Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[TheL8Elvis]

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!

No, it means you have not provided any alternate interpretation for that article. If you think we are wrong in our understanding , please explain what you think the article is implying.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

I'm not missing that fact. But the fact is, there was legal and allowed, correct ? In fact, she could have used AOL mail and been within the rules.

And that would not entitle anyone to examine each and every one of her private emails. So the fact that it was her private email server is a red herring.

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.

Let's talk about that when you have some evidence.

 

[wareyin]

I'm not missing that fact. But the fact is, there was legal and allowed, correct ? In fact, she could have used AOL mail and been within the rules.

And that would not entitle anyone to examine each and every one of her private emails. So the fact that it was her private email server is a red herring.


Let's talk about that when you have some evidence.

All to often, especially in this thread, the mere possibility of something happening has but put forth as evidence that it did happen.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, it means you have not provided any alternate interpretation for that article. If you think we are wrong in our understanding , please explain what you think the article is implying.

Other than she lied about the fact that her emails to other senior State Department officials were automatically saved, and as the head of that department utterly failed to ensure that they were.

I'm not missing that fact. But the fact is, there was legal and allowed, correct ? In fact, she could have used AOL mail and been within the rules.

And that would not entitle anyone to examine each and every one of her private emails. So the fact that it was her private email server is a red herring.

et's talk about that when you have some evidence.

No it is not legal to destroy documents that are subject to FOIA and subpoenas.

Evidence? Lets talk evidence. Is there any evidence that Cowboy Web Mistress Clinton searched the cowboy servers for other responsive documents relating to State Department business?

Not yet? Huh, my concern is she is going to start lawyering up and taking the Fifth soon. Thoughts?

 

[DavidJames]

Let's talk about that when you have some evidence.

Yup, show some evidence that she's guilty.

Evidence? Lets talk evidence. Is there any evidence that Cowboy Web Mistress Clinton searched the cowboy servers for other responsive documents relating to State Department business?

Ummm, nope, here in right wing 'merica, we demand (of Democrats) evidence of innocence

 

[LSSBB]

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...n-server-perspec-0315-jm-20150313-column.html

This story's not going away. The very notion of leaving the documents on Clinton's private email account and private server to Clinton's control has given new life to Rep. Trey Gowdy's House select committee on the Benghazi raid.

"One thing that's clear," said Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who chairs the committee, "is that we don't get to grade our own papers in life."

But Clinton thinks she does. She insists that she can be trusted to let us, the public, know what she thinks we should know. Even if she turns out to be correct on the law, her blindness to appearances of impropriety makes her sound like her own worst enemy.

Echoes my take so far: it may be legal, that doesn't mean it looks right. Especially in someone who would like the country to trust her as their leader. I didn't like Bush before election because of the crowd he hung out with. I didn't like Obama before election because of the crowd he hung out with. Hillary is one of the crowd I would not want a candidate hanging out with.

My personal opinion. YMMV.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yup, show some evidence that she's guilty.

Ummm, nope, here in right wing 'merica, we demand (of Democrats) evidence of innocence

She admitted she destroyed documents. Therefore, for the detailed reasons discussed above by your humble correspondent, the burden is on her.

I know that is hard cheese, but that Martin O'Malley looks like an ok fella.

 

[wareyin]

Yup, show some evidence that she's guilty.

Ummm, nope, here in right wing 'merica, we demand (of Democrats) evidence of innocence

I predict you will get a response about spoliation, which still does not negate the fact that evidence of a crime is still required to prosecute here in America.

ETA: Yep, for hyper-partisan versions of spoliation, because one admits destroying personal emails, that is evidence one destroyed non-personal emails, therefore one has to "prove a negative" that one did not destroy relevant emails. How do you prove that you did not destroy something of which there is no evidence that it ever existed in the first place? No idea, therefore, if she floats, she's a witch and must be killed!

 

[DavidJames]

Avid readers should know:

“We haven’t seen any evidence of a crime,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Sunday about Hillary Clinton’s private email use during her service as Secretary of State.

Damn RINO liberal.

But Internet warriors are all convinced otherwise, and of Obama being born in Africa and Sandy Hook was a government conspiracy.

 

[The Big Dog]

I predict you will get a response about spoliation, which still does not negate the fact that evidence of a crime is still required to prosecute here in America.

ETA: Yep, for hyper-partisan versions of spoliation, because one admits destroying personal emails, that is evidence one destroyed non-personal emails, therefore one has to "prove a negative" that one did not destroy relevant emails. How do you prove that you did not destroy something of which there is no evidence that it ever existed in the first place? No idea, therefore, if she floats, she's a witch and must be killed!

Actually what she said was she had a team of her lawyers do a term search, pulled those documents, DEEEMED the rest personal and destroyed them without actually reviewing them.

Hyper-partisans may be willing to take her word for it, unfortunately skeptics are not.

 

[The Big Dog]

Avid readers should knowamn RINO liberal.

But Internet warriors are all convinced otherwise, and of Obama being born in Africa and Sandy Hook was a government conspiracy.

He is one hell of a smart guy. Good prosecutors keep their cards close to the vest, and he was a hell of a good prosecutor.

He also said that the house is going to vote to issue a subpoena to obtain access to the cowboy server. Uh oh!

 

[wareyin]

Actually what she said was she had a team of her lawyers do a term search, pulled those documents, DEEEMED the rest personal and destroyed them without actually reviewing them.

Hyper-partisans may be willing to take her word for it, unfortunately skeptics are not.

When one has decided she is in the wrong without any evidence, one cannot claim to be a skeptic on this issue. Please provide evidence of your assertions. Thank you.

 

[The Big Dog]

When one has decided she is in the wrong without any evidence, one cannot claim to be a skeptic on this issue. Please provide evidence of your assertions. Thank you.

She destroyed 30,000 emails without looking at them.

She admitted it.

Evidence.

You are welcome.

 

[wareyin]

She destroyed 30,000 emails without looking at them.

She admitted it.

Evidence.

You are welcome.

That's not evidence that proves your point, nor is it accurate. Please provide evidence of your assertions.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's not evidence that proves your point, nor is it accurate. Please provide evidence of your assertions.

True, she destroyed more than 30,000 emails.

You caught me!

Weren't you the one claiming she destroyed personal emails? Yeah, that was you. Curious that you accept the perps word for it, yet do not demand that she support her assertions.

Curious.

 

[wareyin]

True, she destroyed more than 30,000 emails.

You caught me!

Weren't you the one claiming she destroyed personal emails? Yeah, that was you. Curious that you accept the perps word for it, yet do not demand that she support her assertions.

Curious.

Your inaccurate assertion was the claim that she had deleted the emails without looking at them. That is not normal email behavior, nor is it what she claimed. It was invented by 16.5.

Further, Clinton is not a member here for me to ask her to support her claims. You are a member, you are not supporting your claims. Please provide evidence for your assertions.

ETA: I think you are also mistaken when you assert claims made by me. Can you link to the post where I claim what you assert I claimed?

 

[The Big Dog]

I predict you will get a response about spoliation, which still does not negate the fact that evidence of a crime is still required to prosecute here in America.

ETA: Yep, for hyper-partisan versions of spoliation, because one admits destroying personal emails,

"personal emails." you just posted that a couple of hours ago.

Your inaccurate assertion was the claim that she had deleted the emails without looking at them. That is not normal email behavior, nor is it what she claimed. It was invented by 16.5.

ETA: I think you are also mistaken when you assert claims made by me. Can you link to the post where I claim what you assert I claimed?

"normal email behavior." We know it is not normal behavior.

There have been several posts here containing links to how she decided the emails were to be destroyed. here is YET another one

You know, your simply gainsaying arguments and asking me to repeatedly post links to things that are already located in the thread (including to your own post you made two hours ago ) is not much of an argument.

let me know what else you need, tho.

 

[wareyin]

"personal emails." you just posted that a couple of hours ago.

That's not what you claimed I said.

"normal email behavior." We know it is not normal behavior.

There have been several posts here containing links to how she decided the emails were to be destroyed. here is YET another one

You know, your simply gainsaying arguments and asking me to repeatedly post links to things that are already located in the thread (including to your own post you made two hours ago ) is not much of an argument.

let me know what else you need, tho.

Asking you to support your assertions is not an argument, no. However, your failure to provide support for your assertions means I don't actually have anything to argue against. That's why I keep asking you to support your claims, after all.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's not what you claimed I said.

.

Gainsaying and you ignore the link. Again.

Predictable as the tides.....

 

[wareyin]

Gainsaying and you ignore the link. Again.

Predictable as the tides.....

Ignoring the difference between 'claiming Clinton destroyed personal emails' and 'agreement that Clinton admitted destroying personal emails' does not help your argument.

You claimed that Clinton had never seen the emails she destroyed. Your link does not support that. If you think it does, please quote the passage, sentence, or paragraph.

Even if you are able to substantiate that claim, it is not evidence for your claim that she destroyed work emails.

Continuously pointing out that your links don't say what you claim, and that you have not been able to support any assertions, is becoming tiresome. I don't think there is anything to he gained by asking you to support your assertions again.