2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumState 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
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)Her campaign is circling the drain!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)NCjack
(10,279 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)classified material?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/larry-klayman-obama-dismantled-country-payback-racial-discrimination
These are the people you want looking at classified material?
yellowcanine
(35,692 posts)Or do you thing Right wing nutjob organizations should be free to "investigate" with no restrictions?
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)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)the fact that they are now willing to be obvious about their obstruction suggests that this is turning into something serious.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)really thought the above was unnecessary
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Jarqui
(10,110 posts)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.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Jarqui
(10,110 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Jarqui
(10,110 posts)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.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ask for limits?
Jarqui
(10,110 posts)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)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)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)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.
Jarqui
(10,110 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)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)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
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)yellowcanine
(35,692 posts)Get it wrong much?
Impedimentus
(898 posts)What a silly post. I'm sure the FBI folks would be amused.
FEEL THE BERN - 2016
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)yellowcanine
(35,692 posts)Two very different things. You are the one who looks silly here.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)yellowcanine
(35,692 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Impedimentus
(898 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Why does State defend her? Why does she not have to rely on a private atty?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)stuff.
yellowcanine
(35,692 posts)Just guessing.
Jarqui
(10,110 posts)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 Departments belated search of only a self-selected portion of the records from Mrs. Clintons 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. Clintons and the State Departments 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. Clintons 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.