Legal group poised to quiz Clinton aides about email server

[tomm2thumbs]

Source: AP Yahoo

The State Department has agreed to a conservative legal group's request to question several current and former government officials about the creation of Hillary Clinton's private email system. The agreement filed late Friday with the U.S. District Court in Washington comes after a judge consented to allow the group Judicial Watch "limited discovery" to probe why Clinton relied on an email server in her New York home during her tenure as secretary of state. <snip>

If Judge Emmet G. Sullivan approves of Friday's agreement, lawyers from Judicial Watch will be allowed to depose Clinton's top aides, including former chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills, deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin and undersecretary Patrick F. Kennedy. Also on the list to be questioned is Bryan Pagliano, the department employee who set up and maintained Clinton's home brew email system. Pagliano previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right in declining to answer questions from a congressional committee.

The FBI is investigating whether sensitive information that flowed through Clinton's email server was mishandled. The inspectors general at the State Department and U.S. intelligence agencies are separately investigating whether rules or laws were broken. There are also at least 38 civil lawsuits, including one filed by The Associated Press, seeking copies of government records related to Clinton's time as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/legal-group-poised-quiz-clinton-aides-email-server-042451102--politics.html

---

(The agreement filed late Friday with the U.S. District Court in Washington)

[tomm2thumbs]

1. apparently happened late Friday

I don't know if they work weekends

[FreakinDJ]

17. So this is why Hillary Lawyered Up already

[IdaBriggs]

25. No, this is one of the 38 (or 39?) *CIVIL* lawsuits.

She criminal lawyered up over the FBI interview. That is the one where she faces all kinds of criminal charges -- but don't worry, because her supporters assure us that the FBI isn't doing a CRIMINAL investigation.

I am not sure what people think FBI agents do for a living, but apparently these people think they like to waste their time investigating "things that aren't crimes".

[CoffeeCat]

55. It is most likely that the FBI has begun the process

of interviewing Clinton's aids.

This is a milestone moment. The tone, tenor and direction of these interviews will clearly give Clinton and her legal team, insight into the case against her.

She's been acting as if this isn't a big deal and she's said, "That's not going to happen" when asked about the possibility of her being indicted. She's also excused away her actions, by trying to equate her email server with a few personal emails that Powell and Rice sent. All of that is hogwash. It's possible that she's been in denial, and if the FBI case against her is serious and strong (as it appears to be), those interviews with her aids will leave no doubt that this is a very serious situation.

That's why I think she lawyered up. The FBI has also signaled that after they interview Clinton's aids, she will be interviewed next.

Obama's remarks on Fox seemed to indicate that there is a lot going on behind the scenes. Obama making public statements, in favor of Clinton--within an ongoing FBI investigation--were bizarre.

[IdaBriggs]

60. I think you are right, with one additional "denial isn't just a river" point

to add into it --

Remember how LONG the "my husband would never screw around" denial lasted? They went on national television MULTIPLE times and flat out lied, including smearing the character of the women who claimed to either be consensual and non-consensual sex partners, to the point where a voice recording of a conversation ended up with a "how can she have faked that" technical discussion that lasted FOREVER.

I am not sure if it self deception or mental illness - it doesn't seem normal to be that much of a liar to me.

[Samantha]

70. I have been thinking about that and not too longer afterwards Biden came out and made a statement

I think it is possible she quietly solicited the verbal statements from both Obama and Biden. She probably said her numbers in the election were dropping, and she could use their help. Neither, I do not believe, would have out and out refused such a request. When Biden came out, he said words to the effect it was time for a woman to be President or I would love to see a woman become President (too tired to look it up but that was the essence).

This could also explain Obama's qualifier to his own words pertaining to any breach of national security. She did not do anything that resulted in a breach of national security ... "as far as I know." Again, just the essence, not a literal quote.

Sam

[Major Hogwash]

75. Obama's comments on Fox last week were inappropriate.

They weren't just bizzare, they were totally against his promise to remain neutral on this investigation.

Why am I not surprised he didn't keep that promise either??

[Aldo Leopold]

2. I wonder who'll be next.

This should be interesting.

[tomm2thumbs]

3. "Longtime Clinton Attorney Now Representing Hillary in FBI’s Criminal Probe"

LawNewz.com has learned that the longtime Clinton attorney (David Kendall) is also representing Hillary Clinton in the FBI’s probe into her private email server. He will likely not be far when she is interviewed by the FBI, which reports indicate is expected to happen soon. Kendall knows a thing or two about classified information: He helped former CIA director David Petraeus avoid felony charges when Petraeus allegedly gave “black books” to a mistress who was writing his book.

http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/the-longtime-clinton-attorney-now-representing-hillary-in-fbis-criminal-probe/

[CoffeeCat]

63. Interesting also, is that James Comey

was a deputy special council to the Senate Whitewater committee.

"In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement. Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”"

http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/

[Archae]

4. "Judicial Watch" is a joke.

They aren't a "conservative legal group."

They are far-right nutcases.

Last time they were in the news was when they found "ISIS training camps" in Texas and Mexico that no one else could see.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/isismexico.asp

[tomm2thumbs]

6. great news

Then the State Department's agreement to their request to question several current and former government officials about the creation of Hillary Clinton's private email system is surprising.

[grasswire]

34. and two federal judges are in on it,too. nt

[COLGATE4]

46. There are RW Federal judges too (in rather large numbers,

thanks to GW Bush). Look at what is probably going to kill Obama's initiative to ease the plight of some undocumented immigrants (and particularly Dreamers) - a very RW Federal Judge in Texas who blocked the whole initiative. It's before the Supreme Court right now and, if it goes as expected, will result in a 4-4 tie. Which means that the nutcase Texas judge's ruling stands and there's nothing for all those people. Don't kid yourself about Federal judges being impartial.

[Yo_Mama]

51. Sullivan was appointed by Clinton to the US District Court

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sullivan

I wouldn't assume he is a right-winger, given his background.

[COLGATE4]

53. Hard to fathom how we let Klayman's group of

crazies intervene here, even if to a very limited degree.

[Yo_Mama]

56. It's not just them - AP News was trying to get info from 2010 on.

AP News also is suing.

In particular, AP News wanted to know about the financial arrangements with Huma Abedin. This turns out to be a real issue; see this WaPo article:
https://cryptome.org/2015/03/ap-001.pdf

It is not at all that these groups intervened. They started it, by filing lawsuits because of State's failure to respond to FOIA.

The FBI came in at the end only.

The hacker Guccifer was the individual who revealed to the public that Hillary Clinton had a private (non-gov) email address. After that all the groups that had FOIA requests pending asked for those records also.

Here is the AP News lawsuit, filed last year:
https://cryptome.org/2015/03/ap-001.pdf

The judges involved are ruling this way because the law is the law, not from partisan reasons.

[COLGATE4]

72. AP has a much greater role in this than Klayman's group

of crazies. Anyone who pays attention to them also believes that the moon is populated by reptilian hordes.

[karynnj]

10. Who they are adds insult to injury, but unfortunately it is Clinton's actions that put them in

a position to actually depose high level State Department officials. This specifically will not deal with issues like were emails classified or should Blumenthal have had access to them. They have a NARROW area they are allowed to ask questions on -- but one that could be very troublesome.

Because they had many FOIA requests that could not be correctly complied with when Clinton was SoS or for at least the first 2 years Kerry was because Clinton did not archive the State Department emails - either on a real time basis or en mass when she left. She did so ONLY when the SD, at the highest level, demanded she do so in 2014 -- and they took over 6 months to actually get the emails - on paper - to the State Department. (HRC is being disingenuous when she claims that it was her choice to make all of these emails public. Note that she did NOT do so until the emails that her team sorted were with the SD and stories emerged of what the problem had been in the SD seeming inability to get her emails out under various legal requests. That "make them public, put them online" was to distract from having hid them for as much as 6 years. )

Note that the allowed questioning goes to the motivation of why Clinton set up this unique private server. (To me, where they are going is obvious - the intent was to stonewall legitimate transparency requests - and that does not seem a far reach to me.) The questions then will be whether cover up was illegal.

It is galling that this RW attack website actually does have standing to question the list of people agreed to -- and depending on what they get, they will seek to go higher any way they can justify. You can attack the judge who allowed this, but obviously the State Department lawyers were able to limit, but not end this -- and I assume that they have very good lawyers for such things.

For me, while I have no desire for Clinton to be embarrassed, I am far more concerned that this entire mess -- totally stemming from Clinton having no concern for rules and policy -- may end up reflecting on Obama or causing him and Secretary Kerry to waste time on this rather than dealing with real world problems.

[COLGATE4]

12. I can't believe any sane Judge would let them

intervene, much less depose. Wait for the next WND article based on their dep: "Hillary is actually a Reptilian from Planet Xenu".

[IdaBriggs]

26. They were the first of the 38 or 39 civil lawsuits to advance this far.

Another judge has already made the same agreement in one of the other suits. These people will be in court for a very long time, and of course Hillary will also be under oath during this process as well.

Then the CRIMINAL stuff is its own separate FBI investigation...

Yes, more Clinton legal troubles - just what the country is looking for in a leader.

[COLGATE4]

40. Yep. I always rely on crazy Larry Klayman for sound legal

practice. And, I hate to disappoint you but their participation will be very limited. It's just more throw shit against the wall and pray that somehow some of it sticks. Repugs are masters of it but it's really disheartening that people who call themselves Democrats look to them for ideas as to how to diss Hillary.

[IdaBriggs]

41. Most Democrats have a respect for transparency in government

and the law. It's always sad when people on this board decide to put party over principles.

You may think avoiding compliance with the FOIA is no big deal, but fortunately there will be consequences for it. That isn't a right wing talking point - that is simply the right thing.

[COLGATE4]

45. Anything to do with Klayman and Judicial Watch has

absolutely zero to do with transparency or anything else. Klayman has dedicated the last 30 years of his life trying to vilify the Clintons and he's doing it again, here. I'm astounded that any court agreed to let them depose anybody. Must have been a RW judge.

[rockfordfile]

62. Judicial Watch are a group of un-American right wing nutjobs

They are way out there.

Stop making excuses for far right extremists. The AP is bent right wing and been for years now.

[IdaBriggs]

68. Say what you want; this time they are in the right.

The FOIA is a good law and violating it by keeping government records hidden in a private basement is an unacceptable precedent to allow.

[stopbush]

30. Yep. The leader said it was time for the Muslim to leave the WH.

Pathetic that supposed Ds cheer on a group like this.

[IdaBriggs]

42. 39 lawsuits and counting. The two party system worked as designed:

the folks on the other side caught the law being broken and now there are lawsuits.

These aren't nuisance lawsuits - the FOIA is not a joke and keeping government records off of government servers to avoid complying with it is unacceptable.

Don't carry water for an indefensible act - be better than that.

[stopbush]

50. How about you be better than supporting a candidate

who can't even provide a shred of detail for his own ridiculous policies?

Sanders is such an empty suit.

[IdaBriggs]

58. Sanders has nothing to do with Hillary's legal problems.

Sad that I have to specify which Clinton I was talking about when I mentioned "legal troubles".

I recommend you not confuse your ignorance of Sanders and his "too complicated for a good sound byte" policy wonk answers with the 39 civil suits and probable upcoming criminal charges.

[stopbush]

61. At present, Hillary has no legal problems.

until she has an actual problem, I'm not going to live the RW wet dream and pretend she has a legal problem.

[IdaBriggs]

66. 39 Civil Suits with her name on them --

And you don't think she has legal troubles?

[stopbush]

67. Those "suits" will go as far as have all the other suits.

Besides, Sanders supporters are going to have to come to grips with him losing the nomination long before any "suit" brought against Hillary will have its chance of being thrown out by the courts.

If I was you, I'd start preparing for something that is truly inevitable - ie: Sanders going bye-bye.

BTW: back at ya:

[IdaBriggs]

69. Again, this is not a Sanders problem.

Hillary created this mess on her own.

And two federal judges disagree with your "expert legal opinion".

At least we can both about it!

[Yo_Mama]

54. Yeah, well, AP News also sued because of no action on their FOIA requests

http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2015/AP-sues-State-Department-seeking-access-to-Clinton-records

The Associated Press filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the State Department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.

The legal action comes after repeated requests filed under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act have gone unfulfilled. They include one request AP made five years ago and others pending since the summer of 2013.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, comes a day after Clinton broke her silence about her use of a private email account while secretary of state. The FOIA requests and lawsuit seek materials related to her public and private calendars, correspondence involving longtime aides likely to play key roles in her expected campaign for president, and Clinton-related emails about the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices.

"After careful deliberation and exhausting our other options, The Associated Press is taking the necessary legal steps to gain access to these important documents, which will shed light on actions by the State Department and former Secretary Clinton, a presumptive 2016 presidential candidate, during some of the most significant issues of our time," said Karen Kaiser, AP's general counsel.
...
The AP had sought Clinton-related correspondence before her use of a personal email account was publicly known, although Wednesday's court filing alleges that the State Department is responsible for including emails from that account in any public records request.

"State's failure to ensure that Secretary Clinton's governmental emails were retained and preserved by the agency, and its failure timely to seek out and search those emails in response to AP's requests, indicate at the very least that State has not engaged in the diligent, good-faith search that FOIA requires," says AP's legal filing.

Specifically, AP is seeking copies of Clinton's full schedules and calendars from her four years as secretary of state; documents related to her department's decision to grant a special position to longtime aide Huma Abedin; related correspondence from longtime advisers Philippe Reines and Cheryl Mills, who, like Abedin, are likely to play central roles in a Clinton presidential campaign; documents related to Clinton's and the agency's roles in the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices; and documents related to her role overseeing a major Defense Department contractor.

The AP made most of its requests in the summer of 2013, although one was filed in March 2010. AP is also seeking attorney's fees related to the lawsuit.

Other organizations have also sued the State Department recently after lengthy delays responding to public record requests.

In 2010, AP News was trying to get information about Abedin's pay arrangements (she was getting paid from a bunch of different sources).

Anyway, here is their suit:
https://cryptome.org/2015/03/ap-001.pdf

[Blue_Tires]

85. +1

I'm surprised the State Dept. agreed to this...

[BigBearJohn]

5. drip, drip, drip

[rbrnmw]

83. ....

[pdsimdars]

7. The OBVIOUS question is why are they having some outside group do it instead of the government?

There are apparently a couple of different government agencies investigating this, why aren't THEY doing the questioning? Why are the "outsourcing?"

I know if you are questioned by the FBI, you don't want to go near anything that looks like a lie, but what about Judicial Watch? Can they spin or twist the truth to them? Would it be just as bad as if they lied to the FBI? Is it legally binding?

And if it is not as bad as telling a lie to the FBI, then why on earth would you want them to do it? Why not just have the feds do it?

[karynnj]

11. Judicial Watch filed many FOIA requests that they now claim were not responded to in a timely

appropriate manner because the emails of HRC were exclusively sent from her server and some emails of her top aides were as well.

FOIA is law, but as many articles point out it is extremely rare that discovery is allowed on a FOIA request. Here, it seems to have been because the problem was the server and the allowed area of questions is on how and why that system was set up as it was.

The FBI is investigating and that is more serious as it can investigate anything it deems to have been illegal. Reports indicate that some HRC aides will be questioned soon. We know that Congressional hearings have covered this, but, I suspect in their grandstanding, they failed to do much of anything.

The weakness of JW claim of coverup ... is that nothing was covered up. However, it will stir the dirt and there will be a dust storm that completely destroys any words HRC might say about "transparency" -- unfortunately, it might tarnish the reputation of the Obama administration.

[Akicita]

18. Nothing was covered up? All of Hilliary's emails were kept hidden from FOIA discovery

for six years(the oldest) until she was forced to return them. If she hadn't been forced, it is most likely the emails would never have been made available for FOIA discovery. Either we should have transparency in our government or not. Making FOIA toothless by allowing fed employees to hide documents in their homes to avoid FOIA requests is not in our best interest. If that is what may have happened in this case your damn right the denied FOIA requester should be able to get to the bottom of it and make sure it doesn't happen again. Right wing/left wing FOIA requesters doesn't matter. Honest and transparent government does. And FOIA is key.

[karynnj]

19. Agree completely I had meant that there was no crime that was covered up

This was ALL cover up -- and the biggest problem for me, is that she put the administration, especially the President and Kerry, as her successor in the position that they either had to continue her cover up or demand the email back, which they privately did. My concern is that they may be faulted for not making the demand publicly when they discovered that the emails were NOT in the SD.

[Akicita]

20. The well informed know that the SD demanded the emails back. Shame on the news media for allowing

Hillary to get away with her assertions that she volunteered to return her emails and make them public. The facts are that the SD demanded them back and the federal court ordered they be made public. Most of the public probably believes Hillary's assertions because the media watchdogs refuse to challenge her.

[Yo_Mama]

59. They did not make the demand until forced to by the courts.

It appears that State was a partner to all this.

I suspect that the ethical problems with so many State Department employees also being on board at the Clinton Foundation and other Clintonish ops may have something to do with this.

State did not ask for the emails until 2014. This NPR article explains the background on that - as long as they didn't have the records, court precedent said they didn't have to go looking for them:
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

After the Records Act was changed in 2014, State asked for the emails. They then began to release them, but classified information was quickly discovered, which then generated the whole review/release supervised by the courts, so here we now are.

Huma Abedin was getting paid at one time by the State Department, Teneo, the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary Clinton. Read this WaPo article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-huma-abedin-operated-at-the-center-of-the-clinton-universe/2015/08/27/cd099eee-4b32-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html

[karynnj]

65. Not completely true

In many back story accounts, State had to "negotiate" with Clinton to get the emails they got back returned. Supposedly, this happened in March 2014. That was BEFORE any outside court asked anything. The NPR story backs this up - and the original NYT article that disclosed she had a server included many comments from people then at the State Department, including David Wade.

The NPR article - and you, suggest that the change in the law in 2014 led to the request for the email. The NYT article implied it was the need to comply with FOIA requests already made. What seems likely from the NYT article is that over 2013 is that it became clear to new people heading the State Department that the people working to satisfy the requests were missing relevant emails. Note that they had some Clinton email because they had it from the recipient - so even when HRC was in office, there were HRC emails in the news. Note also that in her initial comments, HRC claimed the SD had her email because it was sent to SD people. Consider, that had she used her State.gov account they COULD have had all her outgoing email if she always blind copied that account. She didn't.

All the people on board with the Clinton Foundation, left with Clinton. In fact, There are numerous articles that complained that many positions were not filled in the early months in 2013.

[Yo_Mama]

71. Well, I don't know what is completely true. I am trying to post the

most objective stuff I can.

According to Hillary Clinton.com, State "formally" asked for her emails in October 2014:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

But there's way more to this. First, as the link above comments, State DID have emails from Hillary Clinton - they apparently just pretended that they didn't know about them or perhaps never looked for them.

Second, there have been numerous news and other organization FOIA requests, all of them produced results uncompliant with the law:
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-private-email-server-412839

In 2012, the State Department told Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonpartisan government watchdog organization, that it had no records in response to a FOIA request “sufficient to show the number of email accounts of, or associated with, Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the extent to which those email accounts are identifiable as those of or associated with Secretary Clinton."

At the time of the request, however, investigators found that "dozens of senior officials throughout the Department, including members of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff, exchanged emails with the secretary using the personal accounts she used to conduct official business."

Investigators found, Clinton's then-chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, was made aware of CREW's request, and even assigned an aide to follow up, but did not tell investigators about Clinton's unofficial email address.

Second, there was at least one FOIA lawsuit filed at the beginning of 2013:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/128442535/State-Complaint-1-Filed

I'm sure there were more. People had to know these records existed.

The Federal Records Act wasn't amended until November 26th, 2014 (date of signing)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_and_Federal_Records_Act_Amendments_of_2014

WSJ explaining it in non-legalese:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-personal-email-use-came-before-recent-rule-changes-1425415233

Here's the text of the Act:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1233/text

For more information, the State's Inspector General's report:
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-01.pdf

[karynnj]

73. Your links are good

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly said she was asked in Oct 2014, but the State Department spokesperson in State briefings has repeatedly said they tried to get them earlier. (This was an instance where the SD has NOT been willing to stand behind HRC's story.) I believe the SD department and the quotes in the NYT from David Wade, rather than HRC, who often does not tell the whole truth.

In addition, the IG position, not filled for HRC's whole term, was filled in September 2013, after being nominated in July - as early as April, Kerry had said he had suggested someone who the WH was vetting. ( http://www.pogo.org/blog/2013/07/obama-makes-second-ig-nomination-in-two-weeks.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/ ) It seems that the IG has taken the lead in investigating what happened for the State Department, which limited its recent role to getting the Clinton emails out.

I think that the top management of the State Department under Clinton completely blew off accountability - not just on email - but not appointing an IG the entire time. I can believe that between the huge job of staffing to backfill the many people who left with Clinton --- who had near free reign to pick her team and the on going work of the State Department, it took time before anyone at a level to do anything got the complete picture of what HRC had done in not insuring that State had the emails they should of had.

Where they might be faulted is that they did not go public when they found the problem, but tried to fix the problem.

[Yo_Mama]

79. Very plausible, thanks very much.

To me this is all just bewilderment and misery, but I do know it's not going to go away.

I just hope it's not a few basically innocent underlings who wind up taking the hit. That would not be right at all.

[BeanMusical]

8. Kick and R

[Babel_17]

9. Sad that other groups didn't rise to the task of supporting the FOIA

Anyway, going by what the judge has projected so far, it's likely he'll approve this?

[IdaBriggs]

27. There are 38 other lawsuits going on and one has already progressed

to the point where the judge has also ordered discovery. The AP is one of the cases. These civil suits will eventually require Hillary to testify under oath.

The pending criminal stuff with the FBI investigation is a totally separate issue.

[Babel_17]

35. Thank you for that information, it's much appreciated

I try to get up to date on things but it's a lot to keep straight, and even just be aware of.

[beastie boy]

13. Beating a dead horse again...

This whole server crap looks more and more like the never-ending "repeal and replace" soap opera.

It will go on for as long as the right wingers can feed their minions with the spectacle.

[Akicita]

21. That's the Clinton playbook alright. Drag it out, drag it out, then say it is old news.

[beastie boy]

22. Oh damn, another loony conspiracy...

Hillary is plotting with the Benghazi Congressional Committee, the FBI and the right wingers to drag it out...

[BillZBubb]

28. You know your post makes NO SENSE, don't you?

Every party in this has their own agenda. Hillary's is obviously to hide embarrassing or potentially illegal information. The Benghazi committee is just looking for anything to embarrass Hillary. The FBI has a legal responsibility to look at what could be illegal activity.

Hillary is the one who has dragged it out. She could have immediately disclosed the information in the FOIA request. Instead, she stonewalled. That appears to be the Clinton way of doing things.

[beastie boy]

38. It was intentional. How can a response to a nonsensical post possibly make sense?

Two years of the Benghazi committee. Months of FBI investigations. And now a new inquiry by a right wing group. If Hillary is the one dragging it out, the inescapable conclusion is that she is in cahootz with all of them. Or, more likely, she is pulling the strings. Otherwise, all those investigations would have ended a long time ago. After all, it's only in Hillary's interest to drag it out...

To someone who insist it's in Hillary's interest to delay, this ought to make perfect sense!

[FreakinDJ]

14. Hillary has "Lawyered Up"

now what does that tell you

[BillZBubb]

29. It usually means the FBI probe is looking serious.

[FreakinDJ]

32. Criminal Attorney too

[Kingofalldems]

36. She can and should have a lawyer.

[FreakinDJ]

37. She didn't Lawyer up for the Benghazi hearings - why now

What is different now

[Kingofalldems]

39. Keep dreaming.

[tammywammy]

64. David Kendall was there during the 11 hour Benghazi hearing.

[antigop]

15. oops.. sorry, I didn't see your post. Will delete mine. nt

[Ferd Berfel]

16. It's good they seem to be trying to get to the bottom of this

but personally I'm more interested in the content of her speeches to the corporate elite.

The former would end in showing the lack of judgement the latter could show an incredible level of lying evil

[karynnj]

23. I disagree

The former shows a plan to thwart legitimate oversight of her State Department. It also echoes her almost certainly hiding the Rose Law Firm records, that showed up in the Clinton part of the White House two years after they were subpoenaed. It was not just lack of judgement -- not realizing that it made the email vulnerable -- it was a plan to enable her to hide anything that could have embarrassed her. (It backfired royally when it became public and we ended up with all her SD email (that her team sorted) online.) This was not by mistake -- it was very likely the intention.

That unfortunately is what this suit is allowed to pursue - Why did she opt to set up a server in her basement to use for State Department email for herself and also for some of her closest aides. She has tried to dismiss this as a "mistake" and also "something everyone did" -- in fact, it was not an accident, it took a fair amount of effort to do and it is likely that many career SD people in charge of IT etc -- who indirectly reported to her -- were told not to do some things that likely were routine -- just as assigning her her government email account and working to archive it. The question I have is whether they questioned this with their boss (likely Cheryl Mills or someone reporting to Cheryl Mills).

There is a HUGE difference between not even having a SD email and some, like Powell, who occasionally used their personal email.

[Ferd Berfel]

48. plan to thwart legitimate oversight of her State Department

I agree that there is a difference and it's important but, since you will be told that most previous SoS and even presidents have done the same thing that point will become moot and lost. I would prefer that it did not and they all were prosecuted for it, but....

[antigop]

24. Politico says Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, and Bryan Pagliano

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/04/feds-judicial-watch-strike-deal-on-clinton-email-depositions-222046

The joint proposal detailed in a Friday night court filing calls for the depositions of former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin and information technology specialist Bryan Pagliano during a two-month discovery period that would follow approval of the agreement by a federal judge. The deal suggests the politically sensitive interviews could be videotaped.
...
In addition to the three ex-Clinton aides Judicial Watch had sought to interview four current State Department officials, Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, former Executive Secretary Stephen Mull, former Executive Secretariat Executive Director Lewis Lukens, and Diplomatic Security official Donald Reid. In the deal filed Friday, Judicial Watch agreed to withdraw the request for Reid's testimony, at least for now.

[Major Hogwash]

76. This seems to me to be thorough enough.

But, why would they want to interview current State Department officials?

Unless . . . they think they knew about it back then, and are covering up for it now.

[Kalidurga]

31. This is disgusting we should be holding our own accountable.

To have RWers going through our mess is just freaking unacceptable to me.

[MFM008]

33. because they want to DRAG this out

when there is no there there.
We ALL know she wont be indicted.
She wasn't with whitewater
or anything else.
This is driven by republicans.
We lose sight of that.

[branford]

43. This is driven by the lack of transparency in the State Department.

It's unfortunate that conservative groups are forcing what we should have expected and demanded long ago. Nevertheless, my desire for open and honest government significantly exceeds any partisan protectiveness of either Clinton or the State Department.

The thirty-five+ civil lawsuits are also unrelated to the FBI's criminal investigation, and concern the delayed and incomplete FOIA responses. The fact that courts are taking the unusual tact of ordering discovery is a testament to the foolishness and deceptiveness of the bathroom server and related transparency avoidance. There's simply no excusable reason for any of this to have happened.

Will Clinton be indicted? I have no idea. Will the FBI be paying close attention to the civil depositions and related proceedings and could they make an indictment far more likely? Certainly. If Clinton or any top aids are indicted or their behavior costs Clinton political support, will the only person deserving blame be Clinton herself? Absolutely.

[Beaverhausen]

44. Nice to see Larry Klayman getting respect

By so-called democrats.

[karynnj]

49. He isn't .... the issues are FOIA, transparency and open government

All things that are and were advocated by many Democrats, including powerful people in office and people on message boards.

Not all the 38 suits were filed by Klayman. From what we already know, no FOIA request that SHOULD HAVE RESULTED with Clinton email can be assumed to have been done correctly and there is real reason to question them. This means that for 6 years - 2009 - 2014 - we know that the SD did not even have 100% of her email. We know that for much of 2014, the State Department - at the highest levels - was negotiating with Clinton to get them back.

This is a mess of Clintons making. She knew the following when she left without leaving the messages:

1) There were already dozens of FOIA requests that should have those emails
2) She knew that, given that she intended to run for President, that there would be an intense effort to get the emails.


What she gambled on was:
1) Any emails she wrote would have the email address redacted other than that it was not a government id. This would not necessarily raise red flags as THAT is equivalent to what could happen even when officials normally use their state.gov account.
2) The State Department would cover for her for 4 years rather than risk being blamed with hurting the current Democratic administration and the leading Presidential nominee. They didn't once it became clear that she had not archived her email.

What is clear is how badly Clinton's lack of judgment hurt her. In 2013, it was very clear in all SD answers to Congress on the Clinton stuff, that they wanted that issue finished so they could deal with real SD concerns. If everything had been there - especially if everything was archived in real time - the SD could have done the FOIAs and Congressional inquiries and it would have been over years ago. (Note - it was learning that she had a private server that led to ALL the emails having to go thru the FOIA process (to redact anything that should be) to be put on line. It also meant that it was nearly 10 months between when State first asked Clinton for the email and they received them ... on paper.

In retrospect, consider the chutzpah that HRC after deciding to use her own server - with NONE OF THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE SD ONE - did not have separate accounts for personal and private email. (As she was not on the State Department system, this could have been done with one blackberry.) Failing to do that, she could have separated them into two "folders". Next issue, why did she not have a real time (or monthly or even yearly) process to identify SD emails and send them to the SD archives. Failing that, why did she not split the emails after she left office in case they were needed.

At the point when the SD demanded the emails, it would have been in her interest to IMMEDIATELY have given an electronic version of everything on that server to the SD so they could quickly respond to all these requests. FOIA requests are for SPECIFIC things - and frankly no one making them was looking to know more about Chelsea's wedding. AFTER giving them to State, she could have had an aide work with the SD cull out the private messages.

Had she done this, the State Department could have handled the FOIA and Congressional inquiries starting in spring 2013, not mid 2014 ... and it might never have come out that she had a server at her home.

While I hate JW, I thing Hillary Clinton is 100% responsible for the place she is in now. Not to mention, if there were no JW suit - we would likely be hearing of one of the others -- from very legitimate media sources.

[riderinthestorm]

47. I am disgusted that we're back to having to defend a Clinton again, parsing words and legalities

I'm thoroughly sick of it and can't believe anyone is voluntarily signing back up for this shit by supporting her.

[DebbieCDC]

74. ^THIS^

[Else You Are Mad]

77. Bingo.

Even if they don't outright commit crimes and behave less than ethically, they come so close so often that it is very concerning. If she is president, expect 4 years of utter obstructionism and frequent impeachment proceedings. I doubt she will have a 2ND term.

[Gothmog]

52. Larry Klayman is barely an attorney and is a joke

[winstars]

57. Yes, thank God its Larry Klayman and JW and not some far right nut jobs!!! HAHAHA

To read some of the posts above, one would think that there is no such thing as Google and that some have a sort of memory loss on fucking Judicial Watch...

Waiting for the JW defenders now...

[IdaBriggs]

78. There are 38 or 39 separate lawsuits because FOIA matters.

JW is in the right this time. Hiding government records in a private basement in order to not comply with FOIA is NOT an acceptable precedent.

[winstars]

82. Thanks for that information...

[tabasco]

80. Glaring bad judgment by H. Clinton to have handled govt. communications this way

If not for her marriage to W.J. Clinton, we never would have heard of her. She would be an unknown attorney working for Walmart.

[FastLearner]

81. Clinton Counting on Wins in New York

[Calista241]

84. I'd be very surprised if they said anything

They're almost guaranteed to take the Fifth. This will be a legal deposition with the specter of an FBI Investigation hanging over them. Their statements will be subject to discovery by the FBI.