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

amborin

(16,631 posts)
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:59 AM Apr 2016

State Dept Intererence in Investigation? State Dept Wants Limits On Questions

Top aides to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should not be questioned about an ongoing FBI investigation into the presence of classified information on her private email server or about the substance of the messages that were exchanged, as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the State Department said in a court filing Tuesday night.

In the new submission, the State Department continued to object to depositions of former Clinton aides and other officials in the lawsuit brought by the the conservative group Judicial Watch, but U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled in February that he would permit "narrowly tailored" discovery about the unusual private server set-up used by Clinton during her four years as America's top diplomat.

So, the question before the court now is what the scope of the depositions and written questions will be. Judicial Watch argued in a filing last month that it should be permitted to depose three former aides to Clinton: Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, Deputy Chief of St

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-emails-state-department-221612#ixzz459mpEQ3K
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
state

ETA: changed the data as I had hastily read the article
46 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
State Dept Intererence in Investigation? State Dept Wants Limits On Questions (Original Post) amborin Apr 2016 OP
Ruh roh... GeorgiaPeanuts Apr 2016 #1
Right. Judicial Watch. HA!!!! nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #3
Forget protecting USA. They have to protect their guilty. /nt NCjack Apr 2016 #4
How does Judicial Watch protect the USA? nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #5
kill the messenger---david brock amborin Apr 2016 #8
Explain to me why you want a homophobic, RW law firm to see msanthrope Apr 2016 #12
It's cute you think that Judicial Watch and the FBI are the same thing. nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #2
was in a hurry; nonetheless, State is trying to interere with an investigation amborin Apr 2016 #11
Ok--Judicial Watch does not investigate---they do shit like this--- msanthrope Apr 2016 #16
Now would be a good time to stop digging...... yellowcanine Apr 2016 #25
The same as any other person in united states should Gwhittey Apr 2016 #38
i am surprised it took state this long to run interference for her restorefreedom Apr 2016 #6
You do realize that Judical Watch and the FBI are not the same thing, right? nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #9
gee, no. i thought jw was working for the government. nt restorefreedom Apr 2016 #23
Are you being ironic? nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #32
no. i totally thought they were an agent of government. restorefreedom Apr 2016 #43
It's been a long day....nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #44
i hear ya! besides, you never know what people are thinking. :) nt restorefreedom Apr 2016 #45
They ran interference for her all along Jarqui Apr 2016 #14
Um, why would you want Judicial Watch to see classified material? nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #18
Good Lord. Where in my post did I say that? nt Jarqui Apr 2016 #19
Um...you realize that Judicial Watch is the Plaintiff here, right? msanthrope Apr 2016 #20
Um ... yes. Um .... you realize that the FBI and Intelligence Community Jarqui Apr 2016 #34
Homophobic RW law firm wants classified material and you think State shouldn't msanthrope Apr 2016 #35
Another strawman. Jarqui Apr 2016 #37
Judicial Watch...Well...any port in a storm. I think State is right msanthrope Apr 2016 #39
Where have Judicial Watch asked to be provided with classified material? Jarqui Apr 2016 #40
Wrong document. That discovery has been granted is without question. msanthrope Apr 2016 #41
Please provide a link to the "right" document nt Jarqui Apr 2016 #46
looks like they did. i guess it should not be a surprise. nt restorefreedom Apr 2016 #24
Why, for the love of pete, do you want Judicial watch to see classified material? nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #28
its not about judicial watch. the identity of the questioner is irrelevant. restorefreedom Apr 2016 #42
If you think the political operatives at State, or at any agency for that matter give a damn ... Impedimentus Apr 2016 #7
Explain why you think Judicial Watch should see classified material. nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #10
Judicial Watch, not FBI investigation. yellowcanine Apr 2016 #13
So the FBI reports to Judicial Watch ? And you talk about getting it wrong. Impedimentus Apr 2016 #15
Dude--this is a civil lawsuit and has nothing to do with the FBI. nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #17
The State Dept wants to limit the questions of JW - not the FBI investigation. yellowcanine Apr 2016 #21
This might be funniest thread today. nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #22
One would think DU posters would know about Judicial Watch. yellowcanine Apr 2016 #27
You would think so....but it wouldnt be half as funny. nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #30
You're correct. I'm wrong. I do look silly sometimes. Impedimentus Apr 2016 #36
?????? grasswire Apr 2016 #26
Um...because Judicial Watch wants classified material....you know, governmental msanthrope Apr 2016 #29
Because Judicial Watch rightwing nutjobs are trying to get classified information? yellowcanine Apr 2016 #31
A tricky issue from the article Jarqui Apr 2016 #33

yellowcanine

(35,692 posts)
25. Now would be a good time to stop digging......
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 12:55 PM
Apr 2016

Or do you thing Right wing nutjob organizations should be free to "investigate" with no restrictions?

 

Gwhittey

(1,377 posts)
38. The same as any other person in united states should
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 01:48 PM
Apr 2016

Just because they are nut jobs does not mean that they don't have same Freedom of Information that we all have. That should be stance of any Democrat. Respect the rights of all no matter what they think. If you can prove they are going to psychically harm someone else then take away those rights.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
6. i am surprised it took state this long to run interference for her
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 12:06 PM
Apr 2016

the fact that they are now willing to be obvious about their obstruction suggests that this is turning into something serious.

Jarqui

(10,110 posts)
14. They ran interference for her all along
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 12:25 PM
Apr 2016

Read the Inspector General letters.

They denied Clinton emailed information classified at the time of transmission after it had been found last July & witnessed by two agent's depositions that she did - until Feb 4, 2016.

Jarqui

(10,110 posts)
34. Um ... yes. Um .... you realize that the FBI and Intelligence Community
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 01:28 PM
Apr 2016

went through these emails, right?

And dealt with the classified information in them, right?

Because Hillary and her staff didn't, right?

So what's Judicial Watch got to do with getting classified material?

If Hillary and her team had done their jobs, we wouldn't be in this mess.

I realize Judicial Watch is an "evil" conservative group. But as much as they might be conservatively biased, the judge - who seems kind of reasonable to me - agreed with Judicial Watch in a court of law. And the judge thinks how this FOIA request has been handled by Hillary and her team and the State Department stinks which is why he's allowing the unusual procedure of getting some testimony based upon the law.

I've read a bunch of the case and can't fault much on Judicial Watch. They're holding the governments feet to the fire because laws may have been broken. The judge wants to get to the bottom of it - so he kind of agrees with them.

Unfortunately, Dems are in the line of fire here. But if they broke the law, they broke the law. That's not Judicial Watch's fault.

When it comes to rendering his judgement, the judge should not be concerned with whether the party he's coming down on is Republican or Democrat. He just has to make a judgement on whether the law was broken or not.

The judge isn't likely to be that far off because a second judge has accepted the argument for discovery in another Clinton FOIA case.

Jarqui

(10,110 posts)
37. Another strawman.
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 01:44 PM
Apr 2016

Where are you getting this BS about anyone wanting classified material? Where? Who said it?

First of all, Clinton and company maintain they didn't handle classified material in their emails so that part should not be a big issue for them to talk a lot about.

They might want to ask about how Hillary and company planned to handle classified info - to get a picture of where the server fit in the information tech plan (scheme - not sinister). That's not giving anyone great classified material to discuss in general terms. There's been plenty of discussion about that already.

Now the State Department is uneasy because some of this stuff might amount to exposing criminal behavior by their staff who are under the scrutiny of the FBI. So their concern is understandable. The staff always has the right to plead the 5th like Hillary's IT guy did. And they may well do just that. But that's not a classified issue. That's people trying to not get convicted of a crime (whether they're guilty or not).

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
39. Judicial Watch...Well...any port in a storm. I think State is right
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 01:49 PM
Apr 2016

to ask for a seal and scope limit with these asshole......maybe you should look them up before you defend them.

Jarqui

(10,110 posts)
40. Where have Judicial Watch asked to be provided with classified material?
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 01:56 PM
Apr 2016

To underscore the absurdity of your position, below is Judicial Watch's motion asking for discovery that the judge approved:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/JW-v-State-56-d-motion-01363-1.pdf

If you search for the word classified in that motion, this is all that comes up:
"Ms. Abedin was classified as a special government employee"

So again, where have Judicial Watch asked to be provided with classified material?

It's really a rhetorical, question now, isn't it.

You're making up an issue that never existed.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
41. Wrong document. That discovery has been granted is without question.
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 02:22 PM
Apr 2016

What's being hammered out now is scope. Jw has asked for pretty much unfettered access, and questioning. State is arguing narrowed scope, and temporary seal so that classified info does not leak. That's reasonable, given JWs track record of leaking.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
42. its not about judicial watch. the identity of the questioner is irrelevant.
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 02:23 PM
Apr 2016

the issue is about fulfilling the foia request which is part of the transparency our government is supposed to have.

if particulars of the fbi investigation are germane to fulfilling the foia request, then they should be allowed. if not, then not.

but state is not an impartial party and should not be the only arbiter of what is relevant to the request.

Impedimentus

(898 posts)
7. If you think the political operatives at State, or at any agency for that matter give a damn ...
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 12:14 PM
Apr 2016

about anything excepting protecting their turf you live in a different universe. No matter Who is in office, the political operatives only care about themselves. These are some very ruthless people.

FEEL THE BERN - 2016

Impedimentus

(898 posts)
15. So the FBI reports to Judicial Watch ? And you talk about getting it wrong.
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 12:25 PM
Apr 2016

What a silly post. I'm sure the FBI folks would be amused.

FEEL THE BERN - 2016

yellowcanine

(35,692 posts)
21. The State Dept wants to limit the questions of JW - not the FBI investigation.
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 12:32 PM
Apr 2016

Two very different things. You are the one who looks silly here.

Jarqui

(10,110 posts)
33. A tricky issue from the article
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 01:14 PM
Apr 2016
State understands the scope of permissible discovery to be 'the reasons for the creation of [the clintonemail.com] system.


I think it gets difficult to discuss that without bringing up the term "classified" at all because you'd want to understand the context of where this system fit in the bigger scheme of things.

And they should be able to testify that they didn't put any classified material on the server that would impede Judicial Watch's information request because the server wasn't designed to accommodate classified material.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/JW-v-State-56-d-motion-01363-1.pdf
... a compelling need exists to restore the integrity of the FOIA process at the State Department and ensure accountability for the FOIA violations that occurred.

Before this can be accomplished, however, Plaintiff requires discovery to uncover and present admissible evidence to the Court about whether the State Department and Mrs. Clinton deliberately thwarted FOIA. Plaintiff also requires discovery of the system itself to determine possible methods for recovering whatever responsive records may still exist. The Court therefore should grant Plaintiff time to conduct discovery and obtain admissible evidence.


and
Before the Court can determine whether the State Department’s belated search of only a self-selected portion of the records from Mrs. Clinton’s “off-grid” system satisfied FOIA, it first must decide whether Mrs. Clinton and the State Department deliberately thwarted FOIA by creating, using, and concealing the system.


The critical issue in this case, therefore, is whether Mrs. Clinton’s and the State Department’s creation and use of the “off-grid” record system and their concealment of the system for six years, deliberately thwarted FOIA.


and
Although Plaintiff has not yet conducted discovery, at least some of the relevant facts cannot reasonably be disputed or have already been established through admissible evidence. Those facts show that there is at least a “reasonable suspicion” that the State Department and Mrs. Clinton deliberatively thwarted FOIA by creating, using, and concealing the “clintonemail.com” record system.


For the Court to determine whether the State Department and Mrs. Clinton deliberately thwarted FOIA, it is essential to discover the following facts about how and why the “clintonemail.com” system was created:
• Who, besides Mrs. Clinton, was involved in the decision to create the “clintonemail.com” system;
• Under what circumstances and for what reasons was the “clintonemail.com” system created;
• Who created the “clintonemail.com” system;
• How was the “clintonemail.com” system created;
• Who besides Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin had email accounts created on the “clintonemail.com” system;
• Were any State Department monies, resources, or personnel used to create the “clintonemail.com” system;
• How and when did Mrs. Clinton inform career State Department employees that she created the “clintonemail.com” system to conduct official government business;
• When Mrs. Clinton informed career State Department employees that she created the “clintonemail.com” system to conduct official government business, did anyone advise her against it and, if so, who and why;
• Did Mrs. Clinton specifically instruct State Department employees not to inform the public or the National Archives and Records Administration about the creation of the “clintonemail.com system.


Plaintiff submits that discovery of the following facts about the use of the “clintonemail.com” system are necessary for the Court to determine whether the State Department and Mrs. Clinton deliberately thwarted FOIA:
• Who at the State Department besides Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin used an email address on the “clintonemail.com” system to conduct official government business;
• Who at the State Department knew that Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin were using “clintonemail.com” email addresses to conduct official government business;
• Were any State Department monies, resources, or personnel used to create the “clintonemail.com” system;
• Was Mrs. Clinton assigned a “state.gov” email address and, if not, why was she not assigned one;
• Why did the State Department not provide Mrs. Clinton with any personal computing devices to conduct official government business;
• Was Mrs. Clinton advised at any point to use a “state.gov” email address to conduct official government business instead of a “clintonemail.com” email address;
• Was Ms. Abedin advised to use her “state.gov” email address exclusively to conduct official government business;
• Under what circumstances did Ms. Abedin use the “clintonemail.com” system to conduct official government business;
• From January 21, 2009 to the day that the New York Times reported that Mrs. Clinton used the “off-grid” system, how did the State Department handle FOIA and other legal requests that implicated Mrs. Clinton’s email;
• From January 21, 2009 to the day that the New York Times reported that Mrs. Clinton used the “off-grid” system, did anyone at the State Department consider publicly disclosing the use of the “clintonemail.com” system to conduct official government business;
• Who at the State Department assisted Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin in using the “clintonemail.com” system or enabled them to use it to conduct official government business;
• Did the State Department deliberately conceal the existence of the “clintonemail.com” system from the public, and, if so, who at the State Department assisted with ensuring that the public would not find out about the use of the system to conduct official government business;
• Were State Department employees instructed not to inform the public or the National Archives and Records Administration about the use of the “clintonemail.com” system; and
• At any time between January 21, 2009 and the day that the New York Times reported that Mrs. Clinton used the “off-grid” system was any State Department employee disciplined or reprimanded for questioning the use of the “clintonemail.com” system to conduct official government business


The above is only about half the questions. Realize that the judge approved this motion. It's up to the judge to deal with whatever concerns the State Department had but the plaintiff made a general argument that the judge agreed with and he basically scolded the State Department for all the nonsense.

I do not know how you can get through double the above questions and avoid asking anything about classified material.

As well, at the end of those questions from Clinton staff, I cannot imagine them being able to answer all of those questions. It struck me that the only one who could do so is Hillary herself. As much as the State Department doesn't want her to testify, they're laying the foundation for her to be needed to testify.

If I'm the FBI, answers to those questions would fill in a bunch of blanks. So maybe these folks are going to have to plead the 5th.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»State Dept Intererence in...