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
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:46 PM Aug 2015

In FOIA hearing, federal judge says Clinton violated government policy



Afederal judge indicated Thursday that he believes Hillary Clinton violated government policy by storing official emails on a private server when she worked as secretary of state.

During a hearing on a Freedom of Information Act case, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said the actions had complicated the State Department’s ability to respond to requests for the agency’s records on various topics.

“We wouldn’t be here today if this employee had followed government policy,” Sullivan said, apparently referring to Clinton.
After Justice Department lawyer Peter Wechsler argued that FOIA normally doesn’t allow for searches of government officials’ private accounts, the judge said he viewed it as an unusual situation because “there was a violation of government policy.”

“We’re not talking about a search of anyone’s random email,” Sullivan added.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/judge-says-hillary-clintons-private-emails-violated-policy-121568.html#ixzz3jO0lxD2t
91 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In FOIA hearing, federal judge says Clinton violated government policy (Original Post) cali Aug 2015 OP
BOMBSHELL!!! nt HFRN Aug 2015 #1
Firecracker! Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #57
Tombstone!!...nt SidDithers Aug 2015 #90
You know what the Hillarians are going to be after.. Cherry Creek Native Aug 2015 #2
We are toast vadermike Aug 2015 #3
The admin is partially behind this. Puzzledtraveller Aug 2015 #4
I doubt the admin had anything to do with this cali Aug 2015 #5
I don't think that's it. My question is why the WH apparently knew all this was going on TwilightGardener Aug 2015 #7
True Puzzledtraveller Aug 2015 #11
No other cabinet official was allowed to bring in an entourage of unqualified groupies TwilightGardener Aug 2015 #20
I don't know that they knew that or even paid attention to it. askew Aug 2015 #25
If it was all innocuous "nice to see you yesterday, let's have TwilightGardener Aug 2015 #34
I'd guess you'd be in the minority. askew Aug 2015 #41
I've seen zero indication that the WH knew she was keeping a secret server in her askew Aug 2015 #24
Even Jon Stewart skewered her for truedelphi Aug 2015 #56
It wasn't illegal. MADem Aug 2015 #35
No, it wasn't illegal to use a private account, or have one's own server. TwilightGardener Aug 2015 #40
Why would her aides have had their correspondence destroyed? KoKo Aug 2015 #44
Read that their government issued Blackberries were turned in and destroyed. I don't know TwilightGardener Aug 2015 #45
It is SOP when dealing with classified information. 4lbs Aug 2015 #55
I read that, also. Thought it odd but figured the info was already filed KoKo Aug 2015 #75
If she's communicating w/state employees at their desks, she's already archiving. MADem Aug 2015 #53
If it were on her server it could be viewed as archived by turning it over. Relying on archiving peacebird Aug 2015 #85
The "ultimate" archive is to send it TO the server in the institution. And that's what she did. MADem Aug 2015 #89
It's gonna be Bernie and we'll be just fine. He's a much candidate than Hillary anyway. InAbLuEsTaTe Aug 2015 #86
She probably knew that FOIA's couldn't be sought thru private accounts, so she made it ALL private. TwilightGardener Aug 2015 #6
exactly cali Aug 2015 #8
Because the DoJ lawyer is not working for her jberryhill Aug 2015 #9
No, just wondering why the DoJ lawyer was arguing in defense of her email set-up. TwilightGardener Aug 2015 #12
At the bottom of it all jberryhill Aug 2015 #13
Oh, I think she's going down, and it will be well-deserved. Something totally hinky about her TwilightGardener Aug 2015 #16
She didn't have a "special-exception status carved out for her at the State Dept." jberryhill Aug 2015 #21
It's in a news story on CNN--she got some sort of special government employee status TwilightGardener Aug 2015 #22
No, she didn't. The White House--and JUST the White House--had their own rules. MADem Aug 2015 #36
Yeah, there is definitely an issue there with Huma's employment as special employee askew Aug 2015 #43
CNN is not the best place to learn law jberryhill Aug 2015 #62
jury results for your post grasswire Aug 2015 #77
So the FBI investigation is a ruse, meant to distract us with shiny things while they go after Huma? cherokeeprogressive Aug 2015 #79
We don't know that State allowed it. Clinton campaign refuses to answer questions about askew Aug 2015 #26
I think State did allow it. They would know that she didn't even have a .gov address TwilightGardener Aug 2015 #30
Some peons may have known. But, they weren't in any position to do anything about it. askew Aug 2015 #39
It's because the vague term "government policy" is meaningless. MADem Aug 2015 #27
Except it is false to say that FOIA's can't be sought through private accounts, so her using a pnwmom Aug 2015 #67
Putting her in power will be subjecting us to years of investigations. AppalachianLeftist Aug 2015 #10
Drip, drip, drip, drip, drip... John Poet Aug 2015 #14
Who gives a damn what that judge "thinks", Darb Aug 2015 #15
uh, she alost certainly does, and so do voters. cali Aug 2015 #17
Hillary and her lawyers probably give a damn what that judge thinks. AppalachianLeftist Aug 2015 #18
And stop with the steaming bullcrap about hohow it's carrying right-wing water cali Aug 2015 #19
Nobody cares about email except the republicans and Karl roves little helpers saturnsring Aug 2015 #29
you want to delude yourself, feel free. but that is simply false cali Aug 2015 #33
I'm sorry you're correct republicans care saturnsring Aug 2015 #37
lol. bullshit cali Aug 2015 #47
Google it saturnsring Aug 2015 #50
It is a poor substitute for reasons to vote for their favored candidate, but I guess those arguments MADem Aug 2015 #51
And such seething negativity... LuvLoogie Aug 2015 #80
If that's running in IA, that's fantastic! MADem Aug 2015 #82
Old School Midwestern Democrat--All In LuvLoogie Aug 2015 #83
Well, her only crime is violating US law... nt Romulox Aug 2015 #23
Since when is "may have violated government policy" magically transformed into "violating US law?" MADem Aug 2015 #31
The handling of Top Secret material is regulated by Statutory Law, not mere "policy". nt Romulox Aug 2015 #32
Then why is the judge using the word "policy?" Surely a judge knows the difference. Pffft. nt MADem Aug 2015 #38
I don't think this article is about the classified angle, that's being handled by the FBI and DOJ. TwilightGardener Aug 2015 #42
The poster would do well to not try to convolute issues--it makes it seem as though he is working MADem Aug 2015 #48
I believe they're seeking email between Clinton and her top aides, who all had accounts on TwilightGardener Aug 2015 #52
Didn't she travel with them? Seems a bit like overkill to email someone rather than MADem Aug 2015 #54
Breaches of governmental policy is not breaking the law or a "crime"....folks need to read. Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #59
When there is magical thinking then everything is a crime? Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #58
K & R !!! WillyT Aug 2015 #28
Shame the comment from the judge has no bearing on the actual work surrounding the servers Godhumor Aug 2015 #46
Don't forget about the scandal of whitewater ... Omg whitewater saturnsring Aug 2015 #49
VINCE FOSTER LIVES!!! randome Aug 2015 #60
We need to dig up video of Dan Burton shooting melons simulating his assassination msanthrope Aug 2015 #65
It's pathetic that some of you are so gleeful about the slightest molehill... randome Aug 2015 #61
Judicial Watch..... that's all that need be said. & T msanthrope Aug 2015 #66
This is Larry Klaymen/Judicial Watch bullshit OKNancy Aug 2015 #63
Very sad, very disgusting...unfortunately, predicatable. Some people don't care about either MADem Aug 2015 #69
Judicial Watch? You've now gone to Judicial Watch? That's sad. nt msanthrope Aug 2015 #64
I'm so sick of this email shit kacekwl Aug 2015 #68
She followed the same policy as BlueMTexpat Aug 2015 #70
And now, evidently, it's okay if a Democrat does it.. frylock Aug 2015 #73
There is no there there. BlueMTexpat Aug 2015 #74
Yeah. Been hearing that for months now.. frylock Aug 2015 #76
I'm so old... OilemFirchen Aug 2015 #71
What a shock ! DURHAM D Aug 2015 #72
Doesn't sound right HassleCat Aug 2015 #78
blah blah blah media, politico, this primary is too "boring" ericson00 Aug 2015 #81
I'm not seeing a thread for this so I'll, respectfully, toss it here Babel_17 Aug 2015 #84
What I don't get about these politicians TransitJohn Aug 2015 #87
Ethics work something like keys to door locks HereSince1628 Aug 2015 #88
... SidDithers Aug 2015 #91

Puzzledtraveller

(5,937 posts)
4. The admin is partially behind this.
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:53 PM
Aug 2015

There is no love lost between the Obamas and Clintons. They are also aware that she could be such a liability in the general that they may be thinking it better to go with plan B, Bernie, or Biden.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
7. I don't think that's it. My question is why the WH apparently knew all this was going on
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:59 PM
Aug 2015

and exercised zero oversight.

Puzzledtraveller

(5,937 posts)
11. True
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:03 PM
Aug 2015

But could it now be a case of cya for the WH? As far as not wanting to risk losing appearance of integrity and perserving the legacy of the president? Just curious.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
20. No other cabinet official was allowed to bring in an entourage of unqualified groupies
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:19 PM
Aug 2015

like Clinton was allowed to do. Obama had a very hands-off approach with her, let her set up the State Dept. however she wanted with something like 60 of her loyalists (he drew the line at Blumenthal). I don't know if this is considered to be biting him in the butt, or if he really doesn't care and it's her problem, not his. It should be his problem--the WH clearly knew they weren't reaching her at .gov.

askew

(1,464 posts)
25. I don't know that they knew that or even paid attention to it.
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:38 PM
Aug 2015

Do you look at the email addresses of people who email you? I don't. I just see an email from Joe Schoe and respond. I don't take the time to see what his exact email address is.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
34. If it was all innocuous "nice to see you yesterday, let's have
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:54 PM
Aug 2015

lunch soon", it wouldn't matter. More sensitive than that, and I'd want to know where my email is going, who's securing it, and who's seeing it.

askew

(1,464 posts)
41. I'd guess you'd be in the minority.
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:04 PM
Aug 2015

Most people would just see an email from Hillary Clinton came in and respond to it. And the onus should not be on the recipient to make sure Hillary was using proper email procedures. They would also have no way of knowing that she was exclusively using private email or that she was keeping an email server in her home. You can't tell that from an email address.

askew

(1,464 posts)
24. I've seen zero indication that the WH knew she was keeping a secret server in her
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:36 PM
Aug 2015

basement and had private email accounts for her and her top aides.

You'll notice there is a complete silence coming from the WH and Obama's top team on the email situation. WH press secretary refers reporters to State Dept. and Axelrod, Plouffe, and others have all been mute on Hillary's emails. Other Dems have defended her but nothing from them. I'd guess they are pretty steamed about it. I seriously doubt they agreed to this setup ahead of time. If they did, Hillary would have already said so. But, she has never answered the questions about who signed off on her having a private server. She should have gotten permission from WH and ok from State's Legal and IT depts.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
56. Even Jon Stewart skewered her for
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:54 PM
Aug 2015

Her casual attitude toward using her private email rather than the government-based one.

Although it is true that some republican governors have utilized their own email accounts rather than state government based accounts, there is a world of difference between the situation with a Secretary of State and that of governor.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
35. It wasn't illegal.
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:54 PM
Aug 2015

The first State Department Secretary to rely on State.gov email is .... John Kerry.

No one used it before because it sucked.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
40. No, it wasn't illegal to use a private account, or have one's own server.
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:03 PM
Aug 2015

But of course that's only where this all begins. She was supposed to have a government-provided/secured device to do the aspects of her job that were official and sensitive or secret. Her aides had them (now destroyed), but she didn't, from what I understand. She was also supposed to be turning over her work-related emails to State on a timely basis while she was at State. Not, you know, hoarding them on a private server that supposedly few knew about, until the FOIA's and congressional inquiries piled up, years after she left. And I haven't even gotten to the classified-mishandling yet.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
44. Why would her aides have had their correspondence destroyed?
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:14 PM
Aug 2015

Wasn't clear what you meant.

Aren't some of them still there. Isn't all official correspondence supposed to be archived for posterity? Surely everyone she corresponded with should have copies of the e-mails she sent from her Private Server if they had to do with DOS business. I've wondered if their correspondence will be turned over to go through also.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
45. Read that their government issued Blackberries were turned in and destroyed. I don't know
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:16 PM
Aug 2015

if that's standard operating procedure or not.

4lbs

(6,756 posts)
55. It is SOP when dealing with classified information.
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:53 PM
Aug 2015

I used to work for a company that did government contracting work for the US military.

Part of the contracts involved dealing with classified data.

We had to set aside in our building a separate locked room, and separate networked computers to work with that classified data. Upon completion of the contract, the military took ownership of all network equipment, computers, hard drives, and even peripherals in that room, including printers.

The items were promptly headed for DOD level wiping and then destruction.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
75. I read that, also. Thought it odd but figured the info was already filed
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:02 PM
Aug 2015

in the system and ready to go to National Archives when Hillary left and Kerry took over.

So...we don't know if the Blackberries being destroyed meant that the info was already ready and waiting for Nat. Archives or it was something else.

That's the problem. There are supposed to be strict protocols so that our Government is held accountable to preserve communications for Historians to be able to refer to (and in case there are any problems that need legal attention post administration) and yet it seems that if Kissinger could put a "Five Years after My Death" hold on his information that went to Archives that the system is broken. Many of us remember the JFK Assassination info that has been in a lock box long after it was to be released.

That does NOT give Hillary a pass because she wasn't a novice appointee for SOS. She was a Senator, former Two Term "First Lady" very involved with her husband's Presidency, Former First Lady of a Governor and a Yale Law Graduate. She is not a novice who wouldn't know "The System."

I think all this has legs....and the E-Mails will reveal and catch up people in the State Department not so qualified as Hillary who watched for cues from Her as to how they would behave because they figured she had enough experience she wouldn't be doing anything that would get her in trouble or her appointees, aides, etc.

Some of us have had experience with working for a Boss whom we thought was an experienced and "well thought of employer" who was maybe charming with incredible credentials...only to find out that they weren't quite what we thought they were--and when "push came to shove" they would throw their employee s "under the bus" rather than admit their own failings as they were hustled out the door for either "cooking the books" or making deals with someone who got them into trouble.

Hillary should not be immune from scrutiny considering her past history. And, especially given both Hillary and Bill's experience during his two terms with legal issues and misconduct while in office in the case of Bill.

Hillary likes to always pass the buck and pretend to be "the Victim" when if fact she has brought much of this on herself with her obsession over secrecy and her claims to just not understand "what all the fuss is about" until things have come undone.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
53. If she's communicating w/state employees at their desks, she's already archiving.
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:49 PM
Aug 2015

Not "hoarding." When she hits SEND, she's archiving.

The communication would be on the state server AND on the hard drive of the employee.

I've said this before and I'll say it again--much material that the USG likes to pretend is "classified" can be found in daily newspapers in other countries. And I am not talking about "wikileaks" or Snowden leaks or any of that stuff. Some bozos like to go OTT when they put markings on stuff. It makes them feel important.

I once had to show a senior leader, in print, how something I was being wrongly accused of discussing outside of a "classified" space was on page three of a major middle eastern publication, with color pictures and diagrams. The individual was apppropriately chagrined.

Sometimes, the USG is slow on the uptake when it comes to de-classification. They need to get way better at that. Congress gets sloppy with that kind of info all the time, too, and the GOP are the worst--which is why it's ironic that they would try to make hay out of this matter. I think that what goes around might eventually come around.

In the case of HRC, if people were sending her classified material without appropriate markings, that's on them, not her, and to expect anyone to know the level of classification of every phrase or sentence absent visual cues is simply asinine--how many of the people who prepared these documents were careerists given their appointments by Bush, or Bush, or Reagan, I wonder...?

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
85. If it were on her server it could be viewed as archived by turning it over. Relying on archiving
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:03 PM
Aug 2015

Of the emails she sent by the recipients govt accounts means it is much harder to pull together a complete archive of HRC email.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
89. The "ultimate" archive is to send it TO the server in the institution. And that's what she did.
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:44 PM
Aug 2015

You're seriously not trying to suggest that it's impossible, in the 21st century, to do a sort by email address/date and come up with a lovely, chronological accounting?

I'm not buying these poutrage arguments, they're coming straight out of Breitbart and Daily Caller. I am not accusing you of going there, mind you, but whoever you're hearing this stuff from has gotten it from someone who is wading DEEP in those waters. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend--they want a Republican in the White House.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
6. She probably knew that FOIA's couldn't be sought thru private accounts, so she made it ALL private.
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:58 PM
Aug 2015

Neat way to hide shit, but the jig is apparently up. Edit to add: is the DOJ lawyer arguing FOR her? Why?

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
9. Because the DoJ lawyer is not working for her
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:03 PM
Aug 2015

This is a suit by a private RW group against the State Department.

The DoJ defends suits against US government agencies.

Are you suggesting there is some other lawyers who should defend suits against the government?

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
12. No, just wondering why the DoJ lawyer was arguing in defense of her email set-up.
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:05 PM
Aug 2015

I suppose the State Dept. allowed the set-up, so it's State that has to defend it.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
13. At the bottom of it all
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:08 PM
Aug 2015

Is a campaign to go after Huma Abedin, in support of JW's theory that she is a secret radical Muslim infiltrator.

Ultimately, it is going to blow up in their faces, but timing is everything.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
16. Oh, I think she's going down, and it will be well-deserved. Something totally hinky about her
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:12 PM
Aug 2015

having a special-exception status carved out for her at the State Dept. while also working for the Clinton Foundation and other side projects. It smells.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
21. She didn't have a "special-exception status carved out for her at the State Dept."
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:24 PM
Aug 2015

Here's what this suit is about...

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request to the State Department for emails relating to Huma Abedin.

FOIA law can get pretty complicated, particularly when someone is looking for material relating to an employee.

JW is claiming that the State Department did not turn over all FOIA-able emails, because they did not turn over the ones on her own system, which was not a government system.

The State Department has responded to that by saying that, of course, things that aren't on State Dept. systems, and on someone's own private system aren't subject to anything the State Department can or has to turn over under FOIA.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
22. It's in a news story on CNN--she got some sort of special government employee status
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:32 PM
Aug 2015

while she was also still at State, while she was also doing outside "consulting" work for Clinton-tied organizations. She most certainly had a special arrangement made for her.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
36. No, she didn't. The White House--and JUST the White House--had their own rules.
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:00 PM
Aug 2015

Those were changed after Dubya's administration personnel 'disappeared' millions of emails and used an off-site RNC server as well as Yahoo mail to communicate.

The Department of Defense --and JUST DoD (and all the dot mils that reported to them) have their own rules.

State had their own rules, too, and her set-up was neither 'illegal' nor against any policy established by State. Those rules were updated in 2014--after Clinton was long gone.

askew

(1,464 posts)
43. Yeah, there is definitely an issue there with Huma's employment as special employee
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:10 PM
Aug 2015

while working for Clinton Foundation and another company as well. There is an outstanding lawsuit asking where the agreement for her employment is and State Dept can't find one. They also can't answer what her access to classified material was. It's a total mess.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
62. CNN is not the best place to learn law
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 06:14 PM
Aug 2015

and "some sort of special government employee status" is not particularly helpful in finding whatever rule or statute applies.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
77. jury results for your post
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:26 PM
Aug 2015

On Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:44 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Oh, I think she's going down, and it will be well-deserved. Something totally hinky about her
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=534071

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This post accuses Huma of being a secret Muslim government infiltrator. Do we really allow this crap on DU?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:59 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a pointless squabble over a pretty benign post.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: ridiculous assertion by alerter. Get a thicker skin!
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post says nothing about "Secret Muslim Government Infiltrator". Please stop abusing your ability to appeal a post. Trying to censor a post because you don't like it with outrageous claims like this one isn't doing your side any good.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yeah the post smells, but it's getting argued out. If that was the direct claim I would hide it as "otherwise inappropriate"
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
79. So the FBI investigation is a ruse, meant to distract us with shiny things while they go after Huma?
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:28 PM
Aug 2015

I thought the ONLY thing the FBI investigated were crimes or possible crimes.

Who knew that it was just a ruse? Something new every day I do learn.

askew

(1,464 posts)
26. We don't know that State allowed it. Clinton campaign refuses to answer questions about
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:40 PM
Aug 2015

who knew about the set-up ahead of time and what clearances did she get to use this set-up.

I can't believe that State's Legal or IT depts would sign off on this. She brought in her own IT guy from her campaign to set it up and maintain it.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
30. I think State did allow it. They would know that she didn't even have a .gov address
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:48 PM
Aug 2015

and that none of her emails were ever being saved or archived. Hard to believe that could happen without permanent employees not knowing.

askew

(1,464 posts)
39. Some peons may have known. But, they weren't in any position to do anything about it.
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:02 PM
Aug 2015

Hillary was their boss. They couldn't really do anything to stop her and her aides from ignoring procedure. What is going to matter is if Hillary didn't get WH, State's Legal and IT to sign-off ahead of time. And the way they are dodging that question, I'd guess they didn't get any sign-offs ahead of time.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
27. It's because the vague term "government policy" is meaningless.
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:44 PM
Aug 2015

It can be "government policy" to not bring hot drinks into the situation room--no one is going to jail if someone wanders in there with their cocoa, though.

Amazing how some people are so quick to leap.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
67. Except it is false to say that FOIA's can't be sought through private accounts, so her using a
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 06:47 PM
Aug 2015

private account makes no difference with regard to FOIA's.

http://www.fosterswift.com/publications-FOIA-E-Mail-Public-Record.html

The FOIA does not exempt those using private computers from the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. If an e-mail meets the definition of “public record,” then it may be subject to the FOIA regardless of the location where the e-mail originated.

 
10. Putting her in power will be subjecting us to years of investigations.
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:03 PM
Aug 2015

Leaving no time for the mediocre accomplishments one usually gets from an establishment President.

The poorest regions of America can't afford a Clinton presidency.

Time to bow out, Hillary.

 

Darb

(2,807 posts)
15. Who gives a damn what that judge "thinks",
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:10 PM
Aug 2015

and give the Hillary attacks a week off for fucks sake. It ain't your goddamned job to carry Repubic water, so quit fucking doing it. You're being too obvious, FYI.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
19. And stop with the steaming bullcrap about hohow it's carrying right-wing water
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:16 PM
Aug 2015

Hillary did this to herself and it is a legitimate story.

 

saturnsring

(1,832 posts)
29. Nobody cares about email except the republicans and Karl roves little helpers
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:47 PM
Aug 2015

There are judges who think that same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry and judges who thought the aca should be repealed. Do/did we entertain their thoughts?

The judge also says he doesn't know how Clinton violated government policy

MADem

(135,425 posts)
51. It is a poor substitute for reasons to vote for their favored candidate, but I guess those arguments
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:33 PM
Aug 2015

aren't resonating. A laundry list of what's wrong (like no one knows) , coupled with pie-sky proposals that won't pass Congress, aren't getting the desired response. All that's left in the toolbox are the right wing website slams. It's a shame when DU looks more like Breitbart than Breitbart, but what can ya do...?

LuvLoogie

(6,855 posts)
80. And such seething negativity...
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:41 PM
Aug 2015

It's really palpable. I'm really looking forward to voting for Hillary. This site is so insular.

Here's a breath of fresh air, props to Tom Harkin:

MADem

(135,425 posts)
82. If that's running in IA, that's fantastic!
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:52 PM
Aug 2015

He won like ninety percent of the caucus as a favorite son candidate against (guess who) Bill Clinton in his first run for POTUS~!

MADem

(135,425 posts)
31. Since when is "may have violated government policy" magically transformed into "violating US law?"
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:49 PM
Aug 2015

It's DU policy to not be rude to fellow posters, not shop rightwing memes, help elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans, etc. .... but no one goes to jail if they don't observe those conventions.

So too will no one go to jail for not observing some "government policy" that the judge "thinks" just "might have" been violated.

He probably should have a good look at "State Department policy." HRC was coloring within the lines according to that "policy." The White House had a much stricter policy after they realized that the Dubya administration made MILLIONS of emails, all on an off-site RNC server, as well as using YAHOO email accounts, completely disappear. POOF.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
42. I don't think this article is about the classified angle, that's being handled by the FBI and DOJ.
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:07 PM
Aug 2015

This is about hoarding four years' worth of email materials as SOS on a private server, and how it relates to FOIA requests not being honored. At least that's my take on it.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
48. The poster would do well to not try to convolute issues--it makes it seem as though he is working
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:27 PM
Aug 2015

too hard.

Since the overwhelming bulk of the communication was WITH people at State, the "hoarding" charge really doesn't hold water. The act of sending the email ensured an archived copy.

That argument is a canard.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
52. I believe they're seeking email between Clinton and her top aides, who all had accounts on
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:42 PM
Aug 2015

HillaryClinton'sHomeServer.com. (The aides also had their own .gov accounts.)

MADem

(135,425 posts)
54. Didn't she travel with them? Seems a bit like overkill to email someone rather than
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:51 PM
Aug 2015

turn to them and talk.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
59. Breaches of governmental policy is not breaking the law or a "crime"....folks need to read.
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 06:09 PM
Aug 2015

No parking in government property. A violation is not a crime or breaking the law!

Will the wonders of tunnel vision never cease.

Godhumor

(6,437 posts)
46. Shame the comment from the judge has no bearing on the actual work surrounding the servers
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:24 PM
Aug 2015

Last edited Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

He offered his own personal quip/opinion on Clinton's actions, not an official government response. But, hey, any judge saying she did something wrong in any context is likely to make the news.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
60. VINCE FOSTER LIVES!!!
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 06:10 PM
Aug 2015

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
65. We need to dig up video of Dan Burton shooting melons simulating his assassination
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 06:42 PM
Aug 2015

At the hands of Hillary. Because that's where GDP is headed.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
61. It's pathetic that some of you are so gleeful about the slightest molehill...
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 06:12 PM
Aug 2015

...that you imagine will be magically transformed into a mountain.

This truly sounds like it will amount to nothing. But the gleefulness is embarrassing to watch.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)
63. This is Larry Klaymen/Judicial Watch bullshit
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 06:27 PM
Aug 2015

It's pretty disgusting to see so many jumping on this witch hunt.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
69. Very sad, very disgusting...unfortunately, predicatable. Some people don't care about either
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 07:02 PM
Aug 2015

Democratic unity (what will they do if they shut that door with harsh words?) or about their own reputations.

When dealing with Republicans, the enemy of my "enemy" (and a Democrat should not be anyone's "enemy" on this board) is not my friend. Republicans are interested in screwing us over and taking the White House, and any "gifts" they hand out to partisans should be regarded as poisoned.

kacekwl

(6,994 posts)
68. I'm so sick of this email shit
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 06:57 PM
Aug 2015

Seems like everyone and their mother had private email accounts when working in their gov. Position including. previous SOS Colin Powell. Shame her in public and scold her if you must and let's move on. NOBODY care about millions of emails gone missing under Bush Corp. or any other official who did / does the same. People will make up their mind at the polls.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
76. Yeah. Been hearing that for months now..
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:11 PM
Aug 2015

I'm sure I'll be hearing it a year from now. This isn't going away. This isn't Gowdy's or Issa's shit show. The FBI is now involved.

OilemFirchen

(7,143 posts)
71. I'm so old...
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 07:28 PM
Aug 2015

I remember when Larry Klayman was a crazy old wingnut fuck because of his obsession with the Clintons.

How things change.

 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
78. Doesn't sound right
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:27 PM
Aug 2015

How does FOIA apply here? If the information is classified, nobody without the appropriate clearance AND a need to know gets to see it. If released to satisfy a FOIA request, the information has to be edited to omit sensitive information. It makes no difference whether or not anyone violated policy or procedure, or even the law.

 

ericson00

(2,707 posts)
81. blah blah blah media, politico, this primary is too "boring"
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:42 PM
Aug 2015

boo hoo. One of the best things about seeing the Clintons be president again will be the reaction of the press at the inaugural.

TransitJohn

(6,932 posts)
87. What I don't get about these politicians
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:06 PM
Aug 2015

is that even lonely little old me in my workaday position in the big corporation I work for have to take an annual ethics course where they teach us that it is of paramount importance to avoid not only a conflict of interest but THE APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest. Someone playing in the big leagues like the Secretary of State can't think that they're immune to basic ethics, can they? Sheesh.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
88. Ethics work something like keys to door locks
Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:30 PM
Aug 2015

The more of them you have the lower you are in the organization...think janitors who are trusted entering, moving around, offices and all the personal and company items of value...

The higher you are in the corporation you are, the fewer keys you carry, and the more exempt you are from serious supervision of the ethical characteristics of your behavior.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»In FOIA hearing, federal ...