Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheL8Elvis said:
Does "not really" mean she "sort of" broke the law ? You break the law, or you don't

When Issa says she didn't really break the law, I can only interpret that as meaning, no, she didn't break the law.

Can you please clarify how I am "wrong" ?

No, you claimed he said "yet". Please provide evidence that's what he said, or retract your statement. Then it will have been covered.

Cool though that you think Hillary is an active criminal, notwithstanding the fact you have no actual evidence, and experts disagree with you.
:cool:
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
K! Issa is an expert? I'll buy that (protip, in the next sentence he called her basically a scumbag)

Gowdy? Wait until he gets her cowboy server.
Click to expand...

So no, I am not wrong, and GOWdy didn't actually say yet.

This thread could have fewer posts if you would just admit when you are wrong instead of the constant posturing. :rolleyes:
 
TheL8Elvis said:
So no, I am not wrong, and GOWdy didn't actually say yet.

This thread could have fewer posts if you would just admit when you are wrong instead of the constant posturing. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Curious, I never said "goody" said anything. Hmmm.

I said wait until the House subpoenas Hillary's cowboy server.

This thread would have fewer posts if you quoted me accurately.
 
davefoc said:
Is your argument that if one conducts government business with a personal email account that person is not subject to the same rules with regard to submitting materials for archiving as other people that used government email accounts to conduct government business? Is this an ethical argument or a legal argument?

The author of the National Review article argued that Clinton was subject to the rules of the Records Management Manual and he referred to sections of that manual:
Click to expand...

Did you miss 16.5's claim that had Clinton followed protocol and used a government server, only .000006% of her emails would have been saved?

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...
 
Should I start a poll? Hillary, active criminal or just a scumbag?

Planet X option, she wins the presidency!

Lolz!
 
TheL8Elvis said:
...
There has been no evidence offered by you that she destroyed email she wasn't allowed to.

...
Click to expand...

The author of the National Review article argues that she destroyed emails that she wasn't allowed to because she did so in a way that violated the rules of the Records Management Manual. His argument is that she was required to comply with exit procedures that involved a formal review of what she was allowed to remove.

There does seem to be something of a legal issue here. If you were Joe Blow State Department worker using government email you would need to have submitted your emails for archiving and review before you got to extract from it that which you saw as personal. Clinton only used a private account so does that mean she could be the final arbiter of what was business and what was personal? This seems like a pretty big loophole to any kind of regulation about the archiving of emails for people that conduct government business with their personal email accounts.
 
"actual legal expert" Darrel Issa says that Hillary might have committed a crime!

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) on Sunday suggested that Hillary Clinton could face criminal charges if she knowingly withholds emails from congressional investigators.

Appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," Issa noted that "voluntary cooperation does not guarantee that it's a crime not to deliver all" requested emails.

"A subpoena, which Trey Gowdy issued, is so that in fact it will be a crime if she knowingly withholds documents pursuant to subpoena," Issa said.

The former House Oversight Committee chairman issued three subpoenas related to the 2012 Benghazi attacks, he said, acknowledging the House Select Committee on Benghazi last week subpoenaed all of Clinton's emails during her tenure as secretary of State.

Clinton last week called on the State Department to release the 55,000 pages of her emails that she self-selected and turned over. State has turned over about 900 pages to the committee.

Issa argued that Clinton "wasn't forthcoming two and a half years ago."

"She, in fact, hid the very existence of this until she was caught," Issa said.
 
16.5 said:
"actual legal expert" Darrel Issa says that Hillary might have committed a crime!

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) on Sunday suggested that Hillary Clinton could face criminal charges if she knowingly withholds emails from congressional investigators.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a problem with your tenses. Your claim "might have" is for a past occurrence. Issa's claim "could face criminal charges if she knowingly withholds emails" is a future tense, stating a possibility that might occur in the future.
 
after several days of having her feet held to the fire by astute critics like your boy 16.5, Hillary's camp now comes out and claims that all emails were indeed reviewed.

Sure, she didn't mention it in her speech nor in her lawyer approved "fact speech."

Ya see Hillary and her lawyers assumed that everyone would assume that Hillary and her team would read all the emails!

“We simply took for granted that reading every single email came across as the most important, fundamental and exhaustive step that was performed. The fact sheet should have been clearer in stating that every email was read,” Merrill said

They took it for granted ya see! Sounds totally legit. BWHAHAHA!
 
wareyin said:
You seem to have a problem with your tenses. Your claim "might have" is for a past occurrence. Issa's claim "could face criminal charges if she knowingly withholds emails" is a future tense, stating a possibility that might occur in the future.
Click to expand...

Hmm, clarify this for me, will ya:

"She, in fact, hid the very existence of this until she was caught," Issa said.

Hid? past tense? Future tense? present tense?

Lolz, just kidding, it is all three!
 
16.5 said:
"actual legal expert" Darrel Issa says that Hillary might have committed a crime!
Click to expand...


You're having difficulty with tense, it seems...

ETA: wareyin beat me to it.

Your tense problem stems from the fact that any potential criminal charges would be the result of Clinton's failure to comply properly with the current subpoena, not for anything she had allegedly done previously.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Hmm, clarify this for me, will ya:

"She, in fact, hid the very existence of this until she was caught," Issa said.

Hid? past tense? Future tense? present tense?

Lolz, just kidding, it is all three!
Click to expand...
You see, if Issa was actually making the claim you said he was, he would have said "withheld" not "withholds". If you need any more help understanding how the quotes you provide contradict your claims, I will be happy to help.
 
wareyin said:
You see, if Issa was actually making the claim you said he was, he would have said "withheld" not "withholds". If you need any more help understanding how the quotes you provide contradict your claims, I will be happy to help.
Click to expand...

Hid the very existence until she was caught!
Hides the very server until she gets caught!
Will hide the server until they serve the subpoena!

lolz, what a scumbag she is.
 
16.5 said:
Hid the very existence until she was caught!
Hides the very server until she gets caught!
Will hide the server until they serve the subpoena!

lolz, what a scumbag she is.
Click to expand...


Would it be against forum rules for me to request that you stop acting like a child?
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Would it be against forum rules for me to request that you stop acting like a child?
Click to expand...

Weren't you one of the people who said I didn't understand tenses?

Yeah, that was you.

Ok. Thanks for posting.

I thought Hillary is a scumbag.
I think Hillary is a scumbag.
I will think that Hillary is a scumbag.

TENSES!
 
wareyin said:
Did you miss 16.5's claim that had Clinton followed protocol and used a government server, only .000006% of her emails would have been saved?
Click to expand...

This is false. If Clinton had followed protocol, then all of her work-related emails would have been stored. The problem is that there was no automated system, so that employees were required to archive their important work-related emails themselves (N.B. I am assuming that for the SOS, all work-related emails would be considered important, but that's not true for the typical State Department employee). What the Inspector General found was that only 30,000 or so emails out of a billion were in a given calendar year, and that this was evidence that employees were not following the records rules adequately. I'll concede that since this was such a widespread problem at the State Department, that some of the blame falls on the head of the State Department, who should have been making sure the records laws were being enforced, and not 100% on an individual employee who broke the rules. So I think it's fair that only some of the blame be apportioned to Hillary Clinton the employee, and the rest be apportioned to Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
You're having difficulty with tense, it seems...

ETA: wareyin beat me to it.

Your tense problem stems from the fact that any potential criminal charges would be the result of Clinton's failure to comply properly with the current subpoena, not for anything she had allegedly done previously.
Click to expand...

I think Issa is being careful not to imply that Clinton has already committed a crime because if the subpoena is considered part of a criminal investigation, it can be more easily challenged by Clinton's lawyers and delayed, I do not think Issa actually believes that Clinton has not yet committed a crime for the simply reason that the evidence is very strong that she has. I have already advanced a strong argument that she has, as well as cited an article which makes an even stronger case (which Davefoc has referred to several times). Rebutting this by saying that certain Republicans have diplomatically declined to accuse Clinton of committing a crime is, to put it mildly, weak tea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom