State Department wants limits on questioning of Clinton aides

[seafan]

Source: Politico

Top aides to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should not be questioned about an ongoing FBI investigation into the presence of classified information on her private email server or about the substance of the messages that were exchanged, as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the State Department said in a court filing Tuesday night.

In the new submission, the State Department continued to object to depositions of former Clinton aides and other officials in the lawsuit brought by the the conservative group Judicial Watch, but U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled in February that he would permit "narrowly tailored" discovery about the unusual private server set-up used by Clinton during her four years as America's top diplomat.

.....

"State submits that the scope of discovery must be limited and specified at the outset to prevent questioning that exceeds the limited inquiry that the Court has authorized," the filing from Justice Department laywers says. "Based on the Court’s statements at the February 23 hearing, State understands the scope of permissible discovery to be 'the reasons for the creation of (the clintonemail.com) system.'"

"State respectfully submits that the Court’s order should specify that discovery is limited to this topic. To that end, State requests that the Court clarify that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery on matters unrelated to the topic identified by the Court, to include without limitation: the substantive information sought by Plaintiff in its FOIA request in this case, which involves the employment status of a single employee; the storage, handling,transmission, or protection of classified information, including cybersecurity issues; and questions about any pending investigations," the submission says. "State objects to any discovery requests pertaining to the FBI’s pending investigation into matters referred to it by the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and State in connection with former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-emails-state-department-221612

---

This stonewalling must stop.

Also using her position as Secretary of State to funnel millions into the coffers of the Clinton Foundation must not escape scrutiny, and must be addressed via discovery, as these actions reveal intense conflicts of interest.

The Clinton aides hold many of the pieces to the public exposure of these conflicts, and it must occur before voters make decisions about our next president.

[FreakinDJ]

1. Stonewalling for Clinton

[forest444]

40. No doubt about it.

This has backfire written all over it though, because the instant Crassley's goons find evidence that substantive documents are being withheld (and they will) it'll be Christmas in April for the GOP.

And if that's our nominee, good luck to us indeed.

[msanthrope]

44. Why should Judicial Watch ask about classified material? nnt

[greiner3]

56. No attorney

But if they are given as to reason no documents will be forthcoming is they are secret-top secret then that is reason to make a further case she did break the law

[msanthrope]

60. What? no. nt

[jwirr]

2. Gee, didn't they just say they were going to back out of the

investigation so the FBI could do their job?

[Bubzer]

24. Yeah. They did. Guess there's somthing criminal to uncover after all.

[karynnj]

26. I suspect that this might be to limit the extent of the inquiries to things

relevant to the FOIA requests. It seems they want to limit the use of this politically motivated case in being a fishing expedition to find new things that they can challenge. This might be consistent with halting their own investigation giving precedence to the FBI investigation.

[magical thyme]

54. they've stopped their *own* internal investigation of the emails.

That does not mean they aren't going to try to stonewall the 34 FOIA lawsuits by JW, Reuters, and others in any way they can.

[msanthrope]

55. You know this isn't about the FBI investigation, right? nt

[Kip Humphrey]

3. WHAT are they afraid of?

[TxGrandpa]

7. How can we trust Hillary enough to support her if there is an appearance of something to hide?

[Zira]

104. Ask her supporters. They've been doing it all along.

[msanthrope]

51. Why would you want Judicial Watch looking at classified info? nt

[greiner3]

58. See my post above

[cstanleytech]

82. Probably that what was done to Bill would be done to Hillary where they try to nail her for

anything they can find no matter how trivial it might be.

[beastie boy]

4. Hmmm... Judicial Watch...

I have such confidence in them not to James O'Keefe every word they get their paws on!

[Bubzer]

25. I have faith in the FBI to act in accordance with their duties. Indictment of HRC wont suprise me.

[beastie boy]

32. To tel you the truth, I also have more confidence in FBI than in Judicial Watch

It's the whole non-partisan thingy, I guess...

But that's a different thread, isn't it?

[Bubzer]

41. That's fair.

[AlbertCat]

5. Let us hope....

..... things like this keep reminding people of the ongoing investigation, and that Clinton doesn't want it big time!

[geek tragedy]

6. So you support Judicial Watch being able to interfere with an ongoing investigation

and exceed the scope of permissible discovery in their FOIA lawsuit?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

8. Are they breaking any laws? Or are you a Clinton see-no-evil?

[geek tragedy]

9. No. But this post is whining that the State Department isn't allowing a rightwing group

to ask Clinton aides under oath about the FBI investigation.

Think about that.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

13. I thought about it. They have every right to do what they are doing.

[geek tragedy]

14. and the state department has every right to ask that they not be allowed by the court

to ask about the FBI investigation, as (1) that would interfere with that investigation and (2) it's completely outside the scope of the Judicial Watch lawsuit, which is about FOIA avoidance, not breaches of security.

Agree with me?

[hamsterjill]

18. Well, I agree with you!

This is all much ado about nothing. Legal counsel for those being deposed are certainly going to make each and every objection that they can. It doesn't mean there is anything to hide. It just means that the lawyers are doing the jobs they are being paid to do.

But of course, ANYTHING that makes Hillary look bad is okay with some people.

[tex-wyo-dem]

29. I don't often agree with you, but on this point...

I do.

[BlueMTexpat]

64. I do. Period.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

72. Of course they have a right to ask. But they don't get to decide.

[karynnj]

27. Do they? First, of all, the State Department request appears to set limits on

what they can ask to things related to the their FOIA case.

They absolutely should not be able to ask anyone questioned by the FBI what they were asked and how they answered. Allowing that would seem to have the potential for corrupting the FBI case.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

71. But your putting the onus on the plaintiffs rather than the court.

If the court allows this, then the court is wrong.

[karynnj]

73. As you note, State is requesting these guidelines from the judge -but the judge can ignore this

or take bits and pieces of it. I think it is entirely fair to have guidelines that limit what could be asked. It is not clear that the ones suggested by State are the best ones. I assume that the judge will respond and may reject some limitations, asking State to defend the reasons behind them. If this is the way it is done, I suspect that there will be limitations, but it is possible that State asked for more than they will likely get.

It seems they also were trying to define the process.

[RiverNoord]

33. Um... I'm not a Hillary hater, but...

your statement is a bit flawed. The 'Judicial Watch' discovery requests aren't 'interfering' with an ongoing investigation. The requests are part of their own FOIA lawsuit, and lawyers and judges constantly go back and forth on scope of discovery issues. It's just the nuts and bolts of the legal process.

Of course I don't support the activities of 'Judicial Watch.' But I am both a lawyer and an IT professional, who manages things like my company's email server, and have been stunned by this whole thing since it came out. It's just really bizarre that United States Secretaries of State (apparently Colin Powell used an external email address to a degree as well, but not his own actual private server) have been using outside private email services to send and receive official correspondence.

I would have expected extremely hardened email systems with advanced and meticulous certificate management ensuring top quality encryption and digital signatures. It's not rocket science. At the very least, digital signatures should be in full effect among all State Department personnel, so that, for example, email communications between the SoS and the Ambassador to Iraq would likely be indecipherable for years, and the identities of each would be confirmed before emails were viewed.

Additionally, I would expect official email among State Department personnel to be limited to devices provided and maintained by an IT Security division of the Department. If you don't harden the devices, then you're got a whole different set of risks.

So - the idea of a Secretary of State, the top diplomatic official in the country, whose emails are likely to be targeted by lots of foreign cyber-snoops, maintaining a private, personal, non-hardened email server for all of her official email correspondence... It's really bizarre. And if we're only going to understand what was going on through some right-wing front group's lawsuit - well, that's just depressing.

[geek tragedy]

37. allowing them to ask potential witnesses under oath about the subject

of that investigation would be interfering with it.

the subject matter of the FBI investigation is not germane to the FOIA suit.

[branford]

67. Except the FBI isn't complaining, it's the State Department.

The State Department are not agents or representatives of the FBI, and if if they purport to be, it is a very big problem. The FBI is more than capable of asking to the court to limit or delay discovery pending criminal investigations, and they often do so. However, I imagine that State is loathe to request that the FBI intervene because they would have to provide some detail about the current server investigation, and this would be politically problematic for Clinton.

The State Department is objecting to the questions because they are very embarrassing to the agency and politically damaging to Clinton. That's precisely why Judicial Watch is making the requests, and even if I totally oppose JW's politics and intent, they are no doubt legally entitled to the vast majority of the requested FOIA information. This is obvious, particularly since State's compliance with the FOIA requests have been utterly abysmal from the very beginning. In fact, discovery is very unusual in these types of cases at all, and it has only been ordered by the Court because of the State Department's egregious behavior.

I imagine that the court will impose some restriction on discovery, leaving both sides unhappy for now. I also surmise that based on the responses given by the currently scheduled depositions of Hillary's aides like Mills and Abedin, Judicial Watch will then ask the court to order the deposition of Hillary. That's when the real battle begins. Let's hope nobody asserts their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination at these civil depositions concerning the creation of the private server, lest we give Republicans a legitimate political cudgel during election season.

[geek tragedy]

68. yes, we agree that they are entitled to ask about FOIA.

they are not allowed to go on fishing expeditions on matters not relating to FOIA compliance.

[branford]

74. The State Department is its own worst enemy.

If they (mostly) properly complied with the original FOIA requests, there would be no discovery and we wouldn't be having this discussion. However, State intentionally or incompetently failed and refused to properly and timely respond, offer reasonable excuses for the lack of compliance, or even why they assisted Clinton in establishing her private server and conclusively explain how it wasn't intended to circumvent FOIA transparency.

The court is justifiably annoyed at State and unsurprisingly will no longer provide then any benefit of the doubt. That is the only reason why the parties are engaged in discovery relating to a FOIA lawsuit, something that almost never happens or is needed.

If State didn't want plaintiffs engaging in alleged discovery "fishing expeditions," they shouldn't have given the court so many reasons to doubt its sincerity, good faith and competence.

That said, and as I earlier indicated, I still believe the court will place some appropriate limits of discovery, although not nearly what was suggested by State's attorneys. I believe Mills, Abendin and Pagliano will be deposed, and Judicial Watch will use those responses to justify a request to the court to order Clinton's deposition. That is the "big fish" sough by JW in their "fishing expedition." Without knowing the responses to deposition of the aides, it would be foolish to predict if the court would allow Clinton's deposition (although assertion of 5th Amendment rights by any deponent will be very bad for State and Clinton).

It's also possible that the FBI will indeed intervene in the lawsuit at some point to forestall certain discovery. Since they would need to at least give the court an overview of its current investigations, this certainly would be interesting...

[RiverNoord]

78. Lol - I just wrote the same thing about a possible FBI request to intervene...

with roughly the same conclusion. Mine was that it would get 'very messy.' Way, way more crazy than anything revealed as a result of full compliance with the original FOIA request (it's likely an awful lot of it could have been redacted via FOIA exemptions.)

'Judicial Watch' is a very definite right-wing bullshit organization. The stupid thing is that Clinton, herself, was the one wrangling to keep as much stuff from State as possible, which made no sense, as it caused the very 'sincerity, good faith and competence' problems that enabled the group to get all the way to discovery on the case.

And you're right - the first time someone asserts a 5th Amendment right, State, and especially Clinton, ends up with a potential nightmare on its hands. The right-wing machinery goes bonkers with the headline 'Clinton aide pleads the 5th when asked about....'

Weird situation.

[RiverNoord]

77. OK.... I spent a short and really unpleasant time on the 'Judicial Watch'

website ('Judicial Watch' my ass).

Ugh.

So... The discovery request that they submitted and was objected to by DoS did not mention anything about FBI investigations.

Here's how it boils down:

1) Plaintiff's motion to permit discovery.

2) DoS objects to any discovery at all due to the nature of the case - judge grants motion for discovery and directs plaintiff to submit proposed discovery plan.

3) Plaintiff submits discovery plan which primarily consists of depositions from 7 people, all of whom had knowledge of Sec. Clinton's email server. No mention of FBI or investigations anywhere in plan.

4) March 5 - DoS renews objection to any discovery, notes that scope of subject matter of court's ruling on motion for discovery is vague, and that, although preserving prior objection on granting of motion for discovery, the scope of questions during any depositions should be clearly defined as relating to 'the reasons for the creation of (the clintonemail.com) system.' It then raises the topic of questions that might be within this scope but might nevertheless touch on the FBI investigation. (I'm adding this - it might be that State's recent deferment to the FBI of any investigations on the subject might have been, in part, to facilitate a response like this, as the FBI can invoke an exemption to FOIA requests pertaining to pending or ongoing investigations. DoS has plenty of exemptions of their own, but internal investigations don't count.) DoS then request that, although it doesn't expect that any investigation-related information would be inadvertently revealed during depositions, it be given three business days after full transcripts are provided to both parties to review the content. Either FBI-investigation related content or classified content would be the basis for a request for an order precluding public release of the problem content.

The weird thing about the DoS request is that it is asserting, on behalf of the FBI, which has not invoked any FOIA exemption in the case, the right to act as though it had, and, therefore, limit from public release information that reasonably could be construed to meet the criteria of information exempt from a FOIA request. The extra weird part is that, although the case is about a FOIA request submitted by plaintiff, DoS is seeking to have statements made through deposition treated as though they were actually content being provided in response to a FOIA request, so that FOIA exemptions can be applied to them.

I expect that the judge will require 'Judicial Watch' to clearly define the scope of its questioning, grant DoS its request to review for classified material to be precluded from public release but deny its request to act as though the FBI had invoked the 'stuff under investigation' FOIA exemption (unless the FBI actually seeks intervention as a party and does invoke the exemption, in which case it gets really complicated.)

The question of whether information revealed that could be relate to an investigation by the FBI is germane to the FOIA suit is irrelevant. It could easily be the case that information directly sought in the FOIA request is also subject to the exemption, should it be invoked. 'Judicial Watch' did not specifically request to permit questioning on the subject in its discovery plan - there's nothing like that mentioned at all.

And that's the last time I'm ever going on that site - frickin' 'Judicial Watch' is absolutely an extremist group totally dedicated to making trouble for Democrats.

[geek tragedy]

81. the key point I would make is that unless Judicial Watch

is expressly forbidden from a line of questioning, they'll go there in the actual deposition. I would imagine the lawyers defending it will be granting a lot of instructions to not answer questions.

[branford]

88. That could be a very dangerous strategy if it appears remotely abusive, dilatory or deceptive,

Last edited Wed Apr 6, 2016, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)

particularly with a judge who's very unsympathetic to the State Department.

State really doesn't want to piss off this judge any more than it already is. It could be an express ticket to a Clinton deposition or worse.

My guess is that the court will grant a fairly permissive, although certainly not unlimited, remit to plaintiffs during the depositions, and then agree to seal the answers for a short period to allow State to seek a protective order for national security or other significant related concerns.

[geek tragedy]

89. I imagine the witnesses' own counsel would make

those objections as well.

Anything relating to "classified information" is going to get an immediate instruction not to answer.

[branford]

93. Too many objections like that could be a big problem in itself.

Remember, the primary political issues that could hurt Democrats include both the use of the server to circumvent FOIA and also to improperly exchange classified information.

The issues are unquestionably linked, and although the witnesses may not need to reveal the actual information contained in classified correspondence, they likely will need to admit they indeed handled such material and explain the who, why and how to ensure it's not something subject to FOIA or that the classification is little more than a ruse to avoid public disclosure However, since these action might be subject to the FBI's criminal investigation, the witnesses might ultimately need to assert their 5A rights. It's a no win scenario for the State Department and why they have fought so desperately to avoid any discovery whatsoever (and tried the court's patience).

[geek tragedy]

94. the judge can't sanction witnesses for invoking their 5th amendment rights

while there's an ongoing FBI investigation

the judge can punish the state department, but the witnesses--who no longer work at State--don't view that as their problem.

so, no they will not need to testify to anything regarding classified documents.

[branford]

97. Basically true, but with respect to the OP and our Party, the issues are indeed political.

The State Department most certainly does not want the fallout from former high level aides having to assert their right against self-incrimination, and Hillary Clinton definitely doesn't want to explain why they have done so, particularly because it would virtually guarantee the Court will permit her own deposition with few constraints. Can Clinton assert her 5A rights or refuse to answer questions because of the FBI investigation and still be a credible presidential candidate?

Again, the content of any classified documents is really secondary to the fact that they were handled at all under certain circumstances, no less with State's inexplicable knowledge, approval and assistance of Clinton's private server.

[RiverNoord]

95. That's a far cry from:

So you support Judicial Watch being able to interfere with an ongoing investigation...

Also, well, here's a part of Rule 30(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 30 is Depositions):

A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).

Privileges are very limited, although an assertion that answering a question will reveal classified information is one of them. And 30(d)(3) motions to terminate are useful tools when things get out of hand.

Objections in depositions are handled very differently in depositions than they are in hearings or trial proceedings. Unless the objection meets the criteria of 30(c)(2), an attorney or deponent can state an objection on form, but the deponent still must answer the question. (Unless there are grounds for a 20(d)(3) motion to terminate or limit, in which case everything stops until the motion is heard and decided.) Objections are decided later when a party seeks to use a transcript as evidence.

What the DoS is after in this case is limitations ordered by the court. The first one, which will definitely be established by the judge, is the scope or scopes of the depositions. The 'Judicial Watch' discovery plan completely omitted scope, which isn't unheard of, although it doesn't win you points with a judge... The DoS's proposed scope is probably just about how it'll go. In which case the questions must be limited to those which may yield information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the subject of why the 'clintonemail.com' email server was set up. Additionally, its request for a 3 day period to review for inadvertent disclosure of classified information is probably reasonable based on the fact that the deposed parties are almost certainly in possession of classified information that could damage U.S. diplomatic relations if revealed.

However, arguing limitations based on lawful exemptions for Freedom of Information Act disclosure is totally different. That's where DoS's argument goes a bit off the rails. Especially since the exemption is one that is in place primarily for FOIA requests made of the FBI. That one the DoS will almost certainly lose.

[geek tragedy]

96. that all makes sense. one thing I was teasing out in another discussion

was that presumably the witnesses--former employees of State, will also be represented by counsel who would doubtlessly be on a hair trigger unless the FBI had already cleared them.

The judge hasn't shown much sympathy for the USG in this case, so I'm hopeful but not terribly certain the scope will be as narrow as might otherwise be advisable.

That said, the "interfere with an investigation" was probably a bit of hyperbole.

[branford]

98. It's more likely that the court will permit leeway in questioning during the depositions,

and then engage in reasonable scrutiny of State's requests, if any, to prevent disclosure after a short review period.

Since the court believes State has not been forthcoming and intentionally evasive, it may very well lean toward a "talk now and seal later" approach instead of not permitting the questions or answers in the first instance

[RiverNoord]

99. Yes, that's probably equally possible.

Just curious - you a lawyer? Your analyses are quite good and you present them succinctly.

I haven't practiced since 2013 - reached a crystal-clear understanding that I hated picking other people's fights for a living. I was able to return to IT and haven't missed it for a day...

[branford]

102. I am indeed a commercial litigation attorney in NYC,

but my practice doesn't deal with federal FOIA requests or related governmental issues.

If you've left the practice of law for a vocation you truly enjoy, you are quite smart and lucky.

[RiverNoord]

100. My apology - I thought at least two of the deposed were still with State.

Hyperbole? On DU? You do realize that people here are very level-headed, dialogues are always immaculately civil, and everyone relies solely on facts, or, on a rare occasion, engages in plausible speculation firmly rooted in quality available information, right?

[TwilightGardener]

10. Yep--the Clinton Foundation is the reason the Clinton groupies at State are shitting

their collective pants.

[karynnj]

30. Most, if not all of the Clinton groupies at State, departed soon after she did

I remember many many articles speaking of how long it took Kerry and his team to fill important jobs in 2013 - many needing Senate confirmation. In fact, Kerry's chief of staff and other top people brought in were likely pretty overwhelmed with doing that in the first year he was Secretary.

[TwilightGardener]

31. Obama allowed her way too much leeway to turn the State Dept. into her private

headquarters for her own political/moneymaking interests. That much is obvious.

[karynnj]

35. Agreed

I wonder if this really could have been an example of a devil's bargain. Obama would have been hurt both in the 2008 election and, assuming he won anyway, in running the country had the Clintons not conceded the election and helped to heal the rift. (An unusually deep rift due to nasty attacks in that primary.) Their power has enough to leverage a very unique deal that was hidden from the country.)

Clinton supporters in past years have made the point that Obama did not give Kerry the same power in having just the people he wanted in the State Department - even as he has given Kerry far more authority to negotiate diplomatically. I doubt the reason was that he respected Clinton's foreign policy knowledge or diplomatic abilities more. The obvious reason to me is the power both Clintons had and have in the party.

[thereismore]

46. Obama dropped the ball with her at State. She was running a rogue agency, a snake on his chest. nt

[99th_Monkey]

47. That is certainly take on this email kerfuffle. It will ultimately expose HRC's pay-to-play

shenanigans involving her foundation, shady arms deals, etc.

Hillary at point is play Russian roulette with the fate of the Democratic Party
and the nation by continuing her campaign as though nothing unusual or potentially
explosive is going on with the FBI investigation.

[onecaliberal]

11. Hell no, they need to answer ALL the questions.

[Scuba]

12. Hard to imagine what national interests would justify such limitations.

[geek tragedy]

15. because they're irrelevant to a FOIA lawsuit.

Do your sympathies tend to align with Judicial Watch when they go after the Clintons?

[Scuba]

20. My sympathies like with open and honest government.

[geek tragedy]

21. then you should have no problem with deposition questions

being limited as the State Department is requesting, which is to the subject of government transparency.

[Scuba]

22. Pretzel logic.

[geek tragedy]

23. so, you favor allowing rightwing groups to force Democratic officials to answer any question

whatsoever under oath? No limitations on the scope of questioning?

[Punkingal]

38. That won't happen, geek.

Lawyers and judge won't allow it. It is my understanding that judges dislike "fishing expeditions."

[Democat]

50. Don't bother arguing with the right wing trolls

They are using the primaries to pretend to be Democrats and trolling DU while promoting right wing talking points.

[stupidicus]

62. a long time DU poster with 50K plus posts is a "rightwing troll"?

and you're what, the queen of england?

[Democat]

66. If you are fighting for Judicial Watch against a Democrat

You're a right wing troll.

[branford]

75. Or, the person is an actual liberal and progressive,

and believes government transparency is far more important that partisan advantage, particularly since government transparency was an electoral promise of our current Democratic president.

I'm a Democrat because the Party normally represents my liberal beliefs. When the Party abandons my fundamental progressive values (e.g., government transparency( or takes my support for granted, it should not expect my support to continue.

Just because Judicial Watch may espouse conservative beliefs or agendas that I don't normally support, it does not mean they aren't legally entitled to the information they seek in their lawsuit.

[stupidicus]

86. some simply lack the mental acuity to resolve things into the distinct things they are

or the personal integrity

[stupidicus]

85. says a rightwing troll

looking to defame a poster in good standing outside of the 3rdway/corporatist/fascist-lite crowd.

[Democat]

105. I will happily support either Democratic candidate over Trump or Cruz

The same can not be said of some others here who prefer President Trump.

[LiberalArkie]

16. The stonewalling on both sides should stop.

I personally think Bernie should release video showing him personally bringing in the thousands of guns from Vermont to NYC and the State Dept should be be open to the investigation.

[Jarqui]

17. ..

[beastie boy]

19. Give it to Judicial Watch, and you can be sure they will find all those guns.

And a conspiracy to overthrow the government with the help of communist Kenyan witch doctors, with Bernie and the twelve foot lizards in their charge.

Yeah, we should give Judicial Watch all they want!

[magical thyme]

57. you realize that Judge Emmet Sullivan is a 2-time Obama appointee

and is the judge that allowed discovery, including depositions of the aides, right?

However much you may hate Judicial Watch, the fact is they are in the right. They aren't the only organization with FOIA lawsuits against the State Dept thanks to Hillary's attempt to circumvent FOIA with her private server.

[beastie boy]

76. The judge permitted a "narrowly tailored" discovery

Which will prompt narrowly tailored witness badgering and narrowly tailored conspiracy theories from Judicial Watch.

The State Dept. is asking to narrow the inquiry in specific ways. Their request is in full compliance with the Judge's decision. I see no reason why the Judge shouldn't consider it.

[magical thyme]

84. and the judge in question may subpoena CLinton's entire email account

depending on what discovery produces.

Judge threatens subpoena against Clinton over emails

A federal judge warned Tuesday that he may have to subpoena former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s entire secret email account, saying he has real questions about whether the Obama administration gave her special treatment.

In the interim, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said he was granting discovery to Judicial Watch, a public interest law firm who’s sued to get a look at the emails, meaning the group will be able to demand the State Department explain who approved Mrs. Clinton’s server, how many officials knew about it, and what accommodations they made to her after her emails become a public issue.

And the judge said he is “inclined” to issue a subpoena eventually, forcing the department to go back to Mrs. Clinton and demand she turn over the entire clintonemail.com system she and top aide Huma Abedin used during their time in the department.
http://www.foiaadvisor.com/home/2016/2/23/foia-news-judge-grants-discovery-in-foia-case-pertaining-to-clintons-email

[beastie boy]

90. The State Department already turned over the entire system to the FBI

What will the Judge discover there that the FBI wouldn't?

[magical thyme]

91. You'd have to ask the judge that

but the FBI is looking at mishandling of classified information, possible public corruption and possible criminal charges. The judge is looking at FOIA violations in civil lawsuits. THey are each playing different roles on different playing fields.

And, btw, the State Dept most certainly did NOT turn over the server because they were never it possession of it. All they ever got was a thumb drive with 30,000 emails Clinton's staff unilaterally decided were "work related, not personal."

Clinton (or her lawyer or Platte Networks) turned it over, after stonewalling for months.

[Democat]

28. So many right wing pro-Trump trolls on this thread

Hope to see everyone supporting right wingers over Democrats banned once the primaries are over.

[OnyxCollie]

65. Secrecy and FOIA avoidance is great, as long as it's OUR side.

Derp.

[mulsh]

34. It's not like the State Dept Lifers have a vested interest in limiting investigations to the

issues specified in the topics identified by a court. It's probably not even that some senior staffers in the legal office feel they should fight against fishing expeditions merely on general principles and in order to avoid setting open precedents for future investigations.
Government agency employees never fight over territorial rights either, it's just not done.

Since this involves a Clinton there are obviously massive amounts of unethical and illegal actions that can never be proved but insinuated to death.

[Jarqui]

36. You've got to give them credit. They've gone with one lawyer to

simplify the (collusion) process.

Now they're whining about "Don't ask us too many questions. The creation of clintonemail.com is our response to transparency and has been since the disappearance of Vince Foster's Whitewater files and Clinton White House notes saying 'Vacuum Rose law files WWDC Docs – subpoena.'"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline2.htm

Clinton White House employee Bruce Lindsay, mixed up in Whitewater some, seems to have survived Whitewater ok
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/authors/bruce-lindsey
as Chairman of the Board of the Clinton Foundation

With the Panama Papers opening some things up, I suspect this Clinton Foundation stuff is probably heading the way Whitewater went. It's probably going to go on for years.

FBI's Comey wound up on the short end of the Whitewater stick as a deputy special counsel on the Senate Whitewater Committee. He's going to be sitting back watching this discovery testimony with considerable interest.

These Clinton staffers don't just have to testify in these two civil cases - they've got the FBI taking notes for their upcoming interview with the FBI. It's got to be a nervous time for them.

[Vinca]

39. It gives the impression they're hiding something.

If there ever was a time for transparency, now is it.

[Gman]

42. BFD. it's nothing more than a right wing witch hunt anyway

They're fishing and hoping. It's a travesty of justice that this is even happening.

[magical thyme]

59. Reminder: the judge in question is a 2-time Obama appointee.

And this is just 1 of 34 FOIA lawsuits by numerous organizations, including major press, against State due to Hillary's attempt to circumvent the laws with her private server.

You may want to rethink that "travesty" of justice. Some of us think it was a travesty to turn the State Dept. into Clinton Foundation pay2play, arms4donations headquarters.

[Gman]

79. Hillary didn't attempt to circumvent a damn thing

State couldn't give her what she needed. It's a witch hunt. No amount of spin changes that.

[magical thyme]

83. BS. No SOS prior or since has required a private, home server

that lacked adequate security against hackers and was managed by a sole IT guy moonlighting an extra gig.

And she was ultimately offered a secure BB, but refused it for her own. And after she acknowledged via email that she understood the risks, she used it EVEN IN CHINA where it is known to have been hacked.

No amount of denial changes that.

[Gman]

87. Whatever

Just start get ready to say Madam President.

[magical thyme]

92. no need to but hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. nt

[bvf]

43. Naturally. The stink continues to grow. n/t

[thereismore]

45. We have one government agency blocking another government agency. Lovely. nt

[msanthrope]

52. When the fuck did Judicial Watch become a government agency? nt

[SoapBox]

48. The drip, drip, drip...

continues.

[msanthrope]

53. Why should Judicial Watch ask about classified material? nnt

[Ash_F]

70. I am going to play devils advocate and say you are right.

They are asking that the depositions be sealed for 3 days incase there is something classified in them, which is not unreasonable.

[LS_Editor]

49. No red flag there...

[bobthedrummer]

61. What is the definition of criminal conspiracy in the context of it is a crime to conceal crimes us-

ing national security classification systems???

There it is, people.

[stupidicus]

63. of course they do

let's hope she falls victim to that old adage about the coverup being worse than the crime or somesuch....

[riversedge]

69. good for the State Dept.

[LiberalFighter]

80. Too much fishing.

[AgerolanAmerican]

101. This tells me

that there is someone still in a significant position of power at State whose ass is going to get fried if the whole truth ever comes out - there are other co-conspirators besides her top aides, they are still at State in decision-making capacities.

If the NSA is good for anything I hope it is running over the entire State Department with a fine-toothed comb.

[Zira]

103. Corruption in the state department

It will get far worse if that makes it to president.