2016 Postmortem

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

134. Judicial Watch? They've been going after the Clintons since the 90s....nt

Reply to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 06:45 AM

Apr 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

142 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary folks DO REALIZE that Hillary will be found to have deliberately violated the FOIA, RIGHT? [View all] Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 OP

They live in fantasy land, so no, they don't realize anything. nt silvershadow Apr 2016 #1

No. They will say it is part of a Republican conspiracy concerning Benghazi. mmonk Apr 2016 #2

From all I've read, it's pretty unlikely that she will be found to have YouDig Apr 2016 #3

You're confusing the criminal case investigation and the numerous civil suits. I agree it's unlikely Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #12

I don't see civil suits as having the same impact as an indictment. YouDig Apr 2016 #14

Some of us care because transparency is a liberal value. Rilgin Apr 2016 #32

Here negatives are a problem, no doubt about it. YouDig Apr 2016 #46

But the FBI found an additional 30,000 emails - many of which they say Fawke Em Apr 2016 #69

Transparency is exactly one of the issues. Rilgin Apr 2016 #124

+1. Zira Apr 2016 #77

I don't either, but that's like saying "I don't see a stroke as having the same impact as cancer" Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #38

She violated her signed Classified Info Nondisclose Agreement. That was a serious felony violation. leveymg Apr 2016 #85

Apparently, being inside Establishment... Bohemianwriter Apr 2016 #35

She violated the terms of her signed classified info nondisclose agreement. This is criminal. leveymg Apr 2016 #83

As someone who makes regular FOIA requests for work, this whole story really aggravates me Ash_F Apr 2016 #4

JudicialWatch: The go to source for Sanders supporters. NCTraveler Apr 2016 #5

I know right? ismnotwasm Apr 2016 #8

I would like to think they would highlight it instead of hide it. NCTraveler Apr 2016 #10

If you have a PACER account, you can get these public court orders and court transcripts there for a Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #17

Judicial Watch is your source of choice. Nice. I actually like the transparency. NCTraveler Apr 2016 #23

It is NOT my source. PACER is my source. Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #24

Um... check out who you're talking to. Fawke Em Apr 2016 #70

Lol. JTFrog Apr 2016 #101

No, my links are to (1) a court order, (2) a court transcript, (3) The Guardian (a liberal paper), Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #16

You link directly to judicial watch in your op. NCTraveler Apr 2016 #18

who cares? grasswire Apr 2016 #56

People who believe in transparency and the knowledge they are being ratfucked. NCTraveler Apr 2016 #62

he said why grasswire Apr 2016 #65

Sure. lol. Stick with that. Not the reality that it is their go-to source. nt. NCTraveler Apr 2016 #66

Ugh... Fawke Em Apr 2016 #72

Thanks for offering to do that! That poster was out of line. n/t JimDandy Apr 2016 #88

Wow...look who believes in ratfucking all of a sudden. SwampG8r Apr 2016 #99

The links are to court orders and transcripts. You can find them on for-pay government websites or Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #58

If it means giving free acess to public documents, I don't care whose site it is. JimDandy Apr 2016 #61

Post removed Post removed Apr 2016 #63

exactly! JoePhilly Apr 2016 #76

There are 38 separate civil suits. JW is just one. There's also a criminal FBI investigation leveymg Apr 2016 #90

She is too selfish to care that her over ambitiousness is endangering our government Vote2016 Apr 2016 #131

Crazy Larry Klayman strikes again. His next suit - COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #106

You DO REALIZE you have no idea what you are talking about.. RIGHT? DCBob Apr 2016 #6

Where did you get your law degree, Bob? Fawke Em Apr 2016 #73

The School of Common Sense. DCBob Apr 2016 #75

You can read the court order yourself. That's why I linked it. So - technically - it is the judges Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #78

My comment was referring to your "interpretation" of the court order. DCBob Apr 2016 #86

Did you have a different interpretation of "wrong-doing and bad faith" or "constantly shifting Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #92

Yes, this is a non-story fake scandal. DCBob Apr 2016 #93

Tell yourself that a federal judge finding "wrong-doing and bad faith" is a non-story fake scandal Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #95

Lets revisit once the report comes out... I am sure that wont be too long. DCBob Apr 2016 #98

Is the difference between the civil cases and the criminal investigation beyond your grasp? There is Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #105

Huh?? Civil cases?? That's ridiculous if the FBI clears her. DCBob Apr 2016 #113

In all likelyhood the FBI report WILL NOT clear her Bob41213 Apr 2016 #116

It will. DCBob Apr 2016 #118

Oh good, I'm glad you spoke to Comey Bob41213 Apr 2016 #119

You "suppose it could happen"? You know that there are already more than 3 dozen cases pending? Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #132

Given your track record on your previous predictions and claims.. DCBob Apr 2016 #133

You understand that over 3 dozen cases CURRENTLY pending is not a "prediction," right? Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #136

Are any of those "pending" cases yours? DCBob Apr 2016 #137

No, but I certainly support the Associated Press's right to enforce the FOIA. Don't you? Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #139

Glad to hear that. Keep up the good work posting all this crap. DCBob Apr 2016 #140

Right wing websites like The Guardian, Huffington Post, WikiPedia, NPR, etc.? Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #141

Keep plugging away.. maybe one day you will actually be right about something. DCBob Apr 2016 #142

I'm not listening!!!! Else You Are Mad Apr 2016 #7

Why is it that the questionable situations are now brought to light so late in the game? Paper Roses Apr 2016 #9

The DoJ is waiting on the FBI. The FBI is reportedly just months from making a recommendation. Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #22

Don't lose mad...just lose. nt LexVegas Apr 2016 #11

I can't see how Sidney Blumenthal will NOT be indicted Dems to Win Apr 2016 #13

I agree. Hillary RECEIVED emails that show a criminal violation of the law. I haven't seen where she Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #19

or Sid had an as yet unknown source in GOV One_Life_To_Give Apr 2016 #34

He almost certainly did, but that source wasn't Hillary because Sid was leaking information TO her Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #47

one source that Sid was using was former CIA who also was ginnng up .. grasswire Apr 2016 #57

The late Tyler Drumheller, former head of the CIA's European Division who exposed "Curveball". leveymg Apr 2016 #91

Ayup. AzDar Apr 2016 #15

You're losing you're losing you're losing you're losing alcibiades_mystery Apr 2016 #20

Campaign-wise, it almost doesn't matter if she's indicted or not. Vinca Apr 2016 #21

Yes! n/t Paper Roses Apr 2016 #55

Random Internet chatter says something. nt onehandle Apr 2016 #25

These are court orders and court transcripts. That's not "random internet chatter" Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #26

Cool story, bro. onehandle Apr 2016 #27

Don't feed them. Put them on ignore if you cant ignore them. They are in their glory rhett o rick Apr 2016 #129

Lawrence O'Donnell: "They’re using the Bush standard as the defense of Hillary. " think Apr 2016 #28

surprised to hear Laurence said that out loud, did he say that on MSNBC? 2banon Apr 2016 #68

Yes. think Apr 2016 #71

Well, I think he's right about that.. 2banon Apr 2016 #89

So, you're a psychic? That must be neat to foretell the future! nt BreakfastClub Apr 2016 #29

I'm not a psychic - I'm literate. I linked the court order. You can read it yourself. Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #41

drip, drip, drip saidsimplesimon Apr 2016 #30

Please unmute your voice and feel free to speak to the issues that inspire you. JimDandy Apr 2016 #107

I really feel that the story about the private email server Turn CO Blue Apr 2016 #31

bingo AgerolanAmerican Apr 2016 #39

exactly! n/t zazen Apr 2016 #43

Excellent. grasswire Apr 2016 #59

^== This. nt IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #60

Wow. nt vintx Apr 2016 #82

Both issues (classified material and pay-to-play) are serious problems, winter is coming Apr 2016 #103

Im more concerned about her taking bribes from WDIM Apr 2016 #33

If you can predict the future workinclasszero Apr 2016 #36

Thank you. 7wo7rees Apr 2016 #37

Thanks. I had to reschedule some things set up in downtown Houston this week, but otherwise, all is Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #49

As far as I understand it these are civil sadoldgirl Apr 2016 #40

Fines, legal fees, and penalties will likely be assessed against the State Department, not Hillary. Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #45

And the upshot wil be the electorate reads that and COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #108

Feds flag Bernie Sanders campaign contributions workinclasszero Apr 2016 #42

More likely that Sanders to be found to be "full of shit" by most of the dem electorate no? uponit7771 Apr 2016 #44

This has nothing to do with Sanders. The Democratic electorate loves Sanders: Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #48

You're right, we love his full of shitness and don't take it seriously and that's why he's losing by uponit7771 Apr 2016 #50

You know the "Hillary's winning by millions of votes" meme totally ignores a bunch of caucus states, Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #51

OK, instead of 2.4 million we'll make it 2.15 million... better?!? tia uponit7771 Apr 2016 #54

Hillary should not be holding any more public offices. ViseGrip Apr 2016 #52

I'm not saying she's unfit for office. I'm just saying she's not the basket to put all our eggs in. Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #53

but how could she possibly hold a security clearance now? grasswire Apr 2016 #64

Violating FIOA is about HIDING documents from American citizens, not LEAKING documents to foreign Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #67

From what I understand, that "hiding" documents from the government is a crime pdsimdars Apr 2016 #81

It doesn't matter if the AG actually indicts. The FBI report will sink her candidacy. leveymg Apr 2016 #111

Unfortunately, neither is Bernie. COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #109

It is obvious she was trying to skirt foia laws. Bread and Circus Apr 2016 #74

Skirt? That's a sexist bash! Bob41213 Apr 2016 #97

I wondered why you of all people think she didn't violate any laws. pdsimdars Apr 2016 #79

I have not heard evidence of criminal conduct. I have heard the FBI plans to recommend indictment Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #94

Here is Hillary's Security Oath and the statute it references, 18 USC Sec. 793. Go ahead and read leveymg Apr 2016 #117

If Obama threatened to veto releasing the "28 pages", there's no chance in hell floriduck Apr 2016 #80

I honestly don't know where you are all getting your information. pdsimdars Apr 2016 #84

That's part of the distinction between civil law and criminal law. Civil law, you just need to show Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #100

Are you saying you havea reasonable doubt that Hillary traded classified docs over a private server? leveymg Apr 2016 #112

In that youtube link I provided they said she exchanged classified email which she had pdsimdars Apr 2016 #121

This article has some interesting comments from security experts 2cannan Apr 2016 #110

Great article and as I said, intelligence officials take it very seriously pdsimdars Apr 2016 #115

Nope.... LenaBaby61 Apr 2016 #87

Are you really a lawyer? Where did you get you JD? CajunBlazer Apr 2016 #96

nope.... eom artyteacher Apr 2016 #102

Is that like foie gras??? Gomez163 Apr 2016 #104

What FOIA rule or law was broken? Do you even know what info FOIA applies to? Jitter65 Apr 2016 #114

Thoughtful, well-written OP, Attorney in Texas. S/B morally persuasive to genuine liberals. senz Apr 2016 #120

this ^ Vote2016 Apr 2016 #125

Apparently FOIA is just another liberal value to do away with. Waiting For Everyman Apr 2016 #122

Bias confirmation. Eko Apr 2016 #123

Wow - what a jerky post. Worry about your own guy...geez Laura PourMeADrink Apr 2016 #126

I love that my indictment fairy creation is now the #3 google image search for the term Tarc Apr 2016 #127

since you're psychic can I have tomorrow's lotto numbers dlwickham Apr 2016 #128

I wonder if moveon.org will come to Hillary's aid when she is indicted. They formed as a group rhett o rick Apr 2016 #130

Hillary is radioactive. Admiral Loinpresser Apr 2016 #135

Judicial Watch? They've been going after the Clintons since the 90s....nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #134

Judicial Watch's case is not the only one. There are 38 (or more). Is the Associated Press part of Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #138