HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Legal group submits plan ...

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:44 AM

Legal group submits plan to depose 7 top Clinton, State Dept. aides in email battle

Source: Washington Post

A conservative legal advocacy group submitted plans Tuesday to question under oath seven current and former top State Department officials and aides to Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton — but not Clinton herself at this point — about her use of a private email server when she was secretary of state.

Judicial Watch said its deposition plan includes Cheryl D. Mills, who was Clinton’s chief of staff at State; Huma Abedin, a top aide who served as Mills’s deputy and who now is vice chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign; and Bryan Pagliano, a Clinton staff member during her 2008 presidential campaign who helped set up the private server.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington granted a request on Feb. 23 for legal discovery by Judicial Watch, which seeks to determine whether Clinton’s email arrangement thwarted federal open-records laws. After his order, Sullivan directed Judicial Watch to file a detailed plan about how it intended to proceed.

The submitted plan can be contested by lawyers from the Justice and State departments and is subject to approval by Sullivan.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-group-submits-plan-to-depose-7-top-clinton-state-dept-aides-in-email-battle/2016/03/15/b0f1e47a-ead6-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html



Here's a copy of the court document:
PLAINTIFF JUDICIAL WATCH’S PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN

Aside from :
Cheryl Mills, Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department
Huma Abedin, a long time aid who served as Mills’s deputy
Bryan Pagliano, a Clinton staff member who helped set up the private server and got immunity recently after pleading the fifth

they've also requested:
Stephen D. Mull, Executive Secretary of the State Department during Clinton time there
Lewis A. Lukens, Executive Director of the Executive Secretariat
Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management since 2007
Donald R. Reid, Senior Coordinator for Security Infrastructure, Bureau of Diplomatic Security since 2003

- more on them and how it's claimed they fit is in the linked Discovery plan.

from linked court document: "Based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary. If Plaintiff [Judical Watch] believes Mrs. Clinton’s testimony is required, it will request permission from the Court at the appropriate time".


The administration is trying to run out the clock so they'll probably wait until close to the April 12th deadline to respond. They'll argue about it for maybe a couple of weeks and then the judge will need a couple of weeks to make his decision around the middle of May (about the time some say they expect the FBI and Inspector General reports to start to come out ...)

Testifying should begin roughly about 8 weeks after that, around the middle of July (about 3-4 weeks after the House Benghazi report comes out) and run through the conventions. The plan is to get the above testimony done in eight weeks. Then, around the middle of September, they may ask Hillary to come in and testify. Could be sooner if a bunch of them plead the 5th (as I expect some likely will have to because a crime has probably occurred for exposing classified information and someone is going to take the fall).

The best defense in terms of the Clinton candidacy is to try to stretch this out until after the election.

Judicial Watch has several more lawsuits going on this and recently, the GOP joined them, filing six more lawsuits on FOIAs related to Hillary's time at the State Department.

Stock up on the popcorn. The schedule for dragging Hillary through the media mud is starting to fill up ....

59 replies, 4416 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 59 replies Author Time Post
Reply Legal group submits plan to depose 7 top Clinton, State Dept. aides in email battle (Original post)
Jarqui Mar 2016 OP
tomm2thumbs Mar 2016 #1
peacebird Mar 2016 #2
Cryptoad Mar 2016 #9
peacebird Mar 2016 #10
riversedge Mar 2016 #30
Herman4747 Mar 2016 #42
Baitball Blogger Mar 2016 #19
Cryptoad Mar 2016 #25
Baitball Blogger Mar 2016 #27
Cryptoad Mar 2016 #31
Baitball Blogger Mar 2016 #33
Cryptoad Mar 2016 #40
Baitball Blogger Mar 2016 #49
Cryptoad Mar 2016 #53
Baitball Blogger Mar 2016 #54
Codeine Mar 2016 #11
cynzke Mar 2016 #24
Myrina Mar 2016 #15
peacebird Mar 2016 #16
leftynyc Mar 2016 #18
NWCorona Mar 2016 #20
leftynyc Mar 2016 #21
NWCorona Mar 2016 #23
LeFleur1 Mar 2016 #39
Democat Mar 2016 #28
Herman4747 Mar 2016 #41
AxionExcel Mar 2016 #3
Kingofalldems Mar 2016 #4
Nitram Mar 2016 #43
Le Taz Hot Mar 2016 #47
Kingofalldems Mar 2016 #48
Le Taz Hot Mar 2016 #50
Kingofalldems Mar 2016 #52
Le Taz Hot Mar 2016 #55
Kingofalldems Mar 2016 #56
Trust Buster Mar 2016 #5
PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #26
Trust Buster Mar 2016 #29
PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #32
Trust Buster Mar 2016 #34
PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #35
OnyxCollie Mar 2016 #38
geek tragedy Mar 2016 #6
Jarqui Mar 2016 #13
geek tragedy Mar 2016 #14
Jarqui Mar 2016 #17
Nitram Mar 2016 #44
Jarqui Mar 2016 #46
Archae Mar 2016 #36
geek tragedy Mar 2016 #37
leftofcool Mar 2016 #7
Codeine Mar 2016 #12
Jarqui Mar 2016 #59
Cryptoad Mar 2016 #8
jparke1599 Mar 2016 #22
peacebird Mar 2016 #45
vdogg Mar 2016 #51
Babel_17 Mar 2016 #57
leveymg Mar 2016 #58

Response to Jarqui (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:48 AM

1. I thought this was over?


my pivot shoe must be stuck in the mud

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:58 AM

2. We could simply nominate Bernie Sanders. His integrity, honesty, and candor vs her baggage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:53 AM

9. Math says there is NO Path to Victory for Bern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:57 AM

10. Actually MATH says there is a path to pledged delegate victory for Bernie. We are in this fight

until the convention, and beyond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:34 AM

30. Sanders will stay in but there is no viable path for victory. NONE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #30)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:04 PM

42. Except, of course, if your immoral beloved,

 

Hillary, steps aside for the good of the nation.

But hey, we both know she would never do that, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:30 AM

19. You really need to stop this nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:23 AM

25. Just the facts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #27)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:39 AM

31. math says even the number on ur graph are incorrect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #31)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:47 AM

33. Your post lacks substance. Just the usual soundbites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #33)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:51 PM

40. Numbers say it aint going to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #40)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:22 PM

49. Show me your links.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #49)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:55 PM

53. I can count without a "link"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #53)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:11 PM

54. Just what I thought. No real substance to your opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:02 AM

11. Judicial Watch doesn't dictate my vote, thanks.

Your mileage may, of course, vary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Codeine (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:18 AM

24. What's In A Name?

Just because they call themselves "Judicial Watch" does not indicate they have in any way, legal authority. They are simply an organization that has filed a "lawsuit" and the Judge granted them the power to subpoena witnesses for "discovery" purposes to acquire evidence for their lawsuit. I hope the witnesses plead the fifth. In fact their attorneys should advise them to do that considering there is an investigation by the FBI ongoing. Anything the witnesses testify to in the lawsuit, could be used against them should the FBI investigation lead to formal charges. While JW has been given the power of subpoena, I would think their questioning powers would be limited in scope to what is only relevant to their lawsuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:08 AM

15. I Agree w/ Peacebird.

Do we really want the next 4 years to look like this, in the headlines, every damn day?
Scandal, hearings, etc etc ... tell us how HRC would get anything done when she's constantly being deposed / investigated / impeached?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #15)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:08 AM

16. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #15)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:20 AM

18. Perhaps you're prepared to

 

jump through the hoops for this right wing piece of shit group but I'm not and neither is Hillary. Fuck them. And if you think they wouldn't be doing the same to Bernie, you're fucking delusional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:41 AM

20. Bernie didn't set up a private server

But yes the Repubs will go after him as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:42 AM

21. LOL

 

You don't think they'll find something else? Have you been asleep for the last 30 years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:45 AM

23. Did you read my reply

Of course they will try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #15)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:39 AM

39. Hillary Can Get Things Done

Unless, of course, Democrats and Independents stay home and don't vote, allowing Republicans into office who have no idea how the House and Senate are suppose to work. That's what happened last election. The la de da, the purists, the lazy didn't vote and we got this bunch of knot heads in the House and Senate, which has made it extremely hard for Obama to get things done.

Hillary will stand in spite of the crooks and liars who constantly accuse her of everything under the sun. She's proven it. Everything she has ever done from the time of her teen years is out there, things have been made up and grabbed by the press to smear her. Besides that, they don't like her voice (t oo high), they don't like her clothes (not feminine enough), her hair (color, style), etc. She's been able to rise above it all and do her jobs, whatever they were. So Hillary will come through for us and do her best.

Those against Hillary, including Republicans and others, want everyone to believe that they can keep throwing out scandals, hearings, accusations, all lies and innuendos, to limit her. Funny they haven't found out by now that it's very very hard to make lies stick when the person continues to fight back as she does.
Hurrah for Hillary, brave and strong. Just what the country needs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:32 AM

28. Some complain that Obama shouldn't let Republicans pick his justice

But Democrats should let Republicans pick their presidential candidate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:01 PM

41. Exactly. NO BAGGAGE WHATSOEVER WITH BERNIE.

 

Instead, we shall have to worry whether all this nonsense Hillary has gotten into decreases our chances for Victory in November.
Or increases the chances of President Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:02 AM

3. Right-wing Republican poli-psychopaths seek to undermine US elections

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AxionExcel (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:05 AM

4. Exactly. This is just like Whitewater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:05 PM

43. Yes, just like Whitewater.

No there there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:16 PM

47. Which tied up the Clinton administration for 3 years.

There doesn't have to be any there there. There just has to be investigation after investigation after investigation. You guys are so buys cheerleading on your candidate you don't see the Mac truck headed right at you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #47)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:31 PM

48. I don't get it. Tying up Clinton for 3 tears was a good thing?

Looks like you guys are counting on a right wing hit man to deal with Hillary Clinton.

Try beating her at the polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #48)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:23 PM

50. Oh, my god. Nobody said this was a good thing.

We're trying to tell you something but you've got your fingers in your ears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #50)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:11 PM

52. I get it. You think she is going to be

arrested or something and we should give up on her. Not gonna happen, unless Rice and Powell are also arrested. Also Hillary is smart enough to know if she is vulnerable.

BTW, I like Bernie a lot and would consider supporting him if I thought he were electable. If he is nominated the media will turn him into Josef Stalin and run stories about Venezuela on an hourly basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #52)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:14 PM

55. Nooooo.

Let's go over this again. Slowly. It doesn't matter if there were any laws broken. IF she gets the nomination, they'll start hammering her with all this shit and IF she gets the White House, they will completely hamper her administration by investigation after investigation. This is not a Bernie vs. Hillary issue, it is how a Hillary administration would be completely hampered her entire first term and she'll be lucky to get a second term because of it.

You've gone off the deep end with all the other stuff.

Fuck this. You're wasting my fucking time.
<flush>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #55)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:23 PM

56. Okay.



Make it personal with a flush? Not good. I have nothing against you.

I just posted my opinion based on past events--see George McGovern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:05 AM

5. Judicial Watch was founded and is run by a man named Larry Klayman.

 

Klayman has been abusing our court system with frivolous lawsuits against Democrats for decades. During the government shutdown, Klayman stood outside the White House and demanded the Muslim inside get up off his knees and come out with his hands up. SHAME ON ANY DEMOCRAT THAT DERIVES POLITICAL SOLACE FROM THE BEHAVIOR OF ONE LARRY KLAYMAN. (Drop mic).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:28 AM

26. Note that the courts haven't agreed all of the lawsuits were "frivolous"....

several of their lawsuits have been successful.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #26)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:34 AM

29. Klayman's sole purpose has been to use the court system to smear democrats for decades.

 

Do you support the efforts of a man who stood outside the White House during the government shutdown and demanded that the Muslim inside get up off his knees and come out with his hands up ? Yes or no ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:43 AM

32. I'm not a Klayman supporter. I'm just pointing out that you can't dismiss all the legal action

by Judicial Watch as frivolous as they've had their share of successes in court. "frivolous lawsuits" don't
by definition succeed.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #32)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:48 AM

34. You support Klayman's INTENT which is to destroy any Democrat in positions of power. Congratulations

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #34)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:51 AM

35. Pointing out that Klayman has had some success in the courts is no more "supporting" him...

than pointing out that Donald Trump has had success in the Republican primaries means you
are a Trump supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:07 AM

38. Klayman (and the Sierra Club) sued Cheney over his secret NEPDG meetings.

 

-The Issues in the Case: FACA's Scope, and Permissible Discovery
The core issue in this case is whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) applies to the National Energy Policy Development Group. If so, then the Group's proceedings must be revealed. Cheney's position is that FACA does not apply, by its own terms, since the president appointed only federal officials to serve on the panel.

But the plaintiffs in the case -- Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club - argue that in fact, it's not true that only federal officials served on the panel. To the contrary, they say, a number of energy industry lobbyists (such as Enron's Ken Lay) were so deeply involved in the work of the Group, they were effectively members. And the D.C. Circuit ruled in 1993, in Association of Physicians & Surgeons v. Clinton, that in such a situation, FACA does apply.

The Court left the question whether FACA applies for the Court of Appeals. But it did speak, at least to some extent,to the discovery issues the case also raised. The plaintiffs had served discovery requests--principally requests for documents, and written interrogatories - on Cheney.

Cheney refused to respond. He also refused to invoke executive privilege. Thus, were it not for his decision to seek Supreme Court review, he would have had to either invoke executive privilege, or produce documents and respond to the interrogatories. On this issue, the Court sided with Cheney. It held that: "Given the breadth of the discovery requests in this case …, our precedent provides no support for the proposition that the Executive Branch "shall bear the burden" of invoking executive privilege with sufficient specificity and of making particularized objections."

But it also pointed out that the federal trial courts in the District of Columbia had previously fashioned discovery requests from the Executive that did not require an invocation of executive privilege, and caused no separation of powers problems. Thus, the Court left the ultimate issue of whether similar requests could be fashioned in this case, to the D.C. Circuit. (Dean, 2004, p. 2)


The Washington Post reported that representatives from Chevron, Conoco Phillips, and Royal Dutch/Shell among other oil companies met with the NEPDG and "’gave detailed energy policy recommendations’ to the task force.”91

One of the first visitors, on Feb. 14, was James J. Rouse, then vice president of Exxon Mobil and a major donor to the Bush inauguration; a week later, longtime Bush supporter Kenneth L. Lay, then head of Enron Corp., came by for the first of two meetings. On March 5, some of the country's biggest electric utilities, including Duke Energy and Constellation Energy Group, had an audience with the task force staff.

British Petroleum representatives dropped by on March 22, one of about 20 oil and drilling companies to get meetings. The National Mining Association, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and the American Petroleum Institute were among three dozen trade associations that met with Cheney's staff, the document shows. (Abramowitz & Mufson, 2007)


-Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, sought documents from the NEPDG beginning on April 19, 2001. JW was forced to file a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) when the government failed to comply with the provisions of the FOIA law. U.S. District Court Judge Paul J. Friedman ordered the government to produce the documents on March 5, 2002. The documents, dated March 2001, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” (JW, 2003)

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:11 AM

6. Bernie fans cheering on Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch.

 

And they wonder why Hillary's kicking his ass among real (i.e. registered) Democrats.

Larry Klayman is a rightwing sewer rat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:07 AM

13. I do not see anybody cheering this on

I can say "I told you so" because I have feared this for a long time with Clinton's candidacy. And I do fear it because of the results it is likely to bring - it's going to continue to damage her in the polls - which is exactly what the GOP want.

As for shooting the messenger Larry Klayman, he's most definitely not on our side but he's no longer with Judicial Watch (in fact, he's even successfully sued them or one of their employees). He's got little to do with this beyond he founded Judicial Watch some years ago.

As for Judicial Watch, they're also most definitely on the other side but to me, they're just a tool in this. Having said that, their lawsuit goes nowhere unless it has some sort of merit - whether we like it or not. I think the Judge has been fairly reasonable so far (unless I've missed something). I do not like what they're doing to a Dem candidate but unlike the swiftboating of John Kerry, it's hard to pin them down on doing something dishonest or illegal when a court is going along with them. And when a court is going along with it, it's harder for the public to see Hillary's side.

To me, it's all just a part of the larger GOP plan to damage Hillary that's been in the works since Benghazi was invented to hurt her and particularly for about the last 15-17 months.

It's not the fault of the Sanders campaign or it's supporters. They have nothing to do with it. To me, since the Clinton supporters knew about this and supporter her, they should be coming up with a positive way for us to handle it - to minimize the damage.

It's all geared up for maximum chaos and smearing between the convention and the election. We knew it was coming. And it's going to get worse. If Hillary is going to prevail, we have to find a way to deal with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #13)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:07 AM

14. yeah, and nothing like this would happen to Bernie Sanders nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #14)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:17 AM

17. I think to a degree it would. I can't imagine the GOP operating any other way.

Bernie would be made out to be a "commie", etc.

But I do not think what they could come up with on Bernie is nearly as bad as what they can come up with on Hillary - in quality, based on how well it will stick and on quantity because there's much more to go after Hillary for.

I would have loved for Bernie to win but the mathematical and circumstantial chances of that are very slim. I think he should stick around because this could blow up on Hillary but I wouldn't count on it because I think the administration can run out the clock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:10 PM

44. Jarqui, you actually don't know.

Bernie has never been investigated as thoroughly as he would if he were nominated. And you haven't even considered the dirty tricks they'd pull. They even do it to each other. Remember Bush vs McCain in the S. Carolina primary when Rove put out material insinuating McCain had a child of color out of wedlock - because he had adopted a kid from Bangladesh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nitram (Reply #44)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:10 PM

46. "Jarqui, you actually don't know." I think we've got a darn good indication

Bernie has been running for office since the early 70s - often against two opponents (Dems and GOP). Forty plus years of that and many elections is one heck of a lot of scrutiny.

I'm sure the GOP will pull dirty tricks. They could float Hillary had sex with a gorilla or Bernie had sex with a goat. In others words, BOTH candidates are equally exposed to the potential of their dirty tricks.

The difference is Hillary has a deep library of scandals, lies, deceptions & flip-flops and is exposed to innuendo of quid pro quo with the Clinton Foundation or the email scandal, etc. Bernie doesn't have much of that crap in his background. And the problem with that type of crap is they can join real dots of evidence to trick folks into believing it far more than those who would fall for the pure wild allegation without any evidence like the gorilla/goat nonsense above.

The GOP can milk Hillary's email scandal all the way to the election - that 8-10 weeks of testimony coming up starting around mid July. The Benghazi report is coming out. The FBI and two Inspector General reports are likely before the convention. They can milk the Clinton Foundation stuff all the way to the election and there are troubling facts there that led to a subpoena ... so folks are much more prone to fall for it. they also can remind folks of all the prior scandals like Whitewater (Judicial Watch got some new stuff on that recently) or Travelgate or Cattlegate, etc. They've been researching Hillary for about 18 months on top of the research they had on Bill's years in the White House and Hillary in 2008. There is probably some stuff that will come out once she's nominated - far more likely of it happening than Bernie because they've been gunning for her for so long.

Again, Bernie doesn't have any scandals going on in his life and no major juicy scandals like that in his past. He's an honest guy not worth much money whose ex-wife still likes him and has few lies, flip-flops, deceptions or scandals in his past. It's not that the GOP won't try. They'll do their best to smear him just like they would Hillary. But he's very likely to have less trouble because he's starting out with so much less trouble from his past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:59 AM

36. Larry Klayman is no longer with Judicial Watch.

He left in a huff and has sued them several times.

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2011/05/213-larry-klayman.html

Judicial watch is the group that "found" the "ISIS training camp" in Texas that no one else could see.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/apr/17/judicial-watch/judicial-watch-says-isis-has-camp-mexico-and-near-/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #36)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:01 AM

37. eh, same shit different pile nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:15 AM

7. Translation: RW group wants Donald Trump to be president.

Why are you posting this crap in a Democratic forum?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:03 AM

12. It's what they do.

Clinton Derangement Syndrome knows no party boundaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:52 PM

59. Because it is news. Not good or great news but news just the same.

It's been proposed that 7 of Clinton's staff testify in this FOIA case related to the emails. Hillary herself may get called. In this article, it tells us who the plaintiff wants to testify - that is news - particularly when it includes Huma and Cheryl. And this can affect Hillary.

An outfit sympathetic to the right filed this lawsuit - one of 38 active lawsuits for Clinton information. This lawsuit is a little different because it's the one that triggered a whole bunch of this email fiasco and delivered copies of all Hillary's emails that were not deleted or classified. On that basis alone, it probably is not a bad thing to keep an eye on. A right wing sympathetic organization may have started this but the court has accepted the legality of their complaint to the extent the judge wants closer examination. The judge is accepting the plaintiff's legal argument that there potentially has been some stalling. The judge wants to get to the bottom of it with the testimony of people who were close to Clinton or maybe Hillary herself, to sort out why it took two years to get the emails when the FOIA limits are normally far shorter.

The bad news isn't so much the civil suit. In part, it's the timing. Clinton's State Department employees are probably going to be testifying or pleading the 5th during the Democratic convention - which might suck some of the air out of the Democratic convention. And the plaintiff has reserved the right to call Hillary to testify - which is also news because if she has to plead the 5th, her campaign would be in serious trouble. On that basis, I think we should pay attention to this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:52 AM

8. Ohhhh NO,,, EMAILS,,,,, Oh the horror of it all!,,Drink!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:43 AM

22. She will be win

 

win

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jparke1599 (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:20 PM

45. She will lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:27 PM

51. "A conservative"

I stopped reading after that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:42 PM

57. So by May the media will be in the business of explaining several different investigations

Polarizing, as it will be portrayed by many as more partisan witch hunting. However, there is enough real grist to keep the public curious.

Then there's the reality of it all. Pundits will proclaim, and the referees will make rulings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 08:46 PM

58. It's always the OOJ that gets them.

Thank you for the post onto my August 28 OP. Unfortunately, I am blocked from responding on my own post there and thanks for drawing my attention to this development. Feel free to IM

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread