Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

amborin

(16,631 posts)
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:00 PM Mar 2016

Second Judge Grants Discovery in Clinton Email Case


Second judge grants discovery in Clinton email lawsuit

By Josh Gerstein

03/29/16 12:46 PM EDT

Citing indications of wrongdoing and bad faith, a federal judge has overruled government objections by declaring that a conservative group is entitled to more details about how Hillary Clinton's private email account was integrated into the State Department recordkeeping system and why it was not searched in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth entered an order Tuesday agreeing that Judicial Watch can pursue legal discovery — which often includes depositions of relevant individuals — as the group pursues legal claims that State did not respond completely to a FOIA request filed in May 2014 seeking records about talking points then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice used for TV appearances discussing the deadly attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi in September 2012.

Lamberth is the second federal judge handling a Clinton email-related case to agree to discovery, which is unusual in FOIA litigation. Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan gave Judicial Watch the go-ahead to pursue depositions of Clinton aides in a lawsuit for records about former Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin.

"Where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases," Lamberth wrote in a three-page order. The judge noted that State argues it had no legal duty to search Clinton's emails when Judicial Watch's request arrived because her emails were not in the agency's possession and control at that time. It was not until December 2014 that Clinton turned over a portion of her email archive to State at the agency's request.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/03/hillary-clinton-email-discovery-221338#ixzz44JPvmIBD
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
85 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Second Judge Grants Discovery in Clinton Email Case (Original Post) amborin Mar 2016 OP
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Mar 2016 #1
another "conservative group." Yawn.... they keep trying. Jitter65 Mar 2016 #71
Um, and succeeding, apparently. Barack_America Mar 2016 #84
Pro-Tip Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #2
it's about Clinton circumventing the public's right to know. eom tk2kewl Mar 2016 #4
No, it's about Judicial Watch's Benghazi witch hunt. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #14
in your view... others are legitimately concerned about laws regarding government transparency tk2kewl Mar 2016 #31
Put away the victim card for once and open your eyes. merrily Mar 2016 #34
It's BernGhazi! Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #38
The emote does not refute a single point in my irrefutable post. merrily Mar 2016 #40
This has nothing to do with Bernie. panader0 Mar 2016 #41
No, just his supporters who are beating the drum for Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #42
Beating the drum for the truth. panader0 Mar 2016 #44
Truth!?!?!? Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #47
The question marks seem to indicate that you are confused by the word. panader0 Mar 2016 #48
Confused by it's association with Judicial Watch. nt Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #49
You should be confused about it's association with HRC. panader0 Mar 2016 #50
So not only are we shooting the messenger VulgarPoet Mar 2016 #54
That's right. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #56
Don't waste your time... CherokeeDem Mar 2016 #52
I've realized this. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #53
Can I ask you a serious question? NWCorona Mar 2016 #59
Sure. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #61
Fair enough 😀 NWCorona Mar 2016 #64
Well, there were no proper archiving rules in place from what I understand. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #65
I believe the archiving rules are pretty clear NWCorona Mar 2016 #67
But this all falls on State. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #70
I agree that the state department dropped the ball big time NWCorona Mar 2016 #72
Terrible isn't it? CherokeeDem Mar 2016 #78
well, I will ALWAYS go on the record as cheering for truth. grasswire Mar 2016 #6
So you think she's hiding something re: Benghazi? Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #18
I have no particular interest in Benghazi. grasswire Mar 2016 #22
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant." Jarqui Mar 2016 #32
You won't be able to show the OP cheering on Judicial Watch, so why the strange DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2016 #7
Because those cheering in this thread are cheering on the Benghazi witch hunt Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #15
Sorry, I don't do dishonesty. Your reply was #2, and it was to the OP. DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2016 #16
And I stand by them. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #19
Then you're standing by incoherence, and your English prof gave you an F for the day. DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2016 #21
I believe the OP supports Judicial Watch's lawsuit. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #24
Your dishonest post was nailed dead-to-rights. See you around. DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2016 #25
Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!...you sound like a republican in congress awake Mar 2016 #45
. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #46
So disregarding FOIA is amusing to you? Fuckin' disgusting, mate. VulgarPoet Mar 2016 #58
Pobrecita. nt Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #60
"Completely different issue" Whew I thought it was the other issue. Just stop! How many issues thereismore Mar 2016 #35
Well, there are manufactured issues, like this one. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #37
I believe you. But you skirted around my question. One FBI investigation is enough, IMO. nt thereismore Mar 2016 #39
There is a point you have repeatedly ignored angrychair Mar 2016 #66
I'm coming to the conclusion ... salinsky Mar 2016 #10
I guess two-time Obama appointee Judge Emmett Sullivan is such a political neophyte magical thyme Mar 2016 #17
Two federal judges have found bad faith on State's part now. morningfog Mar 2016 #20
FOIA lawsuit by Judicial Watch. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #23
Slow down there bucko. You are connecting dots not there. morningfog Mar 2016 #26
I don't have a problem with it in part because the court decided it Jarqui Mar 2016 #43
This means Hillary will be involved in litigation at minimum as a witness under oath. IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #28
False. It is a news story relevant to the primaries. JackRiddler Mar 2016 #68
Yes, yes they are obamanut2012 Mar 2016 #69
drip drip grasswire Mar 2016 #3
Somebody get some clean sheets LastLiberal in PalmSprings Mar 2016 #30
Something called "Commercegate" that I hadn't heard of: arcane1 Mar 2016 #63
That is interesting. My husbands convinced that if HRC gets glinda Mar 2016 #81
Cracks are beginning to show in the dam holding back this scandal... GeorgiaPeanuts Mar 2016 #5
likely, yes nt grasswire Mar 2016 #9
and the DNC may have an even finer-sliced plan, to knock Sanders out MisterP Mar 2016 #13
Biden is definitely waiting in the wings NWCorona Mar 2016 #57
#ChangeYourToneBernie FlatBaroque Mar 2016 #8
It was very classy that he said enough of those damn emails but somehow I think if jillan Mar 2016 #12
Me neither NWCorona Mar 2016 #55
Whatever happens needs to happen now rather than after she is elected. That would destroy jillan Mar 2016 #11
..! KoKo Mar 2016 #85
Unfortunately, Hillary refuses to provide us with an answer... Herman4747 Mar 2016 #27
Whu-oh JackInGreen Mar 2016 #29
Drip drip drip... tularetom Mar 2016 #33
I agree with your assessment. glinda Mar 2016 #82
Wrap yourself in the Flag Hillary - that will protect you FreakinDJ Mar 2016 #36
I don't like this Obama appointed judge's tone Ichingcarpenter Mar 2016 #51
The Never Ending Story... Land of Enchantment Mar 2016 #62
How many shoes are there to drop? pdsimdars Mar 2016 #73
An interesting snip from the rest of the article: KoKo Mar 2016 #74
.+1 840high Mar 2016 #75
Judicial Watch is funded by some of the wealthiest Republicans in the country including the Koch's. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #76
Maybe she's hoping to stretch this out in hopes she can grant herself a pardon. bobbobbins01 Mar 2016 #77
Reuters News picks it up: KoKo Mar 2016 #79
Edit: I inadvertently more or less duplicated what KoKo posted Babel_17 Mar 2016 #80
Anyone else catching a whiff of annoyance from this judge? riderinthestorm Mar 2016 #83
 

Jitter65

(3,089 posts)
71. another "conservative group." Yawn.... they keep trying.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:53 PM
Mar 2016

Sad to see so many here giddy over the actions of the RW conspiracy groups.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
2. Pro-Tip
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:03 PM
Mar 2016

This is about Judicial Watch's lawsuit, not the FBI investigation. Are you seriously cheering on Judicial Watch?

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
14. No, it's about Judicial Watch's Benghazi witch hunt.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:12 PM
Mar 2016

They're still trying to bring her down over Benghazi. The email stuff in this lawsuit all comes from that.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
34. Put away the victim card for once and open your eyes.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:35 PM
Mar 2016

The email stuff comes from her setting up her own server, taking two years to respond to an FOIA request, wiping her server before complying and then "complying" only by handing over what she and her lawyer thought should be handed over. Followed by her half truths to the American people about nothing being marked classified when sent or received. Never mind that she instructed staff to remove the classified markings before transmitting.

panader0

(25,816 posts)
44. Beating the drum for the truth.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:57 PM
Mar 2016

Are you afraid of the truth? If not, let's get all the facts out NOW!!

VulgarPoet

(2,872 posts)
54. So not only are we shooting the messenger
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:13 PM
Mar 2016

we're kneecapping it with a crowbar after duct taping its mouth shut, and then going after its family. A broken clock's right twice a day; and this might be one of two for that right wing drivel; but the truth will out.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
56. That's right.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:14 PM
Mar 2016

You keep supporting Judicial Watch. I'm just shooting the messenger. We should always believe lying RW troll organizations, especially when it's against a Democrat. What was I thinking?

CherokeeDem

(3,709 posts)
52. Don't waste your time...
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:12 PM
Mar 2016

it is quite apparent there are many people who could care less about the truth and will use whatever right wing nuts they can to demonize Hillary Clinton.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
53. I've realized this.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:13 PM
Mar 2016

I decided, for sanity's sake, to once again trash GDP.

If I wanted RW noise, I'd go to Free Republic.

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
64. Fair enough 😀
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:26 PM
Mar 2016

I can understand the pushback regarding judicial watch but the question I have is this.

When was Hillary Clinton going to turn over her emails to the state department if they didn't ask for them?

It was 2 maybe 3 years after she left state and it seems like it might not have happened unless this lawsuit happened.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
65. Well, there were no proper archiving rules in place from what I understand.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:35 PM
Mar 2016

At least at the time. And all emails she sent to or received FROM members of State, would be on the State servers.

With regards to emails, it was during the first few Benghazi hearings when she was asked to turn over all pertinent emails WRT Christ Stevens and any communications with the embassy in Benghazi. When they were turned over is when Judicial Watch realized there was a private server, hence they sued.

Now, the State Department has been scrambling to get everything in order, albeit poorly. Which goes back to the proper archiving rules, or lack thereof. Hillary deleted what were deemed personal emails (and so far, nothing has indicated otherwise), and turned the rest over to State. At which time, the State dept had to go through the emails and redact anything that was retroactively classified (even things that were direct quotes from news articles). State has been fumbling on this one, which is what THIS particular lawsuit is about. Judicial Watch vs State Dept.

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
67. I believe the archiving rules are pretty clear
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:42 PM
Mar 2016

That's why this judge along with judge Sullivan has came down so hard on the states inability to even look to see if the records are complete in regards to her emails.


Also
"And all emails she sent to or received FROM members of State, would be on the State servers. "
This is one of the reasons why the judge made this ruling.
The state department made no effort to find any emails from Hillary to other .Gov accounts. I think the most recent analysis of Hillary's emails shows that less than 20% of her emails went to other government accounts.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
70. But this all falls on State.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:50 PM
Mar 2016

State never bothered to archive (or request contents of the server) until after the FOIA suits. State wasn't archiving properly. And it was known at State that Hillary had her own server. State had also not archived the emails of the previous two SOS (Powell and Rice), who also used private servers.

So, the issue here is with STATE. Not with HRC or the mishandling of classified info (which is what the FBI investigation is about). But it all originated with Judicial Watch's hard-on for tying HRC to Benghazi (and as far as JW is concerned, it is STILL about that).

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
72. I agree that the state department dropped the ball big time
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:54 PM
Mar 2016

But like I said the rules regarding government correspondence are clear and Hillary didn't turn over the records when she left the state.

Agreed that the RW wants to get Hillary anyway possible. That's why this was a huge mistake on Clinton's part. Of course these fools would be asking about her records.

CherokeeDem

(3,709 posts)
78. Terrible isn't it?
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 05:15 PM
Mar 2016

I was banned from the Bernie group for daring to be upset they used Ann Coulter's words to denigrate Hillary. I was leaning toward O'Malley at that moment, although I'm a Hillary fan. Changed my mind, and went back in with a Hillary avatar and been solid for her ever since. Might be why I was banned, but I told them their tactics made my mind up for me.

I do not believe Hillary is a saint, I am not for her because she is a woman and I'm sick of hearing this BS being spouted by some.

I don't mind a heated, lively debate but the venom coming from some who call themselves Democrats is disgusting.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
6. well, I will ALWAYS go on the record as cheering for truth.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:05 PM
Mar 2016

No matter where it takes us. No matter who finds it.

Deceit in government just pisses me off.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
18. So you think she's hiding something re: Benghazi?
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:15 PM
Mar 2016

That's what this is about. It has NOTHING to do with the FBI issue with her email (and it NOT part of that investigation).

Judicial Watch is STILL looking for a smoking gun re: Benghazi.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
22. I have no particular interest in Benghazi.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:17 PM
Mar 2016

But I will defend ANY attempt to discern truth in government where deceit is suspected. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
7. You won't be able to show the OP cheering on Judicial Watch, so why the strange
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:06 PM
Mar 2016

accusational question? There wasn't a shred of commentary in the OP. Explain your strange question, please.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
15. Because those cheering in this thread are cheering on the Benghazi witch hunt
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:13 PM
Mar 2016

speerheaded by Judicial Watch.

Repeat: This has NOTHING to do with the FBI investigation into her server. Completely unrelated issue. This is about Benghazi. The emails are a means to an end for them.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
21. Then you're standing by incoherence, and your English prof gave you an F for the day.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:17 PM
Mar 2016

You're not being honest when you say you were replying to other replies. You were not. You were replying to an OP which was completely free of commentary. Busted by the timestamp.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
24. I believe the OP supports Judicial Watch's lawsuit.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:19 PM
Mar 2016

I also saw the other reply cheering it. I responded.

Since then, there is more cheering. I wasn't wrong.

Busted by nothing.

awake

(3,226 posts)
45. Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!...you sound like a republican in congress
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:58 PM
Mar 2016

I agree Benghazi is a smoke screen and a distraction but now a Hillary supporter is using the same smoke screen to take the focus off of the fact that a second Judge has ruled that there seems to have been wrong doing by the State Dept. in regards to a FOIA request.

I know that this case is being pushed by a group of Right Wing hacks but are you saying that 2 judges are in on a fix?

Benghazi is not the issue here! Hillary has brought all of this shit storm on her self by using a home server for Government related emails. Just like Bill if he had kept it in his pants there would have been nothing for the right wingers to get him on. All too often it is their own actions that the Clinton's do which opens them to attacks from the right.

Please open your eyes Hillary is just not our best candidate she is caring more baggage than a 747.

VulgarPoet

(2,872 posts)
58. So disregarding FOIA is amusing to you? Fuckin' disgusting, mate.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:15 PM
Mar 2016

I'm ashamed to temporarily share a party with you.

thereismore

(13,326 posts)
35. "Completely different issue" Whew I thought it was the other issue. Just stop! How many issues
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:36 PM
Mar 2016

do we need to keep track of before we say there's been enough issues?! How many?
 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
37. Well, there are manufactured issues, like this one.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:41 PM
Mar 2016

Where a RW organization (Judicial Watch) made a FOIA lawsuit to read all of HRC's emails in the hopes of finding a smoking gun on Benghazi.

angrychair

(8,594 posts)
66. There is a point you have repeatedly ignored
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:38 PM
Mar 2016

What is that old Nixon era saying, "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up"?

To be very clear, I do not believe that HRC did anything wrong in connection to Benghazi.

To be clear, I also believe that JW uses FOIA request as a weapon to "dig up" stuff that likely never existed.

All that stated, a legitimately filed and accepted FOIA request must be honored and addressed to the letter of the law.
In this case, there is evidence, per findings by two different federal courts, not my opinion, that it may not have been answered per the requirements of law and those that were fulfilling this FOIA request attempted subterfuge or obstification in fulfilling the request.

Do I think it's a "deal breaker " for her presidential run? No.

I do think that, if true, it's a very disturbing outcome and will only draw even more negative attention to a person that needs no more.
It also goes to judgement. Why, while poor decisions are made, she is not guilty of the things she is accused of, she is often doing things that push the envelope of ethics and standards of practice. She apologized for the private email server, so she recognized it was a poor decision. Why do it in the first place?

Why, when your words and actions are being watched to expose a weakness, would you do things that do just that? It's bizarre behavior you have to admit.

salinsky

(1,065 posts)
10. I'm coming to the conclusion ...
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:07 PM
Mar 2016

... that many of Bernie's supporters are such political neophytes that they haven't a clue what Judicial Watch is all about.

Here's a tip for them - their name has little to nothing to do with their mission.

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
17. I guess two-time Obama appointee Judge Emmett Sullivan is such a political neophyte
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:15 PM
Mar 2016

that he didn't understand what Judicial Watch was up to when he recently allowed discovery on another of their cases.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
23. FOIA lawsuit by Judicial Watch.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:18 PM
Mar 2016

All over Benghazi.

This isn't something that could bring Hillary down. It has no legal bearing.

FUCK JUDICIAL WATCH. And anyone who would support them.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
26. Slow down there bucko. You are connecting dots not there.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:20 PM
Mar 2016

I am well aware of the geneses of these suits.

I don't support or cheer on Judicial Watch.

Two independent and independently acting federal judges have now said that there is evidence of bad faith on the part of State and its handling of FOIA information.

Jarqui

(10,110 posts)
43. I don't have a problem with it in part because the court decided it
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:53 PM
Mar 2016

- not Judicial Watch

If nobody has done anything wrong, then all they have to do is go into court, tell the judge the truth and leave. End of problem.

If they have done something wrong, making them go into court and answer for it doesn't seem like such a bad or unreasonable outcome either.

There are 38 lawsuits currently going on mostly for information on Clinton's documents while Secretary of State (at least one is on Whitewater). Maybe the court is sending a message => "if you guys at the State Department don't get cracking, you're going to have to come into court and answer for it".

If you review the early correspondence of the Inspector Generals looking at the emails, even in the face of blunt evidence presented to them by the Inspector Generals, the State Department was in "deny, deny and deny" mode.

The State Department did their best to run down the game clock and now they're being held to account.

I'm not a fan of Judicial Watch's right wing slant but the law is the law. If the judge isn't being unreasonable, carry on.

The one thing 38 lawsuits for Clinton information that aren't looking for bunches of money should tell Democrats is the determination of the opposition to get Hillary Clinton. They're leaving no stone unturned.

 

IdaBriggs

(10,559 posts)
28. This means Hillary will be involved in litigation at minimum as a witness under oath.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:23 PM
Mar 2016

And yes, I will cheer on ANY ORGANIZATION that fights for government transparency. In this case, their efforts uncovered serious breaches in archiving, storing and making available to the public government records which did not belong off government premises of outside of government control.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
68. False. It is a news story relevant to the primaries.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:44 PM
Mar 2016

THere is no comment in the OP cheering on Judicial Watch.

This is an issue relevant to the viability of a D candidate.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
3. drip drip
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:04 PM
Mar 2016

Did Lamberth sit on some aspects of the investigations into Bill Clinton? I can't remember.

glinda

(14,807 posts)
81. That is interesting. My husbands convinced that if HRC gets
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:46 PM
Mar 2016

the nomination that they will be renting out the bedrooms in the WH for coffer filling.

 

GeorgiaPeanuts

(2,353 posts)
5. Cracks are beginning to show in the dam holding back this scandal...
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:05 PM
Mar 2016

I think Hillary strategy is to try and derail Sanders fast enough before she is taken down in controversy over this.

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
13. and the DNC may have an even finer-sliced plan, to knock Sanders out
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:12 PM
Mar 2016

and then swap Biden in from Clinton

FlatBaroque

(3,160 posts)
8. #ChangeYourToneBernie
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:07 PM
Mar 2016

You notice Bernie never brings this up - if he did it would be a legitimate and truthful attack - Bernie's such a bad man.

jillan

(39,451 posts)
12. It was very classy that he said enough of those damn emails but somehow I think if
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:09 PM
Mar 2016

the shoe was on the other foot, Hillary may have not been so kind.

jillan

(39,451 posts)
11. Whatever happens needs to happen now rather than after she is elected. That would destroy
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:08 PM
Mar 2016

our chances of winning the WH for a long while.

Unless of course they continue to keep offering Trump and Cruz as alternatives

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
33. Drip drip drip...
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:33 PM
Mar 2016

She's just trying to run out the clock at this point. Get that nomination in her hot little hand before the feces hits the oscillator and she's betting that the party won't have the stomach for a nasty fight, so they'll just go along with her even if she is damaged goods at that point (Actually a lot of us think she's damaged goods right now but thats another matter).

Land of Enchantment

(1,217 posts)
62. The Never Ending Story...
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:20 PM
Mar 2016

For those who were not around then or do not remember she conducted her 'Hillarycare' meeting behind closed doors. That pissed of a LOT of people and in my opinion is the main reason it failed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-aims-to-avoid-hillarycare-pitfalls/
In 1993, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton chaired a health care task force that met behind closed doors, crafted a labyrinthine proposal that topped 1,000 pages, and then asked the U.S. Congress to approve it.

We know what happened next. Democrats excluded from the secretive drafting process attacked from the left, a mostly unified Republican opposition rallied in opposition, and health insurers dealt "Hillarycare" the final blow through the so-called Harry and Louise television ads
.


Then she somehow found a way to turn them around:


Hillary Clinton Gets $13 Million From Health Industry, Now Says Single-Payer Will “Never, Ever Come To Pass­”
BY DAVID SIROTA @DAVIDSIROTA ON 01/30/16 AT 8:42 PM
Closing out her Iowa campaign, Hillary Clinton on Friday declared that the Medicare-for-all proposal pushed by her Democratic primary opponent and many liberal groups will “never, ever come to pass.” The statement came weeks after a new poll showed most Americans support the idea. Her declaration was a reversal of her position two decades ago — which came before she received millions of dollars of campaign cash from the health industry.


The point is not about Benghazi or Judicial Watch. The point is that it is ALWAYS something, always. The rules do not apply to her. She has a propensity to 'get her way' regardless of the consequences. This represents a serious problem regarding judgement. Hillary's past haunts her future in that this will never change.




 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
73. How many shoes are there to drop?
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:56 PM
Mar 2016

I hope they get to some conclusions soon, before we choose our nomination.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
74. An interesting snip from the rest of the article:
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 03:09 PM
Mar 2016

From the article:

Lamberth's ruling is likely to produce a back-to-the-future feeling among some Clinton loyalists and veterans of partisan legal wars from the 1990s. The Reagan appointee oversaw a series of lawsuits in that era over issues like access to the meetings and records of Clinton's Health Care Task Force, the maintenance of security files on GOP appointees in a White House security office and the use of Commerce Department trade missions as a reward for campaign donors.

 

Trust Buster

(7,299 posts)
76. Judicial Watch is funded by some of the wealthiest Republicans in the country including the Koch's.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 03:33 PM
Mar 2016

It was founded by Larry Klayman. You might remember Klayman as the guy who stood outside of the White House during the Republican forced government shutdown and demanded that the Muslim inside get up off his knees and come out with his hands up. Anyone that would source a Judicial Watch legal action is not someone that I have an ounce of respect for. (Drop mic).

bobbobbins01

(1,681 posts)
77. Maybe she's hoping to stretch this out in hopes she can grant herself a pardon.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 03:36 PM
Mar 2016

This is getting uglier by the day. I hope the upcoming primary states are paying attention.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
79. Reuters News picks it up:
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 06:20 PM
Mar 2016



Second judge says Clinton email setup may have been in 'bad faith'

NEW YORK | By Jonathan Allen
Politics | Tue Mar 29, 2016 5:26pm EDT

A second federal judge has taken the rare step of allowing a group suing for records from Hillary Clinton's time as U.S. secretary of state to seek sworn testimony from officials, saying there was "evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith."

The language in Judge Royce Lamberth's order undercut the Democratic presidential contender's assertion she was allowed to set up a private email server in her home for her work as the country's top diplomat and that the arrangement was not particularly unusual.

He described Clinton's email arrangement as "extraordinary" in his order filed on Tuesday in federal district court in Washington.

Referring to the State Department, Clinton and Clinton's aides, he said there had been "constantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials." Spokesmen for Clinton did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


The case is a civil matter, but the order adds to the legal uncertainty that has overshadowed Clinton's campaign to be the Democratic nominee in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

The FBI is also conducting a criminal inquiry into the arrangement after it emerged that classified government secrets ended up in Clinton's unsecured email account. Clinton has said she does not think she will be charged with a crime.

------

"Where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA (freedom-of-information) cases,"

Lamberth noted in his order.

The government is normally given the benefit of the doubt that it properly searched and produced records.

Since the email arrangement came to public knowledge a year ago, the State Department has found itself defending Clinton in scores of lawsuits from groups, individuals and news outlets who say they were wrongly denied access to Clinton's federal records.

Clinton left the department in 2013, but did not return her email records to the government until nearly two years later.

Last month, Judge Emmet Sullivan, who is overseeing a separate Judicial Watch lawsuit over other Clinton-related records, allowed a similar motion for discovery.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0WV2EI

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
80. Edit: I inadvertently more or less duplicated what KoKo posted
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 07:24 PM
Mar 2016
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0WV2EI

The language in Judge Royce Lamberth's order undercut the Democratic presidential contender's assertion she was allowed to set up a private email server in her home for her work as the country's top diplomat and that the arrangement was not particularly unusual.

He described Clinton's email arrangement as "extraordinary" in his order filed on Tuesday in federal district court in Washington.

Referring to the State Department, Clinton and Clinton's aides, he said there had been "constantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials."


Quite the spectacle in the making.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Second Judge Grants Disco...