HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Federal Judge's Decision ...

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:22 PM

Federal Judge's Decision Makes Clinton's Candidacy Fraught With Problems Going Forward:

U.S. judge orders discovery to go forward over Clinton’s private email system
By Spencer S. Hsu February 23 at 3:21 PM

A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that State Department officials and top aides to Hillary Clinton 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 as secretary of 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 Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide.

A State Department official said that the department is aware of the order and that it is reviewing it but declined to comment further, citing the ongoing litigation. Discovery orders are not readily appealable. An attorney for Abedin declined to comment.

Sullivan set an April deadline for parties to work out a detailed investigative plan--subject to court approval--that would reach well beyond the limited and carefully worded explanations of the use of the private server that department and Clinton officials have given.

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 account, 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, adding 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 January 2009 email exchange including Undersecretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills and Abedin about establishing a “stand-alone network” email system.

The watchdog group did not ask to depose Clinton by name, but its requests in its lawsuit targeted those who handled her transition, arrival and departure from the department and who oversaw Abedin, a direct subordinate.

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.


Continued At:

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

49 replies, 2929 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply Federal Judge's Decision Makes Clinton's Candidacy Fraught With Problems Going Forward: (Original post)
KoKo Feb 2016 OP
Warren Stupidity Feb 2016 #1
KoKo Feb 2016 #2
highprincipleswork Feb 2016 #9
highprincipleswork Feb 2016 #12
Motown_Johnny Feb 2016 #14
CharlotteVale Feb 2016 #23
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #3
Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #4
rbrnmw Feb 2016 #5
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #7
nichomachus Feb 2016 #8
Motown_Johnny Feb 2016 #15
rbrnmw Feb 2016 #18
Motown_Johnny Feb 2016 #19
rbrnmw Feb 2016 #21
Motown_Johnny Feb 2016 #22
rbrnmw Feb 2016 #24
Motown_Johnny Feb 2016 #26
rbrnmw Feb 2016 #27
Motown_Johnny Feb 2016 #29
Joe the Revelator Feb 2016 #32
HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #28
Motown_Johnny Feb 2016 #30
mhatrw Feb 2016 #33
Cobalt Violet Feb 2016 #6
mhatrw Feb 2016 #34
Gore1FL Feb 2016 #10
Arizona Roadrunner Feb 2016 #11
magical thyme Feb 2016 #16
highprincipleswork Feb 2016 #13
Impedimentus Feb 2016 #17
Trust Buster Feb 2016 #20
rbrnmw Feb 2016 #25
KoKo Feb 2016 #31
Impedimentus Feb 2016 #35
mhatrw Feb 2016 #36
Impedimentus Feb 2016 #37
mhatrw Feb 2016 #38
Recursion Feb 2016 #42
Gothmog Feb 2016 #39
Impedimentus Feb 2016 #41
Gothmog Feb 2016 #45
Gore1FL Feb 2016 #43
Gothmog Feb 2016 #44
KoKo Feb 2016 #46
Gothmog Feb 2016 #47
blackspade Feb 2016 #40
PonyUp Feb 2016 #48
RunInCircles Feb 2016 #49

Response to KoKo (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:29 PM

1. Maybe the super delegates will come in handy after all. nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:07 PM

2. So Who Is Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan? Is He a Fox News Right Winger?

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

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.

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]

----------
Biography

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.

In 1973, Judge Sullivan joined the law firm of Houston & Gardner. He subsequently became a partner and was actively engaged in the general practice of law with that firm until August 1980, when his partner, William C. Gardner, was appointed as an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Thereafter, Sullivan was a partner in the successor firm of Houston, Sullivan & Gardner. He also taught as an adjunct professor at the Howard University School of Law and has served as a member of the visiting faculty at Harvard Law School's Trial Advocacy Workshop.

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.


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:10 PM

9. Doesn't seem like a Rightwinger.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #2)


Response to KoKo (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:16 PM

14. Appointed By Pres. Bill Clinton ....

 

Awkward!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:35 PM

23. OMG, really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:13 PM

3. Where is the much-vaunted political adroitness we are constantly told is her strength?

It seems like someone who was 1) politically adroit and 2) claiming it's all much ado about nothing would have dispensed with these stories years ago, not drag them out into the middle of the campaign season.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:14 PM

4. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, KoKo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:15 PM

5. That part says it all.

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 Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide.

IT'S NOT A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:31 PM

7. That's what they used to say about classified materials on the server.

Now they don't say that anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:38 PM

8. Vote for me: I am not under criminal investigation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:18 PM

15. That is a pretty low bar.

 


Shouldn't an ethics investigation raise some red flags?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:24 PM

18. no the suit is by


Judicial Watch nothing to do with ethics Judicial Watch files suits against Democrats it's partisan go research Judicial Watch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:26 PM

19. Then why is a judge appointed by Bill Clinton going forward with it? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:29 PM

21. because it's his district

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:31 PM

22. Why did he order discovery to go forward?

 


Couldn't he have ended this whole thing with a different decision?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:35 PM

24. see post 20

this is a witch hunt and it's ugly that anyone here is happy about it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:36 PM

26. So a Clinton appointed Judge is moving forward with a witch hunt?

 


That is seriously your argument?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:37 PM

27. it was filed in his district

now I'm done night

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:46 PM

29. I am aware of that. You don't seem to understand the argument.

 


He could have found the case without merit and refused to go forward with it. He made a decision to let it continue.

This was not a foregone conclusion and has nothing to do with jurisdiction. I am saying that a Clinton appointed judge would not be participating in a witch hunt and would not have moved forward if the case had no basis.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 11:42 PM

32. LOL!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:44 PM

28. They won't answer your question.

 

Must be pretty awkward for them to rationalize a Zclinton appointed judge deciding the case has merit enough to proceed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #28)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:47 PM

30. I've got to try.

 

It is just how I am.

As far as GDP goes, it was a pretty good discussion.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 11:43 PM

33. OK, but why then did a CLINTON APPOINTED judge agree with them? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:17 PM

6. And our party is too busy trying to shove her up our asses that they aren't paying attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cobalt Violet (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 11:46 PM

34. Because this is kabuki theater & the only way the top 0.1% can put a Repuke back in the Oval Office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:10 PM

10. What bothers me most about this, is that it was a proactive gaffe.

I doubt Clinton did anything illegal. But that isn't the best measurement.

Knowing the the Bush White House was embroiled in an email scandal and that Sarah Palin was embroiled in an email scandal, and knowing Obama's administration email policy, she thought, "you know, I am going to go to the expense put a server in the basement of my house and pretend I know something about data security!"

Poor uninformed choices on pretty obvious things is my problem with this story. While I realize she is not Bill, I see the same pattern of going out-of-their-way to self-sabotage. That is worrisome to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:10 PM

11. Maybe time to go to court to force Clinton to release paid speeches

 

Clinton now says she won't release speeches made before Goldman-Sachs for $650,000 unless all candidates, Republicans too, release all of their paid speeches.

What is the proper legal route to be taken to force her to release speeches? Do you actually have to file charges of conflict of interest etc or is their a route to be taken?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arizona Roadrunner (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:18 PM

16. her paid speeches were as a private citizen, not a public employee

 

Therefore they do not fall under FOIA and there is no legal basis to force her to release them. As employers, we can ask to see them as part of our evaluation of her candidacy, but she is under no obligation to release them, nor are we obligated to hire her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:13 PM

13. Be careful about "ignoring things". Not something I'd want on my plate, or my candidate's.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highprincipleswork (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:20 PM

17. Sec. Clinton Doesn't Ignore Things ...


just talk to those big donors and the big money bundlers. I'm sure they aren't ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:29 PM

20. This judge was just making a procedural ruling.

 

You see, he is hearing a lawsuit brought by a man named Larry Klayman who is the founder of a tax exempt group called Judicial Watch. Amongst his other accolades, Larry Klayman was the man holding a protest outside of the White House during the Republican's government shutdown. At that protest Klayman memorably demanded that the Muslim in the White House get up from his knees and come out with his hands up. Needless to say, I choose not to support Mr. Klayman's efforts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:35 PM

25. thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 11:41 PM

31. Look I don't think any DU'ers have any regard for Larry Klayman.....

But the issue is FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) and that there are others involved who have requested the e-mails and the protocol for handling......not just Klayman, and the Judges decision reflects that these requests need to be honored to satisfy the People's Right to Know what their officials are doing when they conduct the People's Business.. If you read the WaPo article in the OP it does explain that FOIA requests must be honored and it seems he feels there have been too many delays and not complete compliance with former court orders..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #31)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 11:48 PM

35. You are spot on about FOIA requests

The source or sources of the requests are irrelevant. They must be addressed. If you are a normal government bureaucrat and ignore, delay or hinder a FOIA request it can cost you your job or worse. Political appointees, no matter what their level in government, are not immune to the seriousness of a FOIA request. There is a procedure and both civil and criminal penalties can follow from not properly responding to a FOIA request.

Even though many FOIA requests are fishing expeditions, that doesn't matter. The requests must be taken seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 11:48 PM

36. And the ruling was in Klayman's favor.

Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mhatrw (Reply #36)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 11:52 PM

37. Apparently the State Department has been slow in its response


See my post above about the seriousness of a FOIA request, regardless of the source or nature of he request.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Impedimentus (Reply #37)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 11:54 PM

38. Why has the state department been slow in its response?

Unless that overarching plan is to hand the Repukes all three branches of government?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mhatrw (Reply #36)

Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:12 AM

42. Because it's a procedurally correct motion (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Feb 24, 2016, 12:12 AM

39. ANALYSIS: No, Hillary Clinton Did Not Commit a Crime ... at Least Based on What We Know Today

There was not crime committed here. Dan Abrams (son of Floyd Abrams) has some good analysis here http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499

In the Wall Street Journal, Judge Michael Mukasey seems to be arguing that because this all just feels wrong and even criminal-y, Clinton should at least be charged with a misdemeanor. That is, of course, not how the law can or should work. In fact, Judge Mukasey learned the hard way that misstating the law when discussing the case against Clinton can be hazardous. Judge Mukasey also echoed the conservative talking point that the case against Clinton is eerily similar to the charges against former general David Petraeus: "This is the same charge brought against Gen. David Petraeus for disclosing classified information in his personal notebooks to his biographer and mistress, who was herself an Army Reserve military intelligence officer cleared to see top secret information." Except that it is nothing like that case. Apart from the possible charge, there are actually few or no similarities from a factual perspective as the lead prosecutor in the Petreaus case explained in an op-ed in USA Today:

"During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeus recorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest level. . .

Both the law and his oath required Petraeus to mark these books as 'top secret' and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither. Rather, Petraeus allowed his biographer to take possession of the journals in order to use them as source material for his biography.

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, 'I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don't have it on it, but I mean there's code word stuff in there.' When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly."

In the law, intent can be everything. Petraeus clearly knew he was violating the law, but based on what we know today, there is no evidence - not suppositions or partisan allegations but actual evidence - that Clinton knew that using a private email server was criminal or even improper at the time. Even assuming for argument's sake she created the server to keep her emails out of the public eye, that is in no way remotely comparable to the Petraeus case. Efforts to contrast the two cases fall flat factually and legally....

To be clear, none of this means Clinton won't be charged. There may be a trove of non-public evidence against her about which we simply do not know. It's also possible that the FBI recommends charges and federal prosecutors decide not to move forward as occurs in many cases. No question, that could create an explosive and politicized showdown. But based on what we do know from what has been made public, there doesn't seem to be a legitimate basis for any sort of criminal charge against her. I fear many commentators are allowing their analysis to become clouded by a long standing distrust, or even hatred of Hillary Clinton.

Dan is a good lawyer and this is a good analysis of the law on this issue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #39)

Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:09 AM

41. The attorney who wrote this is apparently not entirely familiar with the law concerning security ...


clearances. Just because a person has a security clearance at a certain level DOES NOT mean it is legal for them see any information at that clearance level. The basic premise is "need to know". Paula Broadwell's top secret clearance did not automatically give her the right to access information that David Petraeus had access to. A security clearance at any level, in the strictest sense, requires the person to have a "Need to Know". However, the "Need to Know" requirement is often overlooked within agencies, especially within specific departments.

An employee of the Defense Department can't just waltz over to the FBI and start looking at top secret information out of curiosity, unless that employee is looking to get arrested.

I'm not making any conclusions about the Clinton issue, only clarifying a misconception about security clearances. A top secret clearance does not automatically give anyone with that clearance level the right to access all top secret information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Impedimentus (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:52 AM

45. You are wrong

Dan Abrams is a good attorney and your analysis is simply wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #39)

Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:33 AM

43. I expect a higher standard than "legal." n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #43)

Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:51 AM

44. There will be no indictment of Hillary Clinton due to the silly e-mail claims

Without an indictment, Clinton will be the Democratic nominee and will be elected POTUS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #44)

Wed Feb 24, 2016, 08:22 PM

46. Are you too Young to remember Nixon and Watergate?

Last edited Wed Feb 24, 2016, 09:16 PM - Edit history (1)

DRIP..DRIP..DRIP...

Do we want our Dem Party to go down with a President who is under Constant Surveillance and Pending Lawsuits?

Look, I'm not against Hillary...but, about Bill Clinton and Hillary Foundation who are Making Enormous Amounts of Money from the "Cinton Foundation!"

We Dems cannot survive with a "Clinton Foundation Investigation" that Drags everything through "The Courts" and "at the Last Minute" big STUFF comes out about either Bill's Escapades since leaving the Presidency ...AND...her Conflicts with "Clinton Foundation" when she was SOS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #46)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 11:33 AM

47. I worked on the George McGovern campaign as a volunteer

I remember Watergate. This pretend scandal is nothing like watergate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Feb 24, 2016, 12:41 AM

40. This is not good.

This could get ugly, fast.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 12:29 PM

48. kick n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 03:07 PM

49. Check out Reply 29 email chain

Hillary requesting a subordinate to break the law.
This is illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread