Prophecy Fulfilled

[angrychair]

As I stated here that the issues against HRC are not being fueled by bat shit crazy teapublicans with an ax to grind.
These issues are real and it does matter.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSMTZSAPEC2N0MQ10D

If you really care about keeping a Democrat in the WH than you should care who our candidate in the GE is going to be.
Clinton is damaged and will lead directly to a president tRump.

Bernie Sanders gives us opportunity. The very real opportunity for a better future for everyone.

[Lucinda]

1. LOL ~ And who does it say filed the lawsuit?

Judicial Watch!
Know much about them?

[morningfog]

3. Is the federal judge in on the vast right wing conspiracy?

[Lucinda]

9. Depends...who is the judge? n/t

[morningfog]

10. A Bill Clinton appointee. Lolollol.

[Lucinda]

13. So?

How long ago was that?
It has nothing to do with the judge or his views.

[morningfog]

15. Exactly. Is has nothing to do with the judge's views.

He is enforcing the law. It doesn't matter the motives of the party who bright the case.

[Fawke Em]

5. What difference does that make?

The order was from the judge. He's the one who said this:

Sullivan, a judge in federal court in Washington, D.C., said there was at least "a reasonable suspicion" that open records laws were undermined, the Washington Post reported.

You know who U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is?

Sullivan, who was appointed by Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, said he may order the department to subpoena Clinton to return all records connected to her private email server, the newspaper reported.

Yes, Judicial Watch is a party to the lawsuit, but the Clinton-appointment judge must have seen some merit in their request or he wouldn't have granted it.

[Lucinda]

11. Yes, I do...he's the judge who is accusing the Obama administration of hiding things

And I could care less about who appointed him.

[morningfog]

17. He hasn't accuse anyone of anything.

[Lucinda]

18. I researched him...Did you? n/t

[morningfog]

20. Obviously you have not.

[Lucinda]

25. The link is the Washington Times, but never the less:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/23/judge-threatens-subpoena-against-clinton-emails/

Judge suspects ‘bad faith’ from Obama administration on Hillary Clinton emails

"...A federal judge questioned the Obama administration’s “good faith” in helping keep former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails secret for six years and said he may end up issuing a subpoena to force her to turn over her entire account to the government.

For now, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said he will grant limited discovery to Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that has sued to get a look at Mrs. Clinton’s emails..."


Plenty more at the link above.

[morningfog]

26. He is applying and enforcing the law.

He is not making accusations, he is making rulings based on the facts and evidence before him. He is doing his job as a federal judge.

[Fawke Em]

42. The Washington Times?

[Lucinda]

43. That is precisely my point.

They are the ones not only pushing this on the web, but liberally quoting the judge speaking against the Obama admin, that everyone is soo happy is moving forward for Judicial Watch.

[angrychair]

48. You all make me laugh

First it's because it's related to Judicial Watch...except this is an order by a federal judge and about the possible attempt to subvert a legally filled FOIA request by Judicial Watch. They played no hand in the possible action of others.

Next, you attack the source of the information. Even if you don't like the Washington Post, my article is Reuters. Its also on The Hill. Lastly, it's not a damn opinion piece. It is reporting a series of events from a federal court and a federal judge. The Justice Department. The FBI. This is not about the reporting source but what is being reported.

[Lucinda]

50. It's being reported but it comes from shadyville.

And no matter how much you'd like it to be "something" it won't amount to anything but some noise.

[zeemike]

49. OMG...the horror...

A judge speaking against the Obama administration...how dare he. He is supposed to be a loyal subject to the executive branch of government right?

I hate it when the right wing who said that Obama was being worshiped as a holy savior figure get evidence that they are right.

[Lucinda]

51. There is a difference between wrong doing by an administration,

and the zillion right wing witch hunts that go on trying to find "something" even if they don't quite know what that "something" might be. The Reps have run a bunch of Benghazi hearings in much the same manner. There must be SOMETHING!!!!

[zeemike]

57. And if they did find something now

It don't count eh?
That is not how the law works and it is not how adults judge things. Everything is to be judged on it's own merits.

[krawhitham]

6. Case must have merit, the Judge was appointed by Bill Clinton

[morningfog]

29. State and Hilary's people have been thumbing their nose at

the judge for a long time. Judges stop putting up with that after a while.

[gyroscope]

46. Clintons think they are above the law

[angrychair]

16. What does it matter??

You do realize that this is not some partisan committee witch hunt by a bunch of batshit crazy assholes? Their will be no bullshit 11-hour questioning session.

This is a federal judge. A federal judge appointed by Bill Clinton. This is not some bullshit fishing expedition. The review states that there is a legitimate enough body of evidence to support the possibility that a legally filled FOIA request was willfully subverted.

The law is the law, weather you like the origin of this issue or not.

[virtualobserver]

53. That is why the Clinton's always get in trouble....it is their evasiveness

it is their Achilles heel.

[jillan]

21. It doesn't matter who filed it - they filed it! She is running for President while there is

a lawsuit against her.

Hello? How can you not see this as a problem?

[pkdu]

23. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

x100000000000000000000000

[iAZZZo]

40. puhlease............

[peacebird]

2. A Federal judge has ruled her senoir aides be compelled to testify. The FBI is also investigating.

Why exactly would we risk such a nomination? Especially considering the R's will come out in force to vote against her?

[litlbilly]

7. The R's will come out in force if it's Bernie, the difference is alot will vote for him just like

they do in Vermont

[jeff47]

27. And Republicans love Hillary Clinton?

[litlbilly]

38. oh yeah they love her:)

[fun n serious]

4. Oh Darn! I saw the topic and thought..

it was another Messiah praise.

[Todays_Illusion]

8. If you want a Democratic President vote for Bernie Sanders, the throw-away vote is the vote for

Hillary Clinton.

[workinclasszero]

12. Judicial Watch is an American conservative educational foundation

Founded by conservative attorney Larry Klayman.

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request with the United States Department of State for "any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or related to the talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack...

Judicial Watch is conservative and believes in limited government, individual liberty, the free market, traditional values, and a strong national defense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

Its a right wing smear/character assassination outfit...right wing as hell!

But you were well aware of that right?

[Lucinda]

14. And the judge in question has said the Obama administration has been hiding things

A match made in heaven.

[morningfog]

22. So it is a conspiracy! For fucks sake.

[Lucinda]

31. Nope. Didnt say that. Said they found a judge who is critical of the admin on the issue.

Should be interesting to see what happens next.

[morningfog]

32. The judge is not critical of the admin. The judge is applying the law.

And his comment is as a result of his case! It's not as if he was out there pissing on the admins for years and judicial watch forum shopped.

[Lucinda]

35. I don't know that he hasn't. I didn't bother to look that deep.

His comments are a pretty big red flag for me though. Your mileage may vary.

[JonLeibowitz]

55. The judge was appointed by POTUS Bill Clinton. I keep hearing about this guy,

not sure if he is a Democrat or not. Hard to tell sometimes. I see your point.

[angrychair]

19. At the end of the day, what does it matter?

You do realize that this is not some partisan committee witch hunt by a bunch of batshit crazy assholes? Their will be no bullshit 11-hour questioning session.

This is a federal judge. A federal judge appointed by Bill Clinton. This is not some bullshit fishing expedition. The review states that there is a legitimate enough body of evidence to support the possibility that a legally filled FOIA request was willfully subverted.

The law is the law, weather you like the origin of this issue or not.

[workinclasszero]

24. BS

Do you people get ideas from Hate radio as well?

[angrychair]

28. What??

That is literally what the article says and literally what the reasoning is for the questioning.

What specifically is BS?

[workinclasszero]

34. Nevermind, I've got nothing to say to a person that get his antiHillary BS from right wing hate sites

Like Judicial Watch.

ignored

[Joe the Revelator]

39. You can stick your fingers in your ears all day...

...this is still an issue.

[Fawke Em]

44. Judicial Watch is only a party in the lawsuit.

The judge, a CLINTON APPOINTEE, is adjudicating the case. Nothing is coming from a right-wing hate site.

Do you guys not understand court?

I spent 10 years covering court for a newspaper. I understand it. This is not Judicial Watch making these decisions. It's a judge. I'd agree with you if JW was making all the decisions, but they're not. A judge is.

[angrychair]

64. Wow

This is an article from Reuters and there is a similar one on The Hill and a half dozen other news organizations. This is a federal court and a federal judge. This is not about batshit senators or House reps dragging anybody to a committee hearing.

Read and inform youself. Please.

[jeff47]

30. So the law is not the law all the time?

Or is the law not the law only when Clinton breaks it?

Clinton has been stonewalling. That has allowed the right-wing lunatics at Judicial Watch to sue her and get discovery. That discovery has already lead to an FBI investigation and a Senate investigation. Now they have even more they can subpoena.

In the 1990s, Clinton stonewalled. That kept Ken Starr's investigation alive long enough to find Lewinsky.

Apparently, Clinton has learned nothing in the last 20 years.

[asuhornets]

33. And we are suppose to believe that

Hillary is damaged because you said so? Just because GD posts are anti-Hillary all day. You think that will change our mind about voting for her? I don't think so.

[angrychair]

41. Oddly enough

My intent was not to change your mind but to ask you to look at this situation objectively and consider not how it may or may not impact your vote but millions out there in the real world. People not as committed to your candidate as you. They will care. Independents and people on the fence, some unlikely to vote for her anyway, are even less likely given this spiralling series of events.

It is not about how you feel or how you will vote but how they will vote.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. To be brutally honest

voters in the real world don't care either. It is for very different reasons than partisans for one candidate. They don't care because this is a highly technical story. They will start to try to understand it when an indictment comes down, maybe.

By the way I do get the story. Legally it is not going away... and there are several angles to it.

[oasis]

36. Larry Klayman's Judicial Watch has been stalking the Clintons

for more than twenty years without success. Unless their idea of success was being a minor pain in the ass.

[angrychair]

60. Pay attention

This is not about JW. This is about a legally submitted FOIA request from JW and that FOIA request potentially being subverted by Clinton and/or staffers.
No matter what you think of some asshats at JW, they are not the reason for this story. Potentially not complying and subverting a legal FOIA is the issue.

[oasis]

62. Pay attention. Witch hunts against the Clintons have gone nowhere.

This one will be no different.

[Joe the Revelator]

37. This is what a Clinton presidency would be like...assuming....

she can get past Trump (doubtful given the polls) and not get her self indicted (marginally less doubtful), there are just too many shady skeletons in her closet and that is all we will be focused on for four years.

[Duppers]

52. Zactly!

[Matariki]

68. Exactly

[Eko]

47. Well because the republicans

and conservatives are taking her to court and have been for a long time we should just forgetaboutit. Sure it was a Clinton appointed judge, maybe they wanted a different post or just decided to see what would happen. If they start in on Sanders should we abandon him also? They will, especially if he becomes president. I know, I must be a Clinton supporter, I am, but that doesn't mean I want her to be president more than Sanders. I just don't think we have to use the conservatives attack on her to bolster Sanders and it seems like he is with with me on that.

[BillZBubb]

54. You miss the point.

First, the judge, not Judicial Watch has found that the case has merit. He's not some right wing flake.

Second, more serious issues with Clinton's emails revolving around use of classified information could quite possibly lead to a criminal indictment. That is very serious. It won't change the vote of the die hard Hillary supporters--they are able to ignore anything, but it will finish her with most other voters.

[Eko]

56. I thought I addressed that point.

Sure, the judge found merit. He may not be a right wing flake but that doesn't mean he is on Clinton's side, as I said he could have been appointed to a place he didn't want to go, or just want to see what happens or want to see right wing watch hang themselves yet again. Criminal indictment, sure, quite possibly, or not at all. Like anyone in this country she is Innocent until proven guilty. You miss the point that this has happened a lot to her and nothing has come of it yet. One would have to be blind to not know this is straight out of the playbook of the right wing and you want people to fall for it. Why? If they did it to Sanders, and they will if he becomes President will you then abandon him?

[Eko]

59. And you are right

it may finish her with a lot of voters, that's because a lot of voters will believe something negative no matter how much spin was put on it to make it so, they are low information voters and you are helping to push that. Great job.

[LiberalAndProud]

58. I look forward to the impeachment hearings after her election, actually.

It's such a productive way to spend a presidential term, don't you think? And it makes for an effective leader in a wagging the dog kind of way.

[Jarqui]

61. It doesn't matter that Judicial Watch filed the suit

What matters is what the judge does with the lawsuit.

For starters, he compelled the release of the Clinton State Dept emails.

Now, it looks like he'd like to see Huma and Cheryl come in to testify.

There's your next PR problem: what if they fight it or plead the 5th. Public thinks Hillary is hiding something. Pleading the 5th is bad because it's easily construed as them avoiding criminal trouble.

If they won't answer, maybe he subpoenas Hillary, as he's implied he'll do. If she pleads the 5th, her campaign for president is over. If she testifies and lies (Hillary does have a problem with telling the truth), that's perjury and her campaign for president is over.

Forget about Judicial Watch. This is another legal mine field for Hillary. This isn't a right wing paper making it up. It's a lawsuit in a court of law with legal evidence trying to get Hillary to comply with the FOIA law.

It's beyond debate that there are laws with respect to the handling of classified material that have been broken. Server at home that has classified material on it without authorization is a no brainer. And there are several more.

Then there is the concern if the 31,000 (recovered) deleted emails contained stuff she was trying to hide. If it did, obstruction of justice.

Then there's the concern about Huma working at about four different jobs all for Hillary. Clinton Foundation has been subpoenaed for that. I don't fully understand this one. The Senate has been after it for a while.

And there's the Clinton Foundation quid pro quo concerns with them receiving donations from companies or countries Hillary helped as Secretary of State.

Judicial Watch is the least of Hillary's worries here. (Even though they have a bunch of other outstanding FOIA lawsuits against Hillary and her staff)

[Eko]

63. You dont have to look far to see this kind of stuff.

"Several Georgian citizens (Carl Swensson and another Georgian represented by Georgia state representative Mark Hatfield, a Georgian represented by Taitz, and a Georgian represented by Van Irion) filed challenges with the Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, regarding Obama's inclusion on the March primary ballot.[131] Kemp referred the challenges to Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi, an administrative law judge, who denied Obama's motion to dismiss them and scheduled a hearing for January 26.[132]

On January 23, Malihi denied Obama's motion to quash a subpoena issued by Taitz to compel Obama to appear, saying that Obama did not show why he should not be at the hearing or how his testimony would not be helpful.[133] On January 25, Obama's attorney requested that Kemp halt the proceedings, and indicated that Obama would no longer participate in the litigation pending Kemp's decision.[134] Kemp denied their request and warned that their non-participation would be "at your own peril".[135]

Neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the January 26 hearing. This normally would result in a default order, but the challengers requested Malihi to allow them to go ahead with the hearing and rule on "the merits of their arguments and evidence".[136][137] Taitz called eight witnesses (including herself), and presented seven exhibits in support of her claims that Obama was not a natural-born citizen, has used multiple names, has multiple Social Security numbers, and used a fake birth certificate. Taitz asked Malihi to find Obama in contempt for failing to appear.[138][139][140]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation

Maybe we shouldn't have voted for Obama?

[Eko]

65. I mean really, my post #63 hits it right on the head.

According to the logic you guys are presenting we shouldn't have voted for President Obama. Disgusting.

[angrychair]

66. What???

Not sure what that has to do with my OP but whatever.
This is about if a legitimate FOIA request and a potential effort to fail to comply completely and in good faith.

[Eko]

67. And I showed

a legitimate subpoena upheld by a judge against President Obama, once again should we not have voted for him? That is what you are saying, we should not vote for Clinton because of similar circumstances.