Judge wants Clinton certification on emails
Source: Politico
A federal judge has ordered the State Department to ask Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to certify under penalty of perjury that she has turned over some of the work-related emails she kept on a private server during the four years she served as secretary of state.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan issued the order Friday in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit the conservative group Judicial Watch filed in 2013 seeking records about the employment status of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who worked as Clinton's deputy chief of staff but later transferred to a part-time job as a so-called "special government employee."
The State Department told Judicial Watch last year that all records about the arrangement had been disclosed, but after Clinton's use of a private email account for official business was revealed earlier this year, Judicial Watch moved to reopen the lawsuit. Abedin was also revealed to have used an account on the same server.
Sullivan's order is just the latest in a flurry of legal moves turning up the heat on Clinton over the email controversy. Another federal judge who is handling a FOIA lawsuit brought by the Associated Press, Richard Leon, has repeatedly lashed out at the department over its handing of requests for Clinton's records. State now faces about 30 lawsuits seeking some or all of the Clinton emails and playing out in front of a variety of different judges.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/08/judge-wants-clinton-to-certify-shes-turned-over-some-211652.html
bucolic_frolic
(43,173 posts)the point being .......??
This woman's been investigated for 25 years. Whitewater, cattle trade, Healthcare
That's Always There, Wife of Slick Willy, Senator, Secretary of State & Fracking Export ....
Where does it end?
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)will right wing talking points stop being posted on DU ?
Probably never given that the Rove squad has found a good home here.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)ananda
(28,865 posts)This is so ridiculous.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)all the dumb investigations she has been subject to. ???
bucolic_frolic
(43,173 posts)was I ambiguous again?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)We need an investigation on that.
aquart
(69,014 posts)jalan48
(13,869 posts)A bit of poor judgment it seems to me. Hopefully her thinking will be clearer if she gets to be POTUS.
7962
(11,841 posts)Thats a good example of her speaking off the cuff. It wasnt the truth
jalan48
(13,869 posts)that she decided as Sec. of State to use her private phone for State business. Most of us have a phone from the business we work for. I don't know of anyone who uses their private phone all the time to conduct personal as well as professional business. The real question then becomes, why did she do this?
24601
(3,962 posts)street - for example on Family Feud: We surveyed 100 people and asked them what to do about the widespread problem of not wanting to carry more than one phone. Your answer was "Secretly install your own Internet Service Provider Server on your home and conduct official government communications through that ISP."
Survey says......ENGGGG!
Our number one answer, with 68 percent was "Program your phone to operate more than one account and conduct official business on a government network"
Of course the real problem is that nobody believes she is telling the truth about why she did it that way. That in turn leads to follow-on questions about whether everything was turned over to the government and if the ISP serer was really destroyed.
Does it matter? It does if transparency matters to you. It's just not credible that she would be so opaque at the State Department, but that everything would be different if she were President.
Bernie Sanders in the other hand wears his heart on his sleeve for all to see. You don't have to agree with him point by point to believe him. O'Malley doesn't come across nearly as trustworthy as Bernie. While he seems to have deep convictions, unlike Bernie, he comes across as willing to say anything to anyone.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)They question is why do people want to sniff around her toilet.
24601
(3,962 posts)State Clinton had on obligation to keep official business on official networks. And candidate Clinton had an obligation to tell the truth rather than the BS about wanting to be on only one mobile device.
It foreshadows a dark tenure of a paranoid President determined to govern through secrecy and reminds me of the early 1970 with Nixon.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)What was the big deal about using gov't email equipment anyway? We shouldn't even be having this conversation.
jalan48
(13,869 posts)Sanders NEVER seems to be evasive or give typical political answers
But every new revelation STILL doesnt change her being in the lead. even as the majority dont think she's trustworthy!!
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)And then there is the issue of the ethics agreement relating to the Clinton Foundation, which apparently was disregarded.
I suppose I understand why some don't want to see this on DU, but it certainly will come up via the Republican party. These are court proceedings, which were initiated quite some time ago.
I agree with your question - she knew she was going to run for president. This was a dumb move on multiple levels.
aquart
(69,014 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)I'm amazed he hasn't been disbarred. Should have happened a long time ago.
He's been frothing at the mouth stalking the Clintons for decades.
rickford66
(5,523 posts)Some of them may have been about official business .... I'm just askin' of course.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)When the deposits were made and who they were from.
24601
(3,962 posts)much attention to what others may or may not have done. Every time someone asked a question about Ms. Clinton's accountability, trust, transparency or judgment, I'd reply with: "Enough with these nonstop personal attacks. You so called reporters are playing right into Rove's plan when you should instead be asking the other candidates to answer tough questions. Did you know that both Secretary Rice and Secretary Powell occasionally sent personal email from their government accounts? Why aren't you digging into that and reporting that for a change. Just because they aren't running or anything isn't an excuse for you being a wingnut lapdog."
So request all you want. Send FOIA requests to the departments of every Bush appointment.
I have no doubt that Secretary Rice used the government-provided network and it's highly likely that she occasionally sent personal email on it. Such use is permitted by the government ethics regulations provided the use is reasonable in frequency and duration, pretty much mirroring personal use of the government-owned telephone exchange. It's also intuitive that no other cabinet officer in this or any other administration evaded oversight of official communications with such an elaborate scheme.
As an attorney, Ms. Clinton is almost certainly aware of the pitfalls when you co-mingle clients' money with the attorney's money and keep it all in the attorney's personal bank account.
There are no shortage of ethical Democrats who don't struggle with doing the right thing for the right reason. There is no reason we should ever settle for one who does.
still_one
(92,213 posts)right wing judge, and a loony tea bagger birther. Sounds like a fair situation to me.
wonder what this all means