• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
Although the subpoena had not yet been served at the time she deleted emails, she was actually facing a subpoena for all intents and purposes. Once she had notice that her documents were being sought by a controlling authority, she had an obligation to preserve them, and certainly not to go out of her way to destroy them. That is spoliation of evidence, regardless of whether a subpoena had issued. See here (my emphasis added):
Click to expand...
Very impressive Google work. Now, maybe you can answer the question being avoided. What crimes has she been charged with.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate. Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing.

Please explain where the "lie" is
Click to expand...

This particular lie is that there were 2 or more Secretaries of State who did anything remotely like what she did. There was actually only one - Colin Powell.

ETA: Obviously the more egregious lie is that what she did was in compliance with the law. I've already shown in this thread that she violated the regulations pertaining to federal recordkeeping. It is true that there was nothing preventing her from using a non-governmental account to handle her unclassified email. But she was required to archive her work-related emails so that the federal government had access to them. She did not do that, and hence she broke the law.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
This particular lie is that there were 2 or more Secretaries of State who did anything remotely like what she did. There was actually only one - Colin Powell.
Click to expand...

The reason Powell did it was because their system had not been updated and was virtually unusable. It was updated during his tenure, so he had an excuse for doing it until the system was updated. Hillery had none other than to hide her stuff from public scrutiny.
 
DavidJames said:
Very impressive Google work. Now, maybe you can answer the question being avoided. What crimes has she been charged with.
Click to expand...

Well, I have charged her with breaking the federal recordkeeping laws. You can find discussion of those laws and my accusations earlier in the thread. It doesn't appear that anybody at the Department of Justice has charged Hillary with breaking any laws, but that is a crime in and of itself. Par for the course for this administration, however.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Well, I have charged her with breaking the federal recordkeeping laws. You can find discussion of those laws and my accusations earlier in the thread. It doesn't appear that anybody at the Department of Justice has charged Hillary with breaking any laws, but that is a crime in and of itself. Par for the course for this administration, however.
Click to expand...
We both know your charges are worthless. So, is it fair to say like 16.5, you're claiming there is a conspiracy to avoid legal action against HRC?
 
Well, Factcheck checked in the Hillary Clinton CNN interview debacle and the Pinocchios are FLYING!

Clinton lied when she said she went “above and beyond” in complying with a State Department request to turn over work-related emails. However, federal regulations and department guidelines required her to preserve important work emails before she left office, and she did not.

Clinton lied twice when she said that previous “secretaries of state” did the “same thing,” using the plural “secretaries” to defend her use of her personal email account. But the State Department has said only Colin Powell used a personal email account for official business.

Clinton lied twice Clinton said that she had “one device” for sending emails, because the facts show she used an iPad to send emails, copies of her publicly released emails show.

But they do throw Clinton a bone, concluding that when she "never had a subpoena" she meant that she wasn't subject to a subpoena when she was destroying Documents in December of 2014.

Well, except for the fact that they were covered by two subpoenas from Oversight and a raft of FOIA requests.

as per usual a link for your amusement: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/clinton-spins-immigration-emails/
 
16.5 said:
Cripes, what is he saying now?

"So, is it fair to say like 16.5, you're claiming there is a conspiracy."

Wow, that lie does not even make sense.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you aren't able to understand basic sentences. Both you and sunmaster14 are claiming that charges won't be filed because the administration is conspiring with HRC to prevent them.

Perhaps I should bold things more and add a few lolz, maybe that might help.
 
New lawsuit tests Hillary Clinton's claim private email system was legal

Here is another article regarding an interesting legal strategy designed to force Hillary to serve up the documents she wrongfully alienated from the State Department.

Just a day after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that she violated no law in storing tens of thousands of work-related emails on a private server, a watchdog organization is putting that claim to the legal test in court.

The real heroes here are the government transparency advocates that work tirelessly to expose government misfeasance.

A link to the complaint is embedded in the article and I urge everyone to look at the law and then ask yourself whether Hillary went above and beyond her duties or whether she went far above and beyond to violate those duties.

Great, timely stuff.
 
Simply filing a lawsuit does not give an claim merit.

When the suit fails, will it be because the administration is conspiring with HRC ?
 
DavidJames said:
I'm sorry you aren't able to understand basic sentences. Both you and sunmaster14 are claiming that charges won't be filed because the administration is conspiring with HRC to prevent them.
Click to expand...

We are alleging that the DOJ has been politicized to the point that it will not bring charges against the putative Democratic nominee for President. That hardly requires a vast conspiracy, and doesn't even require HRC's cooperation. All it requires is that the President pick an Attorney General who is as corrupt and as partisan as he is. Mission accomplished with Eric Holder, and mission continued with Loretta Lynch.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Simply filing a lawsuit does not give an claim merit.
Click to expand...

Nobody claimed the mere filing if the suit gave it merit, what did give it merit is the authorities cited therein, which I hope you at least read.

Further, the link I provided actually suggested a potential flaw, namely that the suit may be moot because Hillary claimed that she turned over all responsive documents and destroyed the rest.

I disagree, because the Blumenthal subpoena shows she did not turn over all documents, and I don't know how they intend to prove they destroyed all the documents without allowing a forensic examination of the server.
 
sunmaster14 said:
We are alleging that the DOJ has been politicized to the point that it will not bring charges against the putative Democratic nominee for President. That hardly requires a vast conspiracy, and doesn't even require HRC's cooperation. All it requires is that the President pick an Attorney General who is as corrupt and as partisan as he is. Mission accomplished with Eric Holder, and mission continued with Loretta Lynch.
Click to expand...
Of course, they are all corrupt and partisan. How would 16.5 put it, oh yeah, lolz.
 
sunmaster14 said:
We are alleging that the DOJ has been politicized to the point that it will not bring charges against the putative Democratic nominee for President. That hardly requires a vast conspiracy, and doesn't even require HRC's cooperation. All it requires is that the President pick an Attorney General who is as corrupt and as partisan as he is. Mission accomplished with Eric Holder, and mission continued with Loretta Lynch.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that Obama, Holder, and Lynch all conspired to protect Clinton? And that simultaneously, top government officials conspiring together to protect a "putative Democratic nominee for President" is somehow not a conspiracy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom