Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[quadraginta]

Well, here's the thing:

If there's some uber conspiracy going on, why didn't they just use the phone, which is not subject to being a government record, rather than email? There's nothing conspiracy-wise which keeping track of emails in this fashion can prevent. Sure, email can be an official document -- but generally only when the sender intends it as such, which sort of requires by the very nature of such things that it be on the record and available to scrutiny by the appropriate authorities anyway.

The conspiracy theory doesn't wash, period.

Setting up throwaway email accounts and anonymizing them with a VPN is child's play. Literally. A 12 yr. old with a modicum of computer savvy could do it in minutes. All Hillary would need would be a device with internet access that couldn't be linked to her. Also child's play.

If she was interested in email communications which wouldn't be revealed the single worst way to do it would be to set up her own server with a domain using her own name and use it to send all her emails from.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Former Secretary of State Fesses Up - Get out the Subpoenas

I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files. A lot of the emails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and state.gov domain, but I don’t know if the servers in the State Department captured those or not.

..... Colin Powell on ABC's This Week, Sun. 8Mar15

I suppose we'll never get to his emails on who knew what and when on the WMD. I'm sure Breitbart will be all over the case in the morning.

Seriously.... I'm just getting in before this thread (also) goes on moderated status due to partisan bickering. I used to use my company email for personal email all the time. If I had been concerned that anyone in the organization had wanted to go through a million emails a day to find personal goodies, I would have sent my personal email from a personal email account and kept the company email for company business.

Somehow I don't think the executive branch or members of congress should do it any differently. Gov't business on gov't accounts. Applies to Hillary and Condie and Colin...

 

[The Big Dog]

..... Colin Powell on ABC's This Week, Sun. 8Mar15

I suppose we'll never get to his emails on who knew what and when on the WMD. I'm sure Breitbart will be all over the case in the morning.

Seriously.... I'm just getting in before this thread (also) goes on moderated status due to partisan bickering. I used to use my company email for personal email all the time. If I had been concerned that anyone in the organization had wanted to go through a million emails a day to find personal goodies, I would have sent my personal email from a personal email account and kept the company email for company business.

Somehow I don't think the executive branch or members of congress should do it any differently. Gov't business on gov't accounts. Applies to Hillary and Condie and Colin...

we'll ignore another tu quoque.

You may wish, however, to review your hypothetical. Hillary did not use her official account for personal business, she used her private account for official government business, and then PURGED her emails.

 

[The Big Dog]

Despite Hillary's defiant press conference and week to explain herself, notable was the lack of any disclosure that she had turned over other governmental employees' emails for which she served as web/email administrator, particularly Huma Abedin, who we know had a clintonemails.com account.

Did Hillary destroy those emails too? The Judiciary Committee is looking into that as we speak, given the fact that the Clinton's played fast and loose with the designation of employees who could work outside their governmental jobs.

 

[NoahFence]

 

[wareyin]

..... Colin Powell on ABC's This Week, Sun. 8Mar15

I suppose we'll never get to his emails on who knew what and when on the WMD. I'm sure Breitbart will be all over the case in the morning.

Seriously.... I'm just getting in before this thread (also) goes on moderated status due to partisan bickering. I used to use my company email for personal email all the time. If I had been concerned that anyone in the organization had wanted to go through a million emails a day to find personal goodies, I would have sent my personal email from a personal email account and kept the company email for company business.

Somehow I don't think the executive branch or members of congress should do it any differently. Gov't business on gov't accounts. Applies to Hillary and Condie and Colin...

QFT. One wonders how this could be mistaken for a tu quoque. Pointing out that "you do it too so you can't complain about it" is a tu quoque*. Pointing out that this was a common practice that rabid partisans are singling out one person over is not a tu quoque. It appears that the problem is finding a Secretary of State (or Congressperson) who did not treat email exactly as Hillary has, yet Clinton is somehow solely at fault.

Also, yet another example of the conspiracy theory tendency to have the "villian" super competent to have her own server with magic ways of deleting not only her own copies of emails, but every recipient's copy as well, yet so incompetent that she wouldn't just use a throw-away Yahoo account or pick up the phone for anything nefarious!


*not that I really feel that calling an argument a tu quoque actually invalidates it, though. Pointing out hypocrisy can actually be a valid point.

 

[The Big Dog]

snip

You find it so boring that you had to come in and make a post about it?

Ok.

 

[The Big Dog]

There seems to be an utterly baffling suggestion that all of Clinton's emails would have been archived because the sender or receiver would have been on the .gov server.

Yesterday, during both her speech and her released statement, Hillary admitted that at least 10% of her own emails were not archived.

For example, emails from huma@clintoonemails.com to Hillary at clintonemails.com would not be archived and in fact many of those have been destroyed.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

There seems to be an utterly baffling suggestion that all of Clinton's emails would have been archived because the sender or receiver would have been on the .gov server.

Evidence ? Or did you mean all the relevant emails that were required to be archived ?

Yesterday, during both her speech and her released statement, Hillary admitted that at least 10% of her own emails were not archived.

For example, emails from huma@clintoonemails.com to Hillary at clintonemails.com would not be archived and in fact many of those have been destroyed.

Evidence they were relevant emails that were required to be archived ?

 

[The Big Dog]

we know that Hillary deleted emails, because she admitted it.

Hillary's response is that we should trust her that she did so appropriately.

Here is another argument why we should not

The burden is on Hillary now, and i don't see any reason why after rushing to destroy emails, and refusing to allow anyone to inspect her server, why anyone would believe her.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

we know that Hillary deleted emails, because she admitted it.

Hillary's response is that we should trust her that she did so appropriately.

Here is another argument why we should not

The burden is on Hillary now, and i don't see any reason why after rushing to destroy emails, and refusing to allow anyone to inspect her server, why anyone would believe her.

How many times can you dodge the question ?

It doesn't matter whether you or I believe her. What matters is facts and evidence.

Are you aware of evidence the deleted emails were relevant emails that were required to be archived ? Yes or no ?

 

[Ziggurat]

It doesn't matter whether you or I believe her. What matters is facts and evidence.

What matters depends very much on the purpose in question. If one wanted to prosecute her for the crime of destroying records, then obviously positive evidence of that action must be present. But if one merely wishes to conclude that she failed in her duties and is unfit for any office, we need not prove that she destroyed relevant emails, it's enough to note that because of inappropriate choices we DO know for certain that she took, we cannot determine that she preserved everything she needed to. And we also know that she's lying, right now, about the affair, which means we cannot trust her. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, and how's this for optics?

https://vine.co/v/O9uT3h23zFI

 

[NoahFence]

What matters depends very much on the purpose in question. If one wanted to prosecute her for the crime of destroying records, then obviously positive evidence of that action must be present. But if one merely wishes to conclude that she failed in her duties and is unfit for any office, we need not prove that she destroyed relevant emails, it's enough to note that because of inappropriate choices we DO know for certain that she took, we cannot determine that she preserved everything she needed to. And we also know that she's lying, right now, about the affair, which means we cannot trust her. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

So the witch hunt is a go!

WWEEEEEE

git me mah pitchforks!

 

[The Big Dog]

What matters depends very much on the purpose in question. If one wanted to prosecute her for the crime of destroying records, then obviously positive evidence of that action must be present. But if one merely wishes to conclude that she failed in her duties and is unfit for any office, we need not prove that she destroyed relevant emails, it's enough to note that because of inappropriate choices we DO know for certain that she took, we cannot determine that she preserved everything she needed to. And we also know that she's lying, right now, about the affair, which means we cannot trust her. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Well said.

Moreover, and although I am reluctant to waste even more time on a completely disingenuous argument that someone other than Hillary has to prove what was on the documents she destroyed, it might be helpful to explain that the law does not require anyone other than Hillary to prove that what she destroyed were private documents.

here is a basic primer on "spoliation of evidence" that many will find helpful:

The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had "consciousness of guilt" or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator. Some jurisdictions have recognized a spoliation tort action, which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.

Further, virtually all jurisdictions shift the burden to the spoliator (Hillary) to rebut the presumption that the documents were relevant and harmful.

Any other questions on "evidence"?

 

[sunmaster14]

How many times can you dodge the question ?

It doesn't matter whether you or I believe her. What matters is facts and evidence.

Are you aware of evidence the deleted emails were relevant emails that were required to be archived ? Yes or no ?

Yes, there is a gap in the record of business-related emails that she has provided.

Republican Representative Trey Gowdy said his committee lacked documentation from Clinton's trip to Libya after the attack despite a popular photo image of her using a handheld device during a flight to that country.

"We have no emails from that day. In fact we have no emails from that trip," said Gowdy, who heads the committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. "There are huge gaps."

It seems unlikely that she wouldn't have sent or received any emails during a multi-day trip to Libya after the attacks. This is a person after all who sent or received quite a few emails during her tenure as SOS - probably averaging well over 10 per day.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What matters depends very much on the purpose in question. If one wanted to prosecute her for the crime of destroying records, then obviously positive evidence of that action must be present. But if one merely wishes to conclude that she failed in her duties and is unfit for any office, we need not prove that she destroyed relevant emails, it's enough to note that because of inappropriate choices we DO know for certain that she took, we cannot determine that she preserved everything she needed to. And we also know that she's lying, right now, about the affair, which means we cannot trust her. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

I was talking about the facts and evidence that are lacking in the continued claim that a crime has been committed.

If the topic of the thread is "why I don't trust xxx" why then we can all just post our opinions and go about our days ...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes, there is a gap in the record of business-related emails that she has provided..

'Huge gaps' in Clinton email record, Benghazi probe chief says
So now we're into the god of the gaps theory

It seems unlikely that she wouldn't have sent or received any emails during a multi-day trip to Libya after the attacks. This is a person after all who sent or received quite a few emails during her tenure as SOS - probably averaging well over 10 per day.

It seems unlikely based on ... your experience as secretary of state ?

 

[sunmaster14]

'Huge gaps' in Clinton email record, Benghazi probe chief says
So now we're into the god of the gaps theory

No idea what you mean. Whether or not there are gaps is not a subjective thing. If you think Trey Gowdy is lying, then perhaps you should present evidence that there are no gaps.

It seems unlikely based on ... your experience as secretary of state ?

It's not necessary to have been Secretary of State to draw the conclusions I have. Being able to do basic arithmetic is sufficient.

 

[sunmaster14]

I was talking about the facts and evidence that are lacking in the continued claim that a crime has been committed.

If the topic of the thread is "why I don't trust xxx" why then we can all just post our opinions and go about our days ...

I have already presented a cogent argument that Hillary committed a crime. I cited the statute and the regulations, and somebody else cited an additional regulation that answered even the absurd quibbles over the meaning of the word "appropriate." Nobody has made a successful rebuttal. At best, all anybody has managed to do is misrepresent my words, taunt me, and then flee from the thread.