U.S. judge orders discovery to go forward over Clinton’s private email system

[leveymg]

Source: Washington Post

A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that State Department officials and top Clinton aides should be questioned under oath about whether they intentionally thwarted federal open records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server throughout Clinton’s tenure at State from 2009 to 2013.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington came in a lawsuit over public records brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, regarding its May 2013 request, for information about the employment arrangement of a longtime Clinton aide, Huma Abedin. While it was not immediately clear whether the goverment would appeal, Sullivan set an April deadline for parties to lay out a detailed investigative plan that would go extend well beyond the limited and carefully worded explanations of the use of the private server so far given by department and Clinton officials.

Sullivan also suggested from the bench that he might at some point order the department to subpoena Clinton and Abedin, to return all records related to Clinton’s private clintonemail.com, not just those their camps have previously deemed work-related and returned. “There has been a constant drip, drip, drip of declarations. When does it stop?” Sullivan said, saying that months of piecemeal revelations about Clinton and the State Department’s handling of the email controversy create “at least a ‘reasonable suspicion’?” that public access to official government records under the federal Freedom of Information Act was undermined.“This case is about the public’s right to know.”

In granting Judicial Watch’s request, Sullivan noted that there was no dispute that senior State Department officials were aware of the email set-up, citing a Jan. 2009 email exchange including Undersecretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills, Abedin about establishing an “off-network” email system. Sullivan’s decision came as Clinton seeks the Democratic presidential nomination and three weeks after the State Department acknowledged for the first time that “top secret” information passed through the server.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judge-weighs-deeper-probe-into-clintons-private-email-system/2016/02/23/9c27412a-d997-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

---

Drip, drip, drip

[Herman4747]

1. What is the SAFEST thing to do for November's election?

Last edited Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)

To give up on Hillary before then. Nominate a candidate with nothing strange going on. (e.g., Bernie).

[saturnsring]

2. nothing strange going on and who is un-electable

[Kittycat]

6. HRC is unelectable.

And have you seen all the stuff already released from her emails? FFS! That stuff should make any democrat uncomfortable, if not run away.

[saturnsring]

8. what law has she broken?

[Kittycat]

10. I guess we will see, but she appears corrupt

And heavily influenced by her well funded lobbyist friends.

[saturnsring]

13. means i guess we'll just keep digging til we find something if anything

like whitewate and vince foster. well it's been said that politics makes for strange bed-fellows. like our "dems" and the gop

[Kittycat]

22. I don't need to dig, I can read.

I'm not a believer in the Third way philosophy of selling out our country to multinational corporations. I guess you are. It may not be illegal, because those same interests helped influence the laws protecting them. I know where my heart is on the issues and true democratic policies, she doesn't pass the test for me to support her.

[Ferd Berfel]

47. Yes they will. AND, they will pull the trigger after it too late to make any changes and

she would be running for Prez WHILE going to court, and sitting in televised hearings in the House, Senate where ever the Reich can conjure them up.

IT's moot anyway. If she's the nominee we loose.

[Duval]

53. Yep!

The Republicans will have a field day and we'll look like idiots for even nominating her.

[grasswire]

59. it will never be too late to make changes. There's always the write-in option. nt

[Ferd Berfel]

63. good god. If they have her in herings and or court in NOvember, it would be a landslide for Trump

The right wing would be even MORE motivated to turn out to vote against her. What'dya think would happen on our side?

[rnk6670]

147. Great sig

Spectacular quote by a brilliant man.

[grasswire]

157. thank you

There wasn't any room to add his name.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

62. And the only thing we have is a hollow "I told you so".

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

54. Whitewater and Vince Foster.

It's interesting that you wrote that seeing how IF Clinton is elected POTUS one can easily imagine the GOP investigating the crap out of her.

If you want that then great. I don't, and I would rather vote for a candidate that is not already under a cloud due to her amoral and arrogant fuckups.

[maindawg]

125. This is the real bitch about it

A president Hillary would mean four years of highly politicized gridlock government shut downs endless investigations all while the corporate criminals run wild.
It would be hell. Not a good thing for America. We were very fortunate that we did not experience a terrible depression. Only a mirricle saved us from God only knows what. No one can say Hillary would have done a better job than Obama. We dodged a bullet.
But once again we find ourselves vulnerable as the billionaires are trying to get the fix in, but there is no fix. There is no perfect candidate. No Reason, no spokesmodel.
And if Mitt were the R candidate, and he might just yet, he would be running on the left of Hillary.

[LeFleur1]

156. Investigating the Crap out of Her?

She has been investigated more than any American ever. And all they can do is lie about her and hope it sticks, which it does with some who want it to stick.

We know if she is nominated they (the right and hard left) will do everything in their power to bring the woman down. That's what they do. They. do. not. want. a. woman. President. The right didn't want a black president and they sure aren't going to sit still for another dent in their feelings of superiority. The hard left will help them because they don't know any better, and sitting back and pouting when they don't get their way is what they do.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

166. She's already her own worst enemy,

bur some just can't get enough of amiral Hilly.

[TipTok]

182. Which lies?

I rarely see the part where her supporters dispute the facts as presented.

The 'go to' is to declare that it is all part of a big conspiracy to keep this upstanding woman from being the leader of the free world as she so clearly deserves to be.

[Plucketeer]

105. And certainly...

there's NO WAY the recurring and legitimate questions of impropriety and irresponsibility will interfere with the looming coronation.

I once volunteered to fight FOR my country. Now I'm having to FIGHT for my country.

[Kingofalldems]

58. Says Judicial Watch.

[itcfish]

78. She Appears Corrupt

Because the republicans keep saying it and you keep repeating it. Saying a lie over and over does not make it true. Stop helping the GOP

[Kittycat]

88. Taking money from lobbyists

Isn't telling them to cut it out read the emails yourself. And see my post just a bit further up. How many bankers went to jail for crashing our economy? I sure am glad we have innocent politicians getting advice and donations from their lobbyists everyday, aren't you?

[yellowcanine]

181. The heck with probable cause then, she appears corrupt!

[jeff47]

12. It's an election, not a court of law.

You don't get the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in an election.

[saturnsring]

16. my reply was appropriate for the post

but if you gonna say she's not electable because of her emails there should be a reason her emails make her unelectable

[jeff47]

19. No, your reply attempted to redefine "unelectable" as only applying if convicted.

Appearance of impropriety is plenty for an election. It is not plenty for a conviction.

there should be a reason her emails make her unelectable

There are many.
-Horrific security. Connections weren't encrypted, VPN was not even set up properly when it was finally added, self-signed certificates, etc.

-Failed to turn over the emails when she stepped down, violating FOIA.

-Failed to include the emails in FOIA requests, violating FOIA.

-Has appearances of corruption, in that donors to the Clinton Foundation got favorable treatment directed by her top aides.

-Improperly stored classified, now being investigated by the FBI (this will be the October surprise if she's the nominee)

And on top of all that
-Incredibly poor judgement to create this problem in the first place. And then stonewall as much as possible so that the problem stays in the news for months. Heck, she interrupted the blowback from the Republican letter to Iran in order to hold a press conference to remind everyone about her server!

[saturnsring]

24. so no laws broken you just dont like how she handled it

[jeff47]

26. :facepalm:

Reading. Try it sometime.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

69. The Hillies are just going to flip and flop:

playing this insipid game until it's too late.

I imagine that if they aren't working for the right that they are hopelessly out of their depth: walking diwn the middle of a busy highway unaware of what approaches.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

77. Earth to Saturn, Earth to Saturn - Come in, Saturn!

[leveymg]

80. What makes you think no laws were broken? Why did the Judge grant discovery?

Even though this is a civil matter -- the criminal investigation, and the far more serious threat of felony indictment is ongoing -- there are a series of laws that a Federal District Judge has found cause to conclude she broke by withholding public documents. See my post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

[6chars]

104. Is FOIA a law?

[leveymg]

113. Of course FOIA is a law.

It's without teeth (in the sense of statutory penalties for noncompliance). But, along with the 1950 Federal Records Act it imposes a positive obligation on heads of agencies and all federal officials, generally, to preserve and disclose documents. Violation of either, however, would be a violation of federal law and grounds to deny or terminated federal employment and withhold a security clearance.

In addition, in an extreme case, if it was found that a federal agency refused to follow a Court Order to produce the document, the responsible official could be held in contempt, and would be subject to criminal penalties.

2) 1950 Federal Records Act

44 U.S. Code § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3106
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency of which he is the head that shall come to his attention, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records he knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from his agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to his legal custody. In any case in which the head of the agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.

[Rilgin]

163. One aspect is very easy. Do you believe in open government?

Our system is supposed to support open government because we elect our leaders and are supposed to have enough information to make that a knowledgeable decision. This has been a Democratic Party principle as long as I have been alive (over 50 years)

There are laws to support this concept in the form of the Freedom of Information Act at the federal level. It provides that reporters and individuals can get information from the Government about their actions unless exempt from release. This is why you have Government agencies charged with archiving government communications.

Hillary's tenure as SOS was under the FOIA and her emails were subject to production. Not just from Republicans under subpoena. Her actions flew in the face of long standing Democratic Party principles and government practice.

Hillary set up a separate system outside of the reach of the FOIA. Some of the technical people on this site have mentioned technical problems of security with this system but the main problem was that she was setting up a system that flew in the face of open government.

She has given various excuses that are not that convincing. At one point it was so she could carry one device although it was later revealed that she carried more than one device (another one of a pattern of small lies). However, if you give her the excuses and the technical issues as not illegal, you are left with avoidance of the FOIA. When she left office as SOS she did not then review the emails and send the SOS business related ones to the Federal Archivist charged with securing and preserving government emails for FOIA requests.
Her actions in this regard were delay and excuse rather than comply.

Forget illegal. Just ask yourself if you believe open government is important for your candidate to believe in.

[leveymg]

17. The FBI is investigating her for Espionage Act Sec. 793 violations. This is a separate case

involving a civil suit that started with her failures to turn over email requested by a FOIA. It's now a broader civil suit over withholding of official records. Events and discovery in the two cases are interrelated, obviously.

For the exact range of potential criminal charges, see, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

[saturnsring]

133. potential

[leveymg]

145. The legal standard is probable cause, not potential.

In the same way that "retroactive classification" isn't even a legal defense in the criminal case currently under investigation, it's only a political term used to confuse the public unfamiliar with legal standards. Look it up.

This matter, above, is a civil case, so the standard applied to grant discovery to the plaintiff is "reasonable suspicion".

[tex-wyo-dem]

112. Perhaps she didn't break any laws, I guess we'll find out…

But what she did exhibit was extremely poor judgment. This whole email thing could have been easily avoided.

She knows damn well there are all sorts GOP/political enemies out there looking for anything they can get their hands on to use as a hammer on her politically. So what does she do? She hands them a scandal on a silver platter. Seems to be an inherent Clinton habit to do this stupid shit.

Extremely, extremely stupid on her part. I don't want a POTUS that shows such poor judgment.

[RegexReader]

183. these

http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/fed-agencies.html

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title2/html/USCODE-2011-title2-chap6-sec192.htm

§192. Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers
Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/html/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap73-sec1519.htm

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/html/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap37-sec798.htm|

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information....Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Yeah, that is rubbed in my face about comparisons with Nixon and Benedict Arnold by the Repugs at the office.
Need to #Bern them all

[saturnsring]

184. 1st off she's not convicted of anything meaning innocent. secondly the feds are not looking at

hillary they are trying to find out if anyone on her staff tried to hide emails- obstruction is gonna be hard to prove because they are all coming out.it's going to be hard to say they withheld emails when theyre all out . 3rdly you'll have to prove criminal intent. 4thly youre going to have to show the harm the hiding of these emails caused - any dead bodies? nope, any loss of cash, nope etc

it's pathetic to see "dems" so excited to send another dem off to jail - if youre candidate was so gdamn wonderful you wouldnt need to try sleazy tactics to get her out of the way by digging thru her underwear looking for shit stains.

[complain jane]

122. Have you actually read any of it?

I've read some of it and plan to read all of it and it's the most boring, innocuous read ever.

Can you tell me exactly what stuff should make any Democrat uncomfortable if not run away?

[7962]

30. Polls show Sanders beating the GOP front runners. Point is moot.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

56. You must not read DU much. Bernie is much more electable.

[treestar]

127. LOL you think they can't find something?

They drum up "scandals" out of nothing. How many times did they do it to Obama? They haven't bothered with Bernie because they know they don't have to. There will be something they could use as they need nothing. Just find some happening and hook into it and surmise and accuse and make waves.

[libdem4life]

134. Yeah...Bernie is corrupt. Scandals just falling off trees. Not.

Old. HRC plays fast and loose and will have her day when it catches up. You don't have to be illegal...but who wants to vote for someone that knowlingly throws out red meat right and left...no pun intended.

People don't trust her. There is nothing illegal about that, but it doesn't charge up the Independent vote needed to carry the GE. They don't require Proof...usually, where there's smoke, there's fire...somewhere down the line.

If Bernie can handle HRC, and he has done so, he can handle the Republicans.

[treestar]

154. yes there will be something about Bernie they can use

and I do not fall for Republican non-scandals about Hillary.

If you claim people don't trust her (which has naught to do with anything but you keep saying it) it is because of the Republicans and the media pushing the non scandals to death.

Hillary has been like nothing as to what the Republicans will do. One argument in favor of Hillary is they've done it to death to the point where whatever else they come up with no one believes or cares about. The email story is interesting only to the most hating right wingers. Bernie's would be new and interesting.

[libdem4life]

155. They have new issues...and it's way past Whitewater or Benghazi. She's not been vetted

on the latest ones. And to say that people don't care whether they trust a candidate or not? Pretty sure you speak for yourself. And yes, I know reminding people of her real record feels like "hating" and "RW"...speaking of DU smears.

Back to the email scandal...Huma Abedin is going to be deposed...for starters...under oath. That's not a insignificant move, and Pagliani is next. My take is that the PTB want Hillary as the nominee and will start to release the real crap after that.

Almost every new "misstep" has been taken by her...not innuendo or nuance...and the sheer stupidity of The Clinton Foundation...the Democrats have backed off of that one.

Speaking of what Republicans can do...especially when it's in the record...she'll never make it to the White House. Legal or not, it's Clinton Shady. They don't viscerally hate Bernie.

Trump is the non-establishment candidate and if the Dems don't put one up, meet President Trump. Trump will hammer and hammer...unlike Bernie, who has been too gentlemanly, IMO, and is of the age that loathes to attack a woman and one he truly considers a friend.

The Democrats are dividing themselves and will likely fail to see the public's real non-establishment mood in time. Trump has done it all by himself. By the time the GE is here, we will discover that the majority feel that enough is enough.

The Bush Dynasty is gone....by a landslide. The Democrats misread this at their peril.

[treestar]

158. Being deposed does not mean there is automatically something wrong and it means a civil suit

and the sheer number of scandals is such that people know the Rs are simply going after her and each one is of less and less interest.

They would find things on Bernie that would be new and interesting. If Bernie's the nominee, they forget all about Hillary and indeed will quit pursuing the non scandals. They will will turn the flashlight on Bernie and will find all sorts of interesting things they can exploit. Bernie does not have to have actually done anything wrong.

[libdem4life]

159. Uh huh. Right. OK, then.

[treestar]

160. lol I made a point

which does not go away with this immature response.

[libdem4life]

162. Right. I couldn't find a point. Just a recitation of memes.

[Major Hogwash]

148. Button up your overcoat before leaving the house!

If the skies aren't blue,
Take good care of yourself,
You belong to me,
Boop-boop-de-doo.

[saturnsring]

3. On October 3, 1984, Judge Sullivan was appointed by President Ronald Reagan

On November 25, 1991, Judge Sullivan was appointed by President George H. W. Bush
“This case is about the public’s right to know.”
yea if she wasnt running for potus no one would care.

[Wilms]

11. You left one more piece of info out.

Sullivan was appointed by President Reagan to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on October 3, 1984.

On November 25, 1991, Sullivan was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to serve as an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

District Court service

On June 16, 1994, Judge Sullivan was appointed by President Bill Clinton to serve as United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmet_G._Sullivan

[leveymg]

20. That's correct. Bill Clinton appointed him as US District Judge for DC

One of the many ironies in this case.

[Divernan]

28. LOVE IT! This Judge appointed by President Bill Clinton

On June 16, 1994, Judge Sullivan was appointed by President Bill Clinton to serve as United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmet_G._Sullivan

Sullivan was born in Washington, D.C. in 1947 and graduated from McKinley High School in 1964. In 1968, he received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science from Howard University and, in 1971, a Juris Doctor Degree from the Howard University School of Law. Upon graduation from law school, Judge Sullivan was the recipient of a Reginald Heber Smith Fellowship and was assigned to the Neighborhood Legal Services Program in Washington, D.C., where he worked for one year. The following year, he served as a law clerk to Superior Court Judge James A. Washington, Jr., a former professor and Acting Dean of Howard University School of Law.

Will the Hillary followers attack him because he's black?

Notable cases

Sullivan presided over a number of habeas corpus petitions submitted on behalf of Guantanamo captives.[2]

Sullivan presided over Senator Ted Stevens' trial where his indictment was dismissed when a Justice Department probe found evidence of gross prosecutorial misconduct.[3][4][5]

Sullivan is presiding over a case, Judicial Watch v. IRS,[6] where there is an ongoing investigation into the 2013 IRS controversy, specifically attempting to determine where the "lost" emails of former IRS employee Lois Lerner went, and what damage to her computer hard drive occurred, and what steps have been taken to recover the information contained in the emails and on the hard drive.[7][8]

Sullivan is also presiding over the case involving the matter of Hillary Clinton's private email use while Secretary of State.[9]

[7962]

34. Notice how easy it is to totally change the message without lying?

Just leave out one piece of info.....

[Wilms]

37. I go through that all day around here.

What can you do? They're unaware or willfully unaware or outright lying.

Not good.

[dana_b]

60. deceit by omission

I've seen it all over this site.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

73. what law has been broken by omitting important info??

[tk2kewl]

61. .

[Wilms]

71. Awesome!

And you know what is written on top of the sink valves, right?

^H ^C

[tk2kewl]

72. LOL

[farleftlib]

4. Of course she did

Why else use a private server except to escape oversight and open records laws. She's Hillary. She decides. Who cares what you think?

months of piecemeal revelations about Clinton and the State Department’s handling of the email controversy create “at least a ‘reasonable suspicion’?” that public access to official government records under the federal Freedom of Information Act was undermined.“This case is about the public’s right to know.”

[gordyfl]

57. "They Write Their Own Rules"

[nashville_brook]

5. it's not the "top secret" stuff that's problematic. it's the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play

allegations. that's the piece that will cause great harm to her campaign. it will stick, regardless of if she's indicted.

[Kittycat]

9. ^^ this ^^

Is be interested in seeing her assistants emails after finding out there was a crossover period of her working for both HRC and the foundation, and reading about some of the already released information on lobbying.

[jeff47]

14. It doesn't have to be either-or.

There's plenty of ways that server was a bad idea.

[nashville_brook]

23. good point.

[99th_Monkey]

15. Exactly! How can "loyal Democrats" NOT be concerned re: SoS<>Clinton Foundation tomfoolery?

Hell, it's no secret. The cat's been out of the bag on these highly questionable transactions
for over a year. Everyone knows about it, yet we're not supposed to worry that it will utterly
sink Hillary in the GE??

[leveymg]

21. She has so many legal and ethical problems, any one could sink her and probably already has.

Unfortunately, we're probably already looking at a 1968 scenario.

[grasswire]

64. appreciate your input here today.

Thanks.

[leveymg]

74. Thank you.

[arcane1]

32. When the Bushes used private email, DU was unanimous in opposition to it.

Simply for the disrespect of transparency and accountability, regardless of the contents.

[nashville_brook]

116. same with Rick Scott here in Florida.

it's the principle, and it speaks to integrity.

[modestybl]

131. The braiding of personal enrichment, CGI donors, State Dept. schedules and HRC campaign donors...

... is going to be highly problematic. When asked, "What laws were broken?"... well, that question is part of the problem, because the answer may be "unknowable"... The Clintons are at least $200M richer than they were when they left office. Fine. But that personal income is from the same people who donated to the Clinton Foundation, who contributed to HRC's campaign, and some of whom had business in front of the State Department? Any explicit wrongdoing? Again, maybe unknowable...but those Clinton allies got what they wanted, and the unconnected and unpowerful people of this world are still largely impoverished, suffering at the hands of corrupt governments and too-powerful banks and other multinational corporations.

[AzDar]

7. She's a ticking time bomb...

[Jarqui]

18. That's the fourth probe into this mess

1. We have the FBI and CIA looking into the release of classified information. They have depositions attesting that information that was classified at the time of transmission got sent. The only thing left to figure out is who is going to take the fall for it. The guy who set up the server is sitting around have pled the 5th waiting to see if the Senate will offer immunity for testimony.

2. We've got the Senate sniffing around what the working arrangement was with Huma & Cheryl - two key Clinton employees. Subpoenas have been delivered to the Clinton Foundation for information on Huma's working relationship. Judicial Watch has lawsuits or FOIAs to see their emails and documents.

3. We've got emails of Clinton and her state department helping and cheering the sale of Boeing's F-15s to Saudi Arabia ... as the Clinton Foundation receives millions from Saudi Arabia and Boeing. The media has revealed other deals like that where the State Department helps a party and that same party sends money to the Clinton Foundation. Subpoenas have been received by the Clinton Foundation for all information relating to those transactions.

They also have 30,000 deleted emails they recovered to go through.

That one above is a killer because the public perception of Clinton - even if she's innocent - will be bad and make her look like she & Bill cashed in in the eyes of many. There's no time for due process to clear her name. So she has to try to wear that smear though the election to the White House. I sincerely doubt she'll make it through that. The GOP will be like a pack of wild dogs ravaging a carcass on that one.

4. Now we've got this court case peeling back some more layers. They want to look at Hillary's personal records. Judicial Watch has a whole bunch more lawsuits and FOIA requests like this one it is following up on. This story is going to stay in the news beyond the election ... drip, drip, dripping on Hillary's campaign.

Obama could pardon her but the public outcry would be brutal on her poll numbers if he does so that's not going to happen. All they can do is drag it out to beyond the election and hope she can run the gauntlet if she's going to be the nominee. They'll be labeling her a criminal. I don't like her chances.

[nashville_brook]

25. discovery will be fun. during the campaign? yes, discovery will be very fun.

and imagine if there is a preemptive pardon, what does that do to the Dem brand? we might as well just hand Trump the keys to the White House.

no wonder Mika and Joe are kissing his ass so egregiously.

[Divernan]

39. Dog knows what snarky comments are in her personal emails.

Along the line of we came, we saw, he died!
Maybe what she and Bill REALLY think of President and Mrs. Obama.

[nashville_brook]

115. yikes. she said that half of the emails.

[Jarqui]

48. They can't preemptively pardon for the very reasons you say

Clinton claims she's been vetted. The only GOP she faced was in an election that was in the safety of very blue New York.

She's about to experience something she has never experienced. This can't be "oh, she's just the first lady so you have to be nice". This is a bare knuckles brawl for the White House. They have a mountain of dirt they can spew on her - so many other scandals, lies, flip-flops before this that the country will get reminded of. It's going to get ugly.

She's a Clinton pinata and they'll thump on her relentlessly because a bunch of them hate the Clintons.

[grasswire]

81. you can bet that EVERY registered Republican voter despises her.

EVERY ONE of them and a good part of Independents as well.

They will crawl over broken glass to humiliate her repeatedly.

I used to wonder why she stayed in it, it seemed masochistic. Then I learned about her strict and punitive father, and understand that in standing for all this punishment, she is standing up to daddy still. Trying to prove that he can't break her.

That, plus the fact that with the presidency comes riches untold. Her corrupt nature will prevail.

[Politicalboi]

27. Going Going Hopefully Gone Soon.

Bernie people in SC should print this article and hand it out on the streets before the vote next week. The truth will sink her.

[HooptieWagon]

29. Only a matter of time until the shoe drops.

Then there's also the State Dept investigation into Clinton using her position as Sec of State to funnel funds into the Clinton Foundation. That one will only heat up. She's an impeachment waiting to happen.

[Divernan]

33. Using her SOS position to approve huge weapons deals to Clinton Found. "donors"

[HooptieWagon]

44. Yep. Pay to play. A long-standing Clinton tradition.

[Purveyor]

31. I soooo hope I'm the one that gets to post the LBN that she has been indicted. I'll leave the

perp-walk pleasure to some other fortunate and deserving soul.

[7962]

41. You SHOULD be right, but I wouldnt hold my breath. nt

[Purveyor]

45. LOL. Unless it happens soon I probably won't be posting here at all. Rapture and all, you know. nt

[7962]

76. HAAA!

[dana_b]

68. side note

I love your signature. lol!

[Hydra]

142. Me too!

The "list" they are gathering is going to be interesting. I know they want to ban at least 100 of us as soon as the primary is over.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

84. You should hope to be so fast.

I'm throwing down the gauntlet.

[grasswire]

94. that day will be a relief for the Democratic Party.

Excise the old wood.

[Divernan]

35. Drip/drip/drip becoming deluge/deluge/deluge!

[magical thyme]

36. Sullivan, btw, is a Bill Clinton appointee. nt

[MisterP]

38. they did all this thinking they wouldn't have a primary challenge: they could weather

even a full investigation and Obama would have to shield her as his heir; Dems would grit their teeth, any lefty challenger would represent 70-90% of the party members but get only 15% of the vote (hey, that's how Congress is set up, why not the primaries?), and she'd sweep in once she turned everyone against the guy that Anne Frank's sister says reminds her of Hitler

but now Iraq and Libya and welfare reform and Michelle Alexander and the server and Honduras and Saudi Arabia and everything over and under the earth's surface is suddenly tied to her rather than another thing the party's compromised members will participate in covering up BECAUSE OH NO WE CAN'T HURT THE CANDIDATE

[winter is coming]

119. I despise "we can't hurt the candidate" arguments.

They sound too much let's "let's not talk about Dad's drinking problem" arguments.

[MisterP]

132. yeah, especially not after the family's been bought out by Diageo

[TheLogicalSong]

40. This is a complete embarrassment for the Democratic Party.

Yet they're pulling out all the stops to ensure the most toxic candidate is in the general.

[leftofcool]

43. Oh Please! Outside the DU bizzarro world, no one cares about this except Rethuglicans

[Purveyor]

51. Outside the DU bizzarro world, I've yet to meet a single soul that proclaims support for hillary.

Not one and I meet a lot of different people everyday in my stores. It is either Trump or Bernie that is getting all the buzz.

[Hydra]

143. I know one, and she has no idea what Hillary does for a living

But funny enough, she's finding out what her hero Bill really did policy-wise while in office and thinks it's horrible. I'm sure she thinks Hillary will do something different, but at some point the light will go off in her head...

[leveymg]

52. For someone who thinks so little of this place, you sure spend a lot of time here lately

Of course the average American voter -- who is an Independent, BTW -- won't vote for someone who is under active FBI investigation or under imminent threat of felony indictment on multiple counts under several separate charges. This civil case is just a reminder that she also has serious legal problems (she and her associates, and her 30,000 "personal" emails will now go through discovery) even if the Attorney General declines to seek a Grand Jury indictment under Sec. 793 of the Espionage Act.

Now that this mess is going on the public record, it will stay on the front pages practically every day from now until November. The results, if she becomes the Democratic candidate, will be disastrous. Thank you Hillary. Is your ambition and willingness to take risks really worth this for the rest of the Party?

[grasswire]

90. some say that she is running precisely to avoid indictment..

...under the assumption that a nominee for POTUS is less likely to be indicted than a former SoS.

[leveymg]

99. May have that perverse effect. What does that say about her character?

I think it goes to the fact that she's escaped indictment in the past due to GOP partisan mismanagement of the issue, and she's counting on it again. That's also a perverse outcome, considering the fact that the Whitewater investigation distracted from the role of the Rose Law Firm and its principal client, the Stephens investment firm, in the S&L scandal, BCCI and Iran-Contra.

[grasswire]

101. hmmmm

Interesting point. Maybe she solicits chaos for reasons of strategy then. She sure squawks victimization regularly and loudly.

[leveymg]

107. No doubt, the victimization part is tactical.

You grasp a big chunk of the bigger question: is managed chaos and what Schumpeter called "the creative destruction of capitalism" the purpose, process, as well as the means of power in America? Create enough distractions and you might be able to hide and escape in the smoke. But, Hillary may just be igniting a firestorm from the center.

That leads to the very interesting phenomenon that has been observed in cases such as the Imperial Russian Court and the dirty tricks of its intelligence agency, the Okhrana. Are we witnessing an instance of subversion from above taken to its inevitable conclusion? Without intervention, this could destroy the Old Order, at least of the Democratic Party. Is that something a Goldwater Girl who worked for Nelson Rockefeller would set out to do?

[Angel Martin]

139. some say that she is running precisely to avoid indictment..

LOL !

She is turning into Berlusconi without the bunga bunga parties...


And speaking of Bill, he may end up being a witness at trial if Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement gets voided.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/editorials/fl-editorial-jeffrey-epstein-sentence-20160107-story.html

[Cobalt Violet]

83. Wrong you are, again, as usual.

[grasswire]

92. looked at any social media lately? nt

[treestar]

126. No. That's what Republicans want it to be

Doesn't matter. They will drum up something no matter what. It's what Republicans do. They would find some stupid thing on Bernie to do just the same. They just don't bother because they know he won't win.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

42. I'm glad that if Clinton testifies she won't need to

be under oath sunce she probably doesn't lie and will try really hard not to.

[grasswire]

87. :::snort:::: nt

[vdogg]

46. They're still going with this "Top Secret" tripe

When the emails were classified after the fact.

[Maedhros]

55. Were you to have paid attention, you would have realized that the law is very clear on this.

Legally, it does not matter if the classification is after the fact.

[vdogg]

65. Umm

Legally it does. It goes to intent. Just ask Snowden.

[leveymg]

85. Read subsections (e) and (f) of Sec. 793 of the Espionage Act. Neither require intent. Both felonies

It's explained here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

[madville]

82. It doesn't matter

The emails themselves may not have been marked classified until after the fact, sure.

Some of the information contained within the emails was already classified by other agencies because it originated from those agencies but was not appropriately marked, handled, and/or stored when transferred over to Hillary's system.

One of the big questions is who exactly was reading classified information on secure government systems and then transferring it over to Hillary's non-secure system. I doubt it was Hillary but several of her former aides could be staring at felony charges for just those actions.

[angrychair]

111. As someone who knows

It does not matter when it was classified. Intent does not matter. Spillage is spillage.

[vdogg]

49. Wait, I'm confused

One article says he's thinking about it and one says he ordered it. Which is it?

[Kingofalldems]

50. And the Clinton haters and their freeper pals now

line up with the right wing Judicial Watch. Lovely.

[840high]

66. Perhaps we all want

the truth.

[Kingofalldems]

89. As if Judicial Watch is interested in the truth.

Here's a clue: If Bernie is nominated they will go after him the very freaking day it happens.

[grasswire]

96. It is not Judicial Watch that will determine truth.

It is the court of law. A Clinton appointee ordered it to go forward.

[leveymg]

67. If you love the Democratic Party more than HRC, pay attention to what's about to happen.

Now that discovery has been granted, a large part of her 30,000 "private" emails may be made public. The stink will be unbearable, even for those who support her candidacy. And, then there's the lingering shadow of felony indictment under Sec. 793 of the Espionage Act.

How do you think the average American voter (an Independent) is going to react to this?

[dana_b]

75. we're voting our conscience

and what's best for the country.

Yes, I'm an independent who has re-registered as a Dem in order to vote for Bernie in California.

This whole thing with the e-mails is going to turn more and more people away and remind them of the 90s all over again. We were sick of it then and we don't want to go through this shit again.

[dana_b]

103. ??

Sorry? You don't believe that I want what is for good for the country or you don't believe that I am sick of the Clinton investigations? Not sure where I lost you.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

108. Deleted. I was reading more than one post and replied

to yours by mistake.

[grasswire]

86. perhaps all we want is an uncorrupted candidate.

Check her numbers lately on truthfulness and trustworthiness?

[Kingofalldems]

93. See post #89.

[Jester Messiah]

152. Well, there's really a very easy way to prevent things like this happening...

[doxyluv13]

70. What's New and why it matters

This is the first inkling HRC might have to turn over/disclose the emails she and staff deemed private. At least it draws out the story, and most, it opens a new can of worms, especially if they hid politically sensitive materials under the "private designation".

Another Sword of Damocles hanging over the campaign.

[bobthedrummer]

79. K&R Many thanks for this OP leveymg.

[leveymg]

91. Glad I was here to catch it today.

[JoeyT]

95. If this really was a right wing conspiracy,

as some like to insist, that would be even more terrifying, and more reason to avoid running her as our candidate. Because the best thing the right wing could hope to do in this situation is hold back anything *truly* damaging until the primaries are over and hope Hillary wins. Then start dropping bombs as soon as the general kicks off.

[jfern]

140. It'd be quite a right-wing conspiracy to get a Clinton appointee to agree to this

[EndElectoral]

97. Bernie may not give a damn about her email, but Trump will pound this, and if there is any cover up

it is going to impact the entire GE. April deadline to lay out investigative plan. What if this thing drags on into the GE election season?

[Arazi]

98. It's a fucking time bomb and it's not going away

this is not some right wing conspiracy

[Matthew28]

106. Yep,

We better all be pushing Bernie sanders hard as Clinton has to many bones in the closet. If the crap does hit the fan this could cause a Donald trump or Ted cruz to be our next president.

[passiveporcupine]

102. I have not yet seen anything to get worked up over concerning her e-mails

But, I'd sure be interested in seeing these e-mails. Why did they deliberately want to go 'off-network' for her e-mails?

citing a Jan. 2009 email exchange including Undersecretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills, Abedin about establishing an “off-network” email system

[complain jane]

123. Read them here:

https://foia.state.gov/Search/results.aspx?searchText=Clinton+emails&beginDate=&endDate=&publishedBeginDate=&publishedEndDate=&caseNumber=

[randome]

109. “There has been a constant drip, drip, drip..."

How can anyone with an objective viewpoint see this judge as not being partisan? I guess if at first you don't succeed, try the 49th time and you might get lucky!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Arazi]

110. The judge is a Bill Clinton appointment - so the partisan smear doesn't work eom

[Cryptoad]

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

[NurseJackie]

117. Oh good god ... this again?

[Helen Borg]

118. Ouchy! Nominate Hillary and get Trump in the WH.

[Calista241]

120. Trump has already said he'd prosecute her if elected

And you're going to hear that non-stop between now and the election: how she's not in jail because she's a Clinton, and she's being protected by a Democraric President and administration.

Given how's she already skeptically viewed by independents, that's not going to be a hard sell.

[Kingofalldems]

121. Benghazi!! Vince Foster!!

[Gore1FL]

161. You do drive-by posts very well

I think you are ready to start making posts that aren't content free. Congratulations on your achievement. I look forward to reading them.

[Kingofalldems]

164. Aww, aren't you funny.

I have 4 posts in this thread, you have one.

Now who is the drive-by boy?

JHC man. Idiotic post.

[Gore1FL]

165. Based on the apparent desire to derail the thread by saying provoking things I'd say you are.

And you are right. Your posts are idiotic if this thread is any indication.

[Kingofalldems]

167. This is DU and I am allowed to respond.

FU if you don't like it.

Take it up with Skinner. Your punkass posts don't scare me.

[Gore1FL]

168. I am allowed to respond too.

I am using this post to call you out on your drive-by post trolling.

My posts shouldn't scare you. I would hope they would make you self-reflect and become a better member of DU. I have no desire to see you banned, hidden or otherwise have anything negative happen to you. I just want to see you grow as a contributor. We really don't need exaggerated sniping.

[Kingofalldems]

169. You are actually trolling me.

I don't give a flying fuck about your 'drive by' post nonsense. Don't even know what it is. Don't worry about my growth, try to stop such punkass responses designed to insult.

Sarcasm btw IS content when a thread praising the work of a RW extremist who sued his own mother appears.
And I will continue posting sarcasm. Don't like it? TS.

Never noticed you before, so apparently you haven't posted anything of merit yourself. Maybe you should work on that.

[Gore1FL]

170. No. I am actually replying to your posts and continuing a topic.

If you would prefer me not to call you out on making rude posts with the sole purpose of pissing other posters off through use of logical fallacies the best way to do that is to not make posts with the sole purpose of pissing other posters off through use of logical fallacies.

I have been here since 2001. I have comparatively few posts to many much newer members. I mostly come here to see LBN and see what is trending. On occasion I'll pop by Atheist group. I'm thrilled you are looking for my posts, though.

[Kingofalldems]

171. Believe me I am not looking for any of your posts.

And that is not sarcasm, oh great teacher.

I am done with you, hopefully forever.

[Gore1FL]

172. The easiest way to do that is to be civil.

If you continue on your current course, I will be happy to call you out when I see it.

[Kingofalldems]

173. I will continue to use sarcasm and blunt language when I sense republican

interference in our election process. And in DU itself.

[Gore1FL]

175. I am sorry for assuming you had more to offer.

TTFN

[Kingofalldems]

177. Put me on ignore then.

[Gore1FL]

178. Nope.

[Kingofalldems]

179. Good for you.

I will be responding to right wing attacks on Democrats in kind and will do the same with you if necessary.

[Gore1FL]

185. I only make criticisms from the left so it won;t be necessary.

It's a shame that you don't want to being reasonable dialogue to a subject rather than respond with meaningless snippets. It aseems like a wast of your time to me,. But it is your time. Please proceed.

[d_legendary1]

124. So much for not being illegal

And she's gonna wipe the floor with Trump?

[Babel_17]

128. Chicago Tribune mirrors the article

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-hillary-clinton-email-20160223-story.html

[boobooday]

129. Why do such a thing?

Why go around your employer's very secure systems and build something totally separate? I work at a university and I would never do that and if I did I would expect my employer to want to know why.

But most especially somewhere like the State Department.

[Attorney in Texas]

130. Can we ask this judge to do something about the damn Wall Street speech transcripts?

[JackRiddler]

136. This country, I swear.

Sure it will be great if this particularly unscrupulous politician goes down for any reason (before the convention, obviously) but this is a joke. A government with a large institutionally criminal element constantly engineering wars and chaos around the world, with the responsible privateers selling arms to all sides and looking to run geostrategic fantasies. Now this one former apparatchik may suffer for a triviality. She was instrumental in plunging Libya into pure horror, Honduras into dictatorship, Ukraine into civil war. Even these crimes are just routine in comparison to what Republicans (especially) and Democrats along with them have done for many decades. And in the end she might have to pay in the form of a scandal that merely endangers her prez bid, over a routine and relatively minor piece of personal corruption that put precious "national security" "secrets" in danger of exposure. Because these are worth something! The lives of the brown peoples she helped destroy (again only as a willing part of the apparatus that is not in danger of indictment), not so much.

[mrdmk]

138. My Main Man Jack, I think you may have something there (Think Snowden)

[Angel Martin]

141. LOL ! thanks ! nt

[Hydra]

144. Objectively, our country is way off the rails

But this is the sort of thing corrupt politicians and power brokers do to pass the time- they play games and trip each other up. Survival of the fittest and all that.

In the long run, I can't think this particular trap will hurt the Clintons terribly. They've already been adopted into the big club...but their job was to keep the gravy train going, and if they fail to derail Sanders, will that count as a massive failure on their part?

[Divernan]

146. Even if HRC loses, the Clintons laugh all the way to the (Big) Bank(s)

There's no way in hell they would have been able to accumulate their tens and tens of millions of dollars to their personal coffers, not to mention the vast amounts collected by their family "foundation", if there had not been the possibility (I would say specter) of the two-for-the-price-of-one couple returning to the Oval Office.

And she is so all-consumed by her determination to remain in the spotlight and get the ultimate revenge on her enemies list members by being elected president, that I expect she'd immediately start organizing for a 2020 run. The Clintons get to keep all those "quids" without having to deliver any pro quos.

[Major Hogwash]

149. Yeah, but she broke the rulez.

Maybe not the law, but the rulez, man!

And we can't have that now, can we?

[LiberalElite]

150. Kicking nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

151. I think we're past drips and onto a nervous trickle by now.

Flowing from under the edge of camp Weathervane's tent.

[dr60omg]

153. Addressing emails once again Clinton is not being truthful

She knew that new rules for emails were put into place in 2005. The thing about comparing her to Colin Powell is the same sort of language parsing as in "it depends on what is is." Note she did not compare herself to Condeleeza Rice since Rice was really paranoid about emails and rarely used them.

I recall when the internet was new we only needed one email and one server and since the one at the University where I teach was free I used theirs all the time. My children used the university as their server too. At about the same time (2004-2005) new protocols were put into place and we were not permitted to use the university's server for anything outside of university business. Since I teach at a state supported university it is part of a government entity so ....


The point is protocols change and by the time 2005 rolled around there were new security protocols in place. It is not about comparing yourself to a secretary of state who was in office before these protocols existed. A cabinet level official who is supposed to be ready for the 3 AM phone call should be aware of the where and why those exist.

For whatever reasons (not wanting to carry around two phones etc) she attempted to circumvent the rules. It is important first for the historic record, second for the public and historic record, and finally it is important because of national security. There is no excuse for thinking you are above the law. To permit top secret information to pass through her sever violates all of these and is something that is a lack of judgement or hubris so great that you feel you are above the law.

[Bjornsdotter]

176. Yeah because cell phones are sooo big

...I can see why it would be difficult to carry two.

[kiva]

174. In 2008 when the news broke about

John Edwards' affair and child with Rielle Hunter, many here at DU were livid because they felt he had endangered the chance of Democrats taking the White House. It would be interesting to know how many who are defending this criticized that candidate.

And yes, I do know that many more were furious because of his betrayal of Elizabeth, who was a member here; I'm not talking about them, I mean the posters who were angry because of what the political fallout would have been had Edwards been the Democratic candidate when the news broke.

[bobthedrummer]

180. We're waiting. n/t