Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
Please do not put words in my mouth.

It appears that you do not have a firm grasp on the related concepts of burden of proof in the law and in logic.

It is Hillary's burden, and anyone (such as yourself) who argues on her behalf to prove that the emails were encrypted. Hillary has not only failed to prove it, she has intentionally declared her intention to block anyone from investigating it.

Therefore, in logic and certainly in the law, her failure establishes the fact that they were not encrypted.

Simply denying it is not really a response at this point.
Click to expand...

Can you please cite the specific laws you are referring to ?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Can you please cite the specific laws you are referring to ?
Click to expand...

I did not refer to "specific laws," I said in "the law," which is an amalgamation of statutes, rules, and common law (among other things).

However, an utterly fantastic place for you to begin is go back and read the spoliation article I posted up above.

It is really great basic introduction.

happy to be of service!
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Can you please cite the specific laws you are referring to ?
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
I did not refer to "specific laws,"
Click to expand...

Which is why I asked you what laws you were referring to, specifically. :rolleyes:

16.5 said:
I said in "the law," which is an amalgamation of statutes, rules, and common law (among other things).
Click to expand...

Your fallacy is sweeping generalization.

16.5 said:
However, an utterly fantastic place for you to begin is go back and read the spoliation article I posted up above.

It is really great basic introduction.

happy to be of service!
Click to expand...

The server wasn't destroyed, so irrelevant.
 
DavidJames said:
That's been addressed. The fact that you've hand waved away doesn't detract from the reality that their assessment is incomplete and fails to account for what is common practice in real life.

Unless you can provide actual proof/evidence you're done.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was your claim before.

Have a great day!
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Which is why I asked you what laws you were referring to, specifically. :rolleyes:

Your fallacy is sweeping generalization.

The server wasn't destroyed, so irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Oh for cripes sake. Hillary is refusing to produce the server for inspection. The emails were destroyed...

You obviously did not read the article.

And here, lest I be accused of "sweeping generalizations" is a fifty state survey on spoliation:

http://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/spoliation-of-laws-in-all-50-states.pdf
 
Last edited:
Nate Jones, director of the FOIA project at the Washington-based National Security Archive, said he had doubts about Clinton's assertion from the start.

"The most important claim she made on Tuesday was that emails were captured and preserved in real time. Knowing how far government email systems lag behind those everyone else uses, it was extremely doubtful this was actually the case," he said. "The inspector general's report confirmed that just .00006 percent of State Department emails were saved, so it's very unlikely the people Secretary Clinton relied upon to save her records did.

"Today's disclosure by spokesperson Psaki confirms that the vast majority of her emails were not saved at all."
 
16.5 said:
Nate Jones, director of the FOIA project at the Washington-based National Security Archive, said he had doubts about Clinton's assertion from the start.

"The most important claim she made on Tuesday was that emails were captured and preserved in real time. Knowing how far government email systems lag behind those everyone else uses, it was extremely doubtful this was actually the case," he said. "The inspector general's report confirmed that just .00006 percent of State Department emails were saved, so it's very unlikely the people Secretary Clinton relied upon to save her records did.

"Today's disclosure by spokesperson Psaki confirms that the vast majority of her emails were not saved at all."
Click to expand...

Well, it's a good thing she used her own cowboy server, otherwise we would only have .00006 percent of the emails we have !!!!
 
16.5 said:
Nate Jones, director of the FOIA project at the Washington-based National Security Archive, said he had doubts about Clinton's assertion from the start.

"The most important claim she made on Tuesday was that emails were captured and preserved in real time. Knowing how far government email systems lag behind those everyone else uses, it was extremely doubtful this was actually the case," he said. "The inspector general's report confirmed that just .00006 percent of State Department emails were saved, so it's very unlikely the people Secretary Clinton relied upon to save her records did.

"Today's disclosure by spokesperson Psaki confirms that the vast majority of her emails were not saved at all."
Click to expand...

TheL8Elvis said:
Well, it's a good thing she used her own cowboy server, otherwise we would only have .00006 percent of the emails we have !!!!
Click to expand...

Wow, so if Clinton had used a State Department server, only .00006 percent of her emails would have been saved? Ironic that the partisan witch hunters actually claim that by using a "cowboy/homebrew" server, Clinton actually preserved far, far more data than the State Department was capable of saving. Looks like Clinton's server was both more secure (not hacked like the .gov server) and more modern/saved more than the .gov server! :boxedin:
 
wareyin said:
Wow, so if Clinton had used a State Department server, only .00006 percent of her emails would have been saved? Ironic that the partisan witch hunters actually claim that by using a "cowboy/homebrew" server, Clinton actually preserved far, far more data than the State Department was capable of saving. Looks like Clinton's server was both more secure (not hacked like the .gov server) and more modern/saved more than the .gov server! :boxedin:
Click to expand...

Now wouldn't that be ironic? Hillary gets up there and fibs about emails being saved under her administration, when they weren't, and based on that She destroys emails on her cowboy server, which Congress subpoenas and finds evidence that the emails were intentionally destroyed!

When is Hillary going to learn that "If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything."
 
16.5 said:
That is not how cowboy servers work
Click to expand...

Based on the article you quoted, yes, it is. :confused:

wareyin said:
Wow, so if Clinton had used a State Department server, only .00006 percent of her emails would have been saved? Ironic that the partisan witch hunters actually claim that by using a "cowboy/homebrew" server, Clinton actually preserved far, far more data than the State Department was capable of saving. Looks like Clinton's server was both more secure (not hacked like the .gov server) and more modern/saved more than the .gov server! :boxedin:
Click to expand...

Wareyin came to the same conclusion as I did based on what you posted - pretty sure because that's the correct conclusion to draw from the article.

16.5 said:
Now wouldn't that be ironic? Hillary gets up there and fibs about emails being saved under her administration, when they weren't, and based on that She destroys emails on her cowboy server, which Congress subpoenas and finds evidence that the emails were intentionally destroyed!
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
Still confused about the distinction between private and work emails.

She was legally allowed to use her private email to send work emails.

So how does it get from there, to the point where people claim the state dept gets to view every email in her private email to determine if each one is work related or not ?

IOW - I don't see how using my gmail/yahoo mail/private-server-email to send a work email suddenly creates a right for work to then view every email I send from that account.

That doesn't sound right to me.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Still confused about the distinction between private and work emails.

She was legally allowed to use her private email to send work emails.

So how does it get from there, to the point where people claim the state dept gets to view every email in her private email to determine if each one is work related or not ?

IOW - I don't see how using my gmail/yahoo mail/private-server-email to send a work email suddenly creates a right for work to then view every email I send from that account.

That doesn't sound right to me.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you are missing the fact that she set up her own private server network to send all her official government emails. She wasn't sending "a work email" she was sending all of them through her cowboy network.

You want to see the **** really hit the fan? When it is discovered that Huma's emails were not turned over, were not searched, and were destroyed.

That doesn't sound right to me.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Wareyin came to the same conclusion as I did based on what you posted - pretty sure because that's the correct conclusion to draw from the article.
Click to expand...

No Wai! You mean that someone who is Profoundly Pro-Hillary agrees with someone who is only Strongly-Pro Hillary?

Nice to see the split in the Pro Hillary faction is resolved!

:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom