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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:26 PM Mar 2016

Judge cites "indications of wrongdoing and bad faith" in new HRC email ruling.

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.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/03/hillary-clinton-email-discovery-221338#ixzz44JlCCqxO
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Judge cites "indications of wrongdoing and bad faith" in new HRC email ruling. (Original Post) EdwardBernays Mar 2016 OP
This doesn't really need to be in the Bernie group. arcane1 Mar 2016 #1
I strongly disagree with that opinion. It's timely and relevant to primary and campaign outcomes leveymg Mar 2016 #3
I figured because it's not about Bernie. arcane1 Mar 2016 #4
Thanks for speaking up. leveymg Mar 2016 #7
I disagree. What happens to Clinton obviously leftcoastmountains Mar 2016 #9
I was in a pickle EdwardBernays Mar 2016 #14
No worries, I'm participating in the thread anyway arcane1 Mar 2016 #15
This ruling goes directly to the intent of using a private server to evade FOIA and Cong subpoenas leveymg Mar 2016 #2
And that intent was to privatize the State Department and run it in secret. arcane1 Mar 2016 #6
just saw this EdwardBernays Mar 2016 #13
That judge... Else You Are Mad Mar 2016 #5
That's his official ruling. It's not his personal opinion. All the more extraordinary. leveymg Mar 2016 #8
Indeed. Else You Are Mad Mar 2016 #11
Wheels within wheels yourpaljoey Mar 2016 #12
I wish this was someone other than Judicial Watch. in_cog_ni_to Mar 2016 #10
You know, the food we savor is grown in poop. leveymg Mar 2016 #16

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
3. I strongly disagree with that opinion. It's timely and relevant to primary and campaign outcomes
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:38 PM
Mar 2016

Please tell us why you think it doesn't belong here.

leftcoastmountains

(2,968 posts)
9. I disagree. What happens to Clinton obviously
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 03:01 PM
Mar 2016

effects Bernie and his run for president! I never thought this email debacle
would go this far.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
14. I was in a pickle
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 06:56 PM
Mar 2016

I've seen things that shouldn't be hidden, hidden, if the Clintonites want it to be... I thought people should see this without fear of it being hidden, especially Bernie supporters... plus if it was hidden then some reasonable Clinton supporters wouldn't have a chance to see it either...

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
2. This ruling goes directly to the intent of using a private server to evade FOIA and Cong subpoenas
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:34 PM
Mar 2016

Serious stuff. Please add to Paul Thompson's timeline materials here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=158157

Thanks.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
6. And that intent was to privatize the State Department and run it in secret.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:41 PM
Mar 2016

I can't believe there are still people defending that.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
8. That's his official ruling. It's not his personal opinion. All the more extraordinary.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:59 PM
Mar 2016

Last edited Tue Mar 29, 2016, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Shows how experienced federal Judges who have dealt with BS political cases are going to treat this case. They take this one very seriously. She's in very deep trouble.

Else You Are Mad

(3,040 posts)
11. Indeed.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 03:16 PM
Mar 2016

When I clerked for a judge many years ago, every word was chosen meticulously even in their memo opinions.

yourpaljoey

(2,166 posts)
12. Wheels within wheels
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 03:23 PM
Mar 2016

I am astounded at what has already surfaced.
And wondering: what is yet to be revealed?
There is no way Hillary can serve as president.

in_cog_ni_to

(41,600 posts)
10. I wish this was someone other than Judicial Watch.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 03:14 PM
Mar 2016

I mean, Larry Klayman sued his own mother! He's also trying to become one of Cliven (Teabagger rancher) Bundy's Defense team.

Has Klayman ever NOT investigated the Clintons? He has been at this since Whitewater.

I'm all for Clinton being exposed for her corruption, but Larry Klayman? Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
16. You know, the food we savor is grown in poop.
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 09:43 PM
Mar 2016

Do we turn our noses up at it because of its smelly origins? Not I. But do wash it thoroughly when you get it home. Always.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Judge cites "indications ...