2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSecond 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
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)Thanks for the thread, amborin.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Sad to see so many here giddy over the actions of the RW conspiracy groups.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)This is about Judicial Watch's lawsuit, not the FBI investigation. Are you seriously cheering on Judicial Watch?
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)They're still trying to bring her down over Benghazi. The email stuff in this lawsuit all comes from that.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)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.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Any port in a fucking storm.
merrily
(45,251 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)This has been brought about completely by HRC herself.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Judicial Watch.
panader0
(25,816 posts)Are you afraid of the truth? If not, let's get all the facts out NOW!!
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)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)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)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)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)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)But I might not give a serious answer.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)No matter where it takes us. No matter who finds it.
Deceit in government just pisses me off.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)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)But I will defend ANY attempt to discern truth in government where deceit is suspected. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Jarqui
(10,110 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)accusational question? There wasn't a shred of commentary in the OP. Explain your strange question, please.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)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)You own your words.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Benghazi!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)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)I also saw the other reply cheering it. I responded.
Since then, there is more cheering. I wasn't wrong.
Busted by nothing.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)awake
(3,226 posts)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)I'm ashamed to temporarily share a party with you.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)thereismore
(13,326 posts)do we need to keep track of before we say there's been enough issues?! How many?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)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.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)angrychair
(8,594 posts)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)... 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)that he didn't understand what Judicial Watch was up to when he recently allowed discovery on another of their cases.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)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)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)- 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)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)THere is no comment in the OP cheering on Judicial Watch.
This is an issue relevant to the viability of a D candidate.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Unbelievable.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Did Lamberth sit on some aspects of the investigations into Bill Clinton? I can't remember.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,539 posts)the Repugs are having wet dreams.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)glinda
(14,807 posts)the nomination that they will be renting out the bedrooms in the WH for coffer filling.
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)I think Hillary strategy is to try and derail Sanders fast enough before she is taken down in controversy over this.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)and then swap Biden in from Clinton
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)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)the shoe was on the other foot, Hillary may have not been so kind.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)our chances of winning the WH for a long while.
Unless of course they continue to keep offering Trump and Cruz as alternatives
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)I like discovery
tularetom
(23,664 posts)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).
glinda
(14,807 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)persevering justice and following the law.
Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)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.
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:
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)I hope they get to some conclusions soon, before we choose our nomination.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)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)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)This is getting uglier by the day. I hope the upcoming primary states are paying attention.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)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)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.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Bad. Really bad.