.

People don't get to benefit from their own misconduct, which is why there are rules and laws in place. For the reasons expertly discussed above if someone destroys documents, not only is that misconduct evidence of a guilty mind it creates a presumption that the documents were harmful.

She blatantly violated her memorandum of understanding with Obama, yet there are so many people willing to give her a pass.

Wrong thread ?

/by the way, the ARB report was also expertly demolished in the Benghazi thread by yours truly. Read it, you might learn something.

Again, wrong thread ? But I see it's ok to discuss benghazi here when it is convenient for you ?

As for the rest of my questions we'll just let avid readers of the thread draw their own conclusions about what your unwillingness to address them implies ...

 

[plague311]

I don't know if this has been stated in this thread, but I've heard that Hillary's server is now the actual cause of childhood cancer.

Hillary 2016! Causing childhood cancer via cowboy, homebrew serverz!

 

[The Big Dog]

The ARB report, released in December 2012, did not find Clinton responsible for security lapses, but outlined widespread failings within her department.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/the-hillary-spoliation.php

NOTE: In the original post, I didn’t place quotation marks in the title. I added them because spoliation is a litigation phenomenon and Clinton’s destruction of evidence didn’t occur in the context of a lawsuit.

Is this all you need to know when reading 16.5's legal theories ?

....

Again, wrong thread ? But I see it's ok to discuss benghazi here when it is convenient for you ?

LOLZ! Forget that you had brought up the grossly flawed ARB reports discredited conclusions, did ya?

Cool article though, I like this part:

"As I said, the relevant court here is the court of public opinion. However, it is still interesting, I think, to consider how a court of law would treat Clinton’s conduct. Hillary’s offense, if any, is obstruction of justice."
Cherry pick better next time. (by the way, there are numerous lawsuits arising out of Hillary's document destruction. You knew that, right?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

LOLZ! Forget that you had brought up the grossly flawed ARB reports discredited conclusions, did ya?

What exactly then was the point of you bringing it up , then ?

I've mentioned this at least half a dozen times...
The ARB documents were just turned over last week. 4000 pages that were never seen before by any committee. Last week jhunter. You knew that right?

Cool article though, I like this part:

"As I said, the relevant court here is the court of public opinion. However, it is still interesting, I think, to consider how a court of law would treat Clinton’s conduct. Hillary’s offense, if any, is obstruction of justice."
Cherry pick better next time. (by the way, there are numerous lawsuits arising out of Hillary's document destruction. You knew that, right?

Cool, a blogger agreed with your opinion.

 

[The Big Dog]

What exactly then was the point of you bringing it up , then ?

​

Cool, a blogger agreed with your opinion.

I was replying to one of your pals who claimed that this has been totally investigated despite pervasive evidence of withholding evidence, just like Hillary. C'mon bro.

"a blogger" huh? You mean the one you found and linked as supporting you? Oops!

Oh man, Classic Thel8elvis!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I was replying to one of your pals who claimed that this has been totally investigated despite pervasive evidence of withholding evidence, just like Hillary. C'mon bro.

How is it the report is already discredited, if it hasn't even been reviewed or investigated ?

"a blogger" huh? You mean the one you found and linked as supporting you? Oops!

Oh man, Classic Thel8elvis!

I linked to a supporting FACT in the bloggers post - Spoliation doesn't apply. There is no lawsuit.

You like the bloggers OPINON - It would be spoliation if there was a lawsuit.

I bolded the difference for you, to help you understand.

 

[The Big Dog]

How is it the report is already discredited, if it hasn't even been reviewed ?

Face palm. Because they admitted that they never talked to Hillary, let Hillary review the draft report, did not review her emails and John Kerry, after he had taken over, rescinded the punishments that were recommended in the report because they were unjustified. Do your self a favor, and read the Benghazi thread. Heck, save yourself some time and just read my posts and let the light of information wash over you.

I linked to a supporting FACT in the bloggers post - Spoliation doesn't apply. There is no lawsuit.

You like the bloggers OPINON - It would be spoliation if there was a lawsuit.

I bolded the difference for you, to help you understand.

LOL! Good one, the Blogger is stating facts when he supports you but opinion when your blogger supports me. That is hilarious.

Too bad the "fact" is wrong, there are a bunch of lawsuits, and spoliation also applies to FOIA! Other circuits have similarly held that violation of a regulation requiring document preservation can support an inference of spoliation. See, e.g., Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. of Educ., 243 F.3d 93, 108-09 (2d Cir. 2001); Favors v. Fisher, 13 F.3d 1235, 1239 (8th Cir.1994); Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d 1406, 1419 (10th Cir.1987).

Uh oh!

Where should i send my bill, chief?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Face palm. Because they admitted that they never talked to Hillary, let Hillary review the draft report, did not review her emails and John Kerry, after he had taken over, rescinded the punishments that were recommended in the report because they were unjustified. Do your self a favor, and read the Benghazi thread. Heck, save yourself some time and just read my posts and let the light of information wash over you.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

LOL! Good one, the Blogger is stating facts when he supports you but opinion when your blogger supports me. That is hilarious.

Too bad the "fact" is wrong, there are a bunch of lawsuits, and spoliation also applies to FOIA! Other circuits have similarly held that violation of a regulation requiring document preservation can support an inference of spoliation. See, e.g., Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. of Educ., 243 F.3d 93, 108-09 (2d Cir. 2001); Favors v. Fisher, 13 F.3d 1235, 1239 (8th Cir.1994); Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d 1406, 1419 (10th Cir.1987).

Uh oh!

Where should i send my bill, chief?

You and sunmaster should have a talk with gowdy and set him straight !

 

[wareyin]

Benghazi

Drink!

What's the matter? Tired of talking to yourself in your moderated thread, so you have to keep spamming it on other threads?

 

[The Big Dog]

You and sunmaster should have a talk with gowdy and set him straight !

Oh dear, you are all over the place, buddy.

You were claiming that spoliation only applies to litigation, and i was posting cases that spoliation can arise for breach of record keeping regulations and then you posted words that have nothing to do with that.