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

Segami

(14,923 posts)
Thu May 5, 2016, 12:12 PM May 2016

Federal Judge MAY ORDER Hillary Clinton To TESTIFY In Ongoing Email Controversy





A federal judge on Wednesday signaled that he may be willing to order Hillary Clinton to testify about the decision to conduct official business on a private email server while she served as secretary of state. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said in an order made public Wednesday that it “may be necessary” for Clinton to be deposed in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking unrelated employment records for one of her closest advisers while she was at the Department of State.

The judge said “questions surrounding the creation, purpose and use of the clintonemail.com server must be explored” so that he may assess whether it was put in place to circumvent federal open-records laws. Prior to the revelations that the email server existed, Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, sued the Department of State to seek disclosure of the employment records of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, with an eye toward unearthing potential conflicts with private sector work Abedin engaged in while at the department.

Once some of the records were produced, the parties agreed to dismiss the case in early 2014. But when The New York Times reported on the existence of the email server last March, the watchdog group went back to court and later alleged that Clinton and State “sought to deliberately thwart” the Freedom of Information Act with the setup of the server. In Wednesday’s order, Sullivan seemed to cabin the implications of the case, noting that it involves the “narrow legal question” of whether State acted in good faith when it produced the records under the original request.

“Although the State Department has taken some action to recover federal records related to this case,” Sullivan wrote, “those efforts do not resolve the question of whether the agency’s search in response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request was reasonable.”

To get to the bottom of that legal question, Sullivan allowed lawyers for Judicial Watch to seek testimony from Abedin and Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff in her four years at State, as well as from other State employees who were involved in the deliberations surrounding the setup of the email system. Once that round of depositions and other evidence is collected in the case, for which the court gave an eight-week timeline, Sullivan said the lawyers can ask him for “permission” to also seek Clinton’s testimony.


cont'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/federal-judge-may-order-hillary-clinton-to-testify_us_572a6662e4b016f37894a568
38 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Federal Judge MAY ORDER Hillary Clinton To TESTIFY In Ongoing Email Controversy (Original Post) Segami May 2016 OP
Ok drip, drip, drip....... Segami May 2016 #1
Oh that's one of the reasons.... bkkyosemite May 2016 #2
Any time after 1/20/17 will be fine. TheCowsCameHome May 2016 #3
Awhile back it came out that the state department never even NWCorona May 2016 #4
Yipee!!! leftynyc May 2016 #5
JW is a RW group,... HooptieWagon May 2016 #8
Where did I say they didn't leftynyc May 2016 #11
You seem to be ignoring the facts. HooptieWagon May 2016 #12
Why do feel the need leftynyc May 2016 #14
If, as you claim, they've been going after Clinton's since the 90s,... HooptieWagon May 2016 #16
lol!...+1 Segami May 2016 #17
You don't get it leftynyc May 2016 #20
The judge (appointed by Clinton) ruled they had a valid suit,... HooptieWagon May 2016 #24
Your ignorance of law suits leftynyc May 2016 #26
Susan Mc Dugal, Monica Lewinsky Seeinghope May 2016 #38
"There have been at least three dozen civil lawsuits filed, including one by The Associated Press" Babel_17 May 2016 #32
Judge Emmet Sullivan is a Clinton appointee, and his order is in one of about 40 FOIA lawsuits. For Attorney in Texas May 2016 #18
Bullshit!!! leftynyc May 2016 #21
And the Clinton-appointed judge is in on the RW conspiracy? HooptieWagon May 2016 #27
LOL - can you imagine the HOWLS leftynyc May 2016 #30
Journalists (some right-wing nuts, but some plain vanilla journalists, too) filed FOIA requests Attorney in Texas May 2016 #29
Of course the separate FBI action is a criminal investigation. HooptieWagon May 2016 #33
Careful what you wish for ... nt salinsky May 2016 #6
I don't think State Dept knew about server... HooptieWagon May 2016 #7
Then she has to vacate this race, and any public office for the rest of her life. ViseGrip May 2016 #9
for most candidates, having their IT guy plead the 5th would be enough to finish them questionseverything May 2016 #13
And 37 similar lawsuits in the pipeline! IdaBriggs May 2016 #10
Why would she have to testify? casperthegm May 2016 #15
She's looking at hard time Skink May 2016 #19
She's looking at laughing at the leftynyc May 2016 #22
Yep. Cacklin' and Shacklin' HooptieWagon May 2016 #28
LOL leftynyc May 2016 #35
He's just a sideshow. The headliner is Clinton. HooptieWagon May 2016 #36
LOL leftynyc May 2016 #37
Tick...tick...tick... Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #23
Oh the irony it BERNS! pinebox May 2016 #25
To the legal buffs, will the following quote by Sullivan, Babel_17 May 2016 #31
What the case is and isn't about and what the court said - in the court's own words onenote May 2016 #34

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
4. Awhile back it came out that the state department never even
Thu May 5, 2016, 12:20 PM
May 2016

Looked through other .Gov email accounts to see if they could find any emails that Hillary might have sent.

Not very responsive at all.

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
5. Yipee!!!
Thu May 5, 2016, 12:21 PM
May 2016

Now Bernie supporters are pushing judicial watch - an organization that has never gotten anything right, run by someone who sued his own mother and who has been hounding the Clinton's since the 90s. They must be so proud.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
8. JW is a RW group,...
Thu May 5, 2016, 12:39 PM
May 2016

...but they have just as much right to file FOIA requests as anyone else. And the subject of the filings is legally required to comply with the law. Transparency applies to Ds as much as Rs.

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
11. Where did I say they didn't
Thu May 5, 2016, 01:24 PM
May 2016

have the right to be the biggest assholes in the country? But this crap belongs on the freeper sewer, not on DU.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
12. You seem to be ignoring the facts.
Thu May 5, 2016, 01:34 PM
May 2016

No matter what anyone's opinion of JW, they are legally entitled to file FOIA requests. If those requests aren't complied with, they are legally entitled to file a lawsuit to force compliance.
OTOH, Clinton is required by law to preserve records so FOIA requests can be complied with. She not only did not do so, she stalled complying with the law for two years, and falsely signed a statement stating she had complied with records laws, when in fact she hadn't.
Clinton is the one breaking the law, not Judicial Watch.

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
14. Why do feel the need
Thu May 5, 2016, 01:38 PM
May 2016

to CONTINUALLY shove words into my mouth? I didn't say they were breaking the law. I said they were assholes who never get anything right and have been going after the Clinton's since the 90s. Any problem with those FACTS?

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
16. If, as you claim, they've been going after Clinton's since the 90s,...
Thu May 5, 2016, 01:41 PM
May 2016

...then why are the Clintons so stupid to keep handing them ammunition? Slow learners? Arrogance?

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
20. You don't get it
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:01 PM
May 2016

They've suing the Clinton's since the 90 and have gotten NOTHING in return for it. NOTHING. No crimes, no NOTHING. But you hang your hat (and hate) on these clowns. I can then laugh at both you and them when they once again humiliate themselves. You must be so proud.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
24. The judge (appointed by Clinton) ruled they had a valid suit,...
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:17 PM
May 2016

...and has ordered Hillary to appear in court. It appears something is there, unless one buries their head in the sand.

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
26. Your ignorance of law suits
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:23 PM
May 2016

if very humorous. Judges will ALWAYS go through the motions. They went through the motions the other 1000 times with these clowns. That has NEVER meant they were able to find anything. Got that? NEVER. Can you imagine the howls if a Clinton appointee didn't let it go forward? Not just from the right wing, but from you Bernie supporters who refuse to lose with grace and dignity.

 

Seeinghope

(786 posts)
38. Susan Mc Dugal, Monica Lewinsky
Thu May 5, 2016, 05:57 PM
May 2016

Just because you get away with it doesn't mean that you are innocent. I used to be one of those people that thought there was a vast RW conspiracy on the Clintons. I defended them fiercely. When Hillary Clinton ran for Senator of NY I was still behind them. It was around the time of the campaign to be POTUS in 2008 that the cracks began. At first I was thrilled that she was running, then I was torn because I started liking Barack Obama then I started to see Hillary Clinton become a person with less and less integrity. The Clinton's, in general, started showing their true colors.

Since then more and more things have come to light. Now I am not one that likes being so wrong about something.....especially a "Democratic". The Republicans were the bad guys, the idiots, the crooks........ It has been a humbling experience to have seen all of the veils coming off of the Clintons and continue to come off. I am truly seeing a very dangerous power hungry couple. Hungry for more power and money than they are for anything else. Bernie Sanders is in stark contrast to them.

It truly amazes me that so many people want to keep the blinder on about the Clintons. These people, if so victimised, went from broke to being worth hundreds of millions of dollars. How are victims able to do that? How are victims able to make 20 million dollars on speeches to Wall Street Companies? How do victims have a foundation that has received over a billion dollars in donations....much from foreign countries while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and giving contracts to these same countries? How are victims able to do all of these things? The thing is, they are not victims of anything. That is just a sales job. Sure the Republicans are going to say things about them. Hillary Clinton will say things about the Republicans. They are running campaigns. Look what the Republicans did to Barack Obama. They had blood in their eyes when they went after him......but they never ever had anywhere near the amount of ammunition against him that they did on the Clintons. Just like I said "just because you get away with it doesn't mean you are innocent"

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
32. "There have been at least three dozen civil lawsuits filed, including one by The Associated Press"
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:57 PM
May 2016

From this AP article: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6b4baccc94e647b1b63cfd8e931f8099/us-judge-clinton-may-be-ordered-testify-records-case

So, even more apparent, imo, that this is bigger than JW being the one filing about having their FOIA request improperly served.

Attorney in Texas

(3,373 posts)
18. Judge Emmet Sullivan is a Clinton appointee, and his order is in one of about 40 FOIA lawsuits. For
Thu May 5, 2016, 01:47 PM
May 2016

example, the Associated Press has brought a similar suit. Is the AP part of the vast right-wing conspiracy?

This is about law enforcement, not political attacks. The FOIA is an important law to ensure governmental transparency, and Hillary held herself above it. That will not be without consequence.

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
21. Bullshit!!!
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:02 PM
May 2016

It's about politics and nothing more. JW has been trying to kill the Clinton's since the 90s and have gotten NOTHING. That's right - NOTHING. But you hang your hat on these clowns. It seems appropriate somehow.

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
30. LOL - can you imagine the HOWLS
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:48 PM
May 2016

if a Clinton appointed judge didn't let these imbeciles see this through. Just like every judge before him. The right wing sends their love to you.

Attorney in Texas

(3,373 posts)
29. Journalists (some right-wing nuts, but some plain vanilla journalists, too) filed FOIA requests
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:48 PM
May 2016

for documents from the State Department. This happens every day; these documents belong to US.

The private email server was set up to violate this law.

Now, there is an FBI CRIMINAL investigation and about 40 CIVIL lawsuits.

Call the CRIMINAL investigation a political witch hunt it you wish (there is not enough publicly disclosed information to say one way or the other, but the head of the FBI is an Obama appointee so it's hard to imagine he's part of a vast right-wing conspiracy). But some or all of the CIVIL lawsuits clearly have merit - this is the conclusion of both Republican-appointee judges and Democratic-appointee judges who have considered the evidence - and so the CIVIL FOIA lawsuits are NOT any type of political conspiracy - they are a routine part of journalism.

If you cannot understand the distinction between the FBI CRIMINAL investigation and the CIVIL lawsuits, you had better be worried.

The State Department is going to lose most or all of these CIVIL FOIA lawsuits.

If YOU can't tell the difference between the CRIMINAL investigation and the CIVIL lawsuits, then you can bet the average FauxNoise viewer will also fail to grasp the distinction so as the State Department racks up fines, penalties, and fees over the next 6 months as the State Department loses these FOIA suits, those viewers will think these findings involve CRIMINAL misconduct (they don't).

Each of these CIVIL FOIA findings where the State Department is found to have deliberately violated FOIA due to Hillary's unilateral actions is going to be seen as the equivalent of CRIMINAL misconduct unless Hillary can get out ahead of this issue and explain how these CIVIL FOIA lawsuits are not the same as the FBI investigation.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
33. Of course the separate FBI action is a criminal investigation.
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:57 PM
May 2016

And IIRC the State Dept IG investigation into the Foundation was taken over by the FBI. Clinton's IT guy, given immunity for spilling the beans, worked for Clinton at State and the Foundation. He knows where the quid pro quos are buried.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
7. I don't think State Dept knew about server...
Thu May 5, 2016, 12:36 PM
May 2016

...or they would have taken measures to ensure its security. They didn't even inspect it.
There's no possibility Clinton testifies under oath. She doesn't know what evidence FBI has or doesn't have, and she can't afford to be caught lying either in court or later to FBI. She will plead the 5th.

questionseverything

(10,440 posts)
13. for most candidates, having their IT guy plead the 5th would be enough to finish them
Thu May 5, 2016, 01:35 PM
May 2016

there is just too much info in the public view for the fbi or justice department to cover for her

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511902710

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
22. She's looking at laughing at the
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:04 PM
May 2016

JW clowns and anyone who supported their 3 decade long witch hunt on the Clinton's and have gotten NOTHING. I'll get to laugh along with her.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
28. Yep. Cacklin' and Shacklin'
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:39 PM
May 2016

Looks pretty serious for a 'security review'... Her IT guy given immunity and spilling the beans, Romainian hacker extridicted and cooperating, Hillary ordered to testify...not looking good for her at all. Especially with the Clinton-appointed judge and FBI in on the RW conspiracy. Maybe she should have paid them better.

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
35. LOL
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:02 PM
May 2016

Behold your newest hero:

https://pando.com/2015/03/20/exclusive-interview-jailed-hacker-guccifer-boasts-i-used-to-read-hillarys-memos-for-six-seven-hours-and-then-do-the-gardening/


snip
“Wherever I investigate I find Jews and freemasons in the highest circles. I’ve hit upon secrets in the attempt to unmask the society of the enlightened.”

snip
The Smoking Gun website ran with the story and shortly after, Powell denied impropriety on national television. The news went viral. Project Alpha worked: “Bam! Powell, the nigger, fell for it,” Lehel later told me from behind bars, believing he foiled a spy operation and exposed a paranormal secret society.


Anyone hanging their hat on this sack of shit deserves nothing but scorn and humiliation. Don't forget to wrap your arms nice and tight around this vermin.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
36. He's just a sideshow. The headliner is Clinton.
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:07 PM
May 2016

Defying FOIA orders.
Perjury/signing false documents.
Negligent handling of classified information.
Violations of Records Act.
Exchanging classified info with non-cleared person.

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
37. LOL
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:10 PM
May 2016

Don't forget, hug him nice and tight so his slime gets all over you. If you think you're fooling anyone with this crap, think again. I'm sure everyone will find it interesting that you seem to spew every right wing talking point from every right wing sewer on the internet.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
25. Oh the irony it BERNS!
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:21 PM
May 2016

Hillary supporters: This is RW crap!

Bernie supporters: The judge was appointed by Clinton.

Remind us again who has been telling Hillary supporters that the Clinton's are very close to Republicans?

Oh that......

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
31. To the legal buffs, will the following quote by Sullivan,
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:52 PM
May 2016

"Based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary", imply that the odds of Secretary Clinton being called to testify greatly depend on those currently called to testify taking responsibility/excusing Clinton for the the FOIA requests delays?

I'm curious if the questions will be based a lot on theatrics, or if it's just going to be mostly cut and dried "who did what, and when". If the questions go to intent, and state of mind, then I think that could be said to leaning towards the theatrical.

The middle ground will be about recollections of conversations. And with those I think there's the real nub of whether Clinton will desired for her testimony. If anyone says that they thought they were following verbal instructions/guidance, and those are sticking points, then the judge might think about asking Secretary Clinton to settle that.

onenote

(44,924 posts)
34. What the case is and isn't about and what the court said - in the court's own words
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:00 PM
May 2016

Here's how the court describes the matter before it:

"This case presents a narrow legal question: did the United States Department of State ("State Department&quot , in good faith, conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents in response to Plaintiff Judicial Watch's ("Judicial Watch&quot Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA&quot request? As the Court ruled during the February 23, 2016 hearing on Judicial Watch's Motion for Discovery under Rule 56(d), questions surrounding the creation, purpose and use of the clintonemail.com server must be explored through limited discovery before the Court can decide, as a matter of law, whether the Government has conducted an adequate search in response to Judicial Watch's FOIA request.

And here's what the court said about what the discovery it was ordering:
"Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery on matters unrelated to whether State conducted an adequate search in response to Plaintiff's FOIA request, including without limitation: the substantive information sought by Plaintiff in its FOIA request in this case, which involves the employment status of a single employee; the storage, handling, transmission, or protection of classified information, including cybersecurity issues; and any pending FBI or law enforcement investigations."


And here's what the court said about the possibility of Clinton being deposed: "If Plaintiff believes Mrs. Clinton's testimony is required, it will request permission from the Court at the appropriate time."

(It should go without saying that whether or not the Court agrees Clinton's testimony is needed and whether it does or doesn't give its permission are matters that have not been determined and may never have to be determined).

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Federal Judge MAY ORDER H...