DU approves of Bill Clinton appointed federal judges now? Seriously?

[morningfog]

US District Judge Emmitt Sullivan is permitting discovery in a FOIA case against the State Department because the arrangement of Hilary's private email server leaves serious questions about whether State is even capable of adhering to FOIA law at this point.

Sullivan is a Clinton appointee and handles dozens of FOIA cases. He no man on a right wing witch hunt. He is a learned jurist and federal judge in good standing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. I do not think many of these people truly grasp the story

yeah, JW is on a witch hunt, that is what they do. But you do not go for discovery unless there is a reason for it. And this judge thinks there is. But, but, but... all I can say is... the reaction is not just predictable (Religion and politics are just as predictable ), but at this point, at least to me... sheer comedy. I should be reading... by the way

[iAZZZo]

2. for those interested in searching the emails

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. I have done my share of reading

I have some of the early batch that were later classified

[HillDawg]

5. Wow thanks for that

Really appreciate that

[iAZZZo]

18. you're welcome (n/t)

[arcane1]

4. When the other team's quarterback joins our team, he becomes a hero.

When he joins another team, he's a villain again.

[Lucinda]

6. No one gets blanket approval from me just because of WHO supports them,

and a couple of decades old appointment deserves looking into when they align themselves with Judicial Watch.
You may think our judicial system is fault free, but I don't. It doesn't have to be a CT to be worth looking at.

[morningfog]

7. Wow. So now the federal judge is aligned with judicial watch because

of one favorable ruling?

What are you even saying, "looking at?"

Are you wanting to review the docket and read the pleadings to see whether he abused his discretion? Do you believe he acted contrary to the law?

I just don't get what you are saying. There is no evidence that this judge has been anything but patient and fair.

[Lucinda]

11. I linked to his statements about the Obama administration in MaggieD's thread

I'm not going to post a second link to the Washington Times, once was bad enough, but you can find it on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1331812

[morningfog]

12. Yes, and it was all in the context of this case.

He has seen State's actions and said there is reasonable suspicion they have not acted in good faith and for good reason.

[Lucinda]

13. Really? You think the administration is hiding things on Hillarys behalf?

Wow.

[morningfog]

15. I think the facts of the case support the judge's ruling.

where is there an abuse of discretion?

[Lucinda]

16. So the answer is yes, then. I don't believe a judge is always the bastion of all that is good

and I also don't see any wrongdoing by Sec Clinton or the Obama admin, so we are clearly talking at cross purposes and wasting each others time.

[Jim Lane]

17. The judge's ruling doesn't mean that the administration is hiding things on Hillary's behalf.

The standard for discovery is not "the party seeking discovery establishes that its position in the litigation is correct." Discovery is for the purpose of giving all parties a fair chance to make their case, and to prevent surprises at trial, by giving them access to the potentially relevant evidence. Then comes the decision about which side is correct.

The question before the judge was whether the disclosure sought by Judicial Watch was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. If that standard is met, the judge should grant the request even if his preliminary opinion, based on what he's seen so far, is that Judicial Watch will ultimately lose.

[Fawke Em]

8. Actually, what they're trying to do is conflate a right wing group with the judge.

Yes, Judicial Watch, a right-wing group, has filed suit for access to Hillary's emails on the private server. We know this.

But the decision to compel witnesses to testify was made by a judge, appointed by Bill Clinton, and not some right-wing group or GOP partisan committee.

Just like they try to conflate Benghazi with the private server. They want to muddy the waters. The two are separate investigations. The latter by a bunch of crazed loons in Congress, the second by the FBI, a group of trained investigators. The issues are separate.

And Judicial Watch isn't calling the shots here. A judge is.

[morningfog]

9. Oh I know, but some people refuse to understand that.

[Fawke Em]

10. I just wanted to point it out.

Looks like they're testing their talking points for when this is all over the news tomorrow.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Assuming it is all over the news tomorrow

I count on the news having a kitty rescue on backup.

Is my cynicism showing?

[jillan]

19. It's beyond ironic, isn't it?