Conservative watchdog seeks Clinton testimony on email case

[antigop]

Source: Politico

A conservative group engaged in a series of lawsuits seeking emails from Hillary Clinton's private server is asking a federal judge to order her to give a sworn deposition.

Judicial Watch filed the request Monday with U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth. Lamberth had previously agreed to allow the group to take discovery in the case in an effort to establish why Clinton used a private server and whether it was to put records beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.

"Mrs. Clinton’s testimony will help the courts determine whether her email practices thwarted the Freedom of Information Act,” Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton said in a statement.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-emails-223239

---

Request:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/JW-v.-State-proposed-discovery-01242.pdf

[BillZBubb]

1. It's pretty obvious she did just that.

But proving it in court beyond a reasonable doubt is going to be impossible. I'm sure Hillary, the lawyer, didn't go around talking about her plan to evade the law.

[Locrian]

5. they dont have to "prove it"

All they have to do is go through the emails and (oops) "leak" a few of the choicest ones to the media....

[msanthrope]

9. BRD doesn't apply here. nt

[BillZBubb]

11. It was pretty obvious OJ killed his ex wife. Or do you disagree?

There was even DNA evidence, yet for many, including a jury, reasonable doubt remained.

Proving something in a court, even though obvious on the surface, can be very difficult.

[BillZBubb]

37. Geez, don't be obtuse.

I gave an example where even without DNA evidence the guilt was obvious, and that even WITH DNA evidence they couldn't get a conviction. That's how hard it is.

How does DNA figure into an email server investigation? Are you really that dense?

[yellowcanine]

12. What is obvious is that JW is on a fishing expedition.

[BillZBubb]

13. Of course they are. But foolish Hillary gave them a rod, reel, and bait.

That's one of her major faults. She does stupid shit that opens her up for legal attack. She tries to hide everything and evades transparency.

Judicial Watch wants the emails to look for other lines of attack. But, their FOIA claim is valid, just as the judge has stated. It's the law. Hillary isn't above the law, no matter who the plaintiff might be.

[yellowcanine]

14. JW has been well supplied with fishing equipment for years.

It would not matter what Clinton did. They would come up with something. Stop enabling them.

[BillZBubb]

15. You Hillary fanatics are something else. I am not "enabling" anyone.

The legal system is doing its job. Instead of looking at the facts at issue, you simply scream about the plaintiff. Hillary's foolish actions gave JW a winning hand in this situation. The law is on their side.

Why can't you just admit that?

[yellowcanine]

18. "Hillary fanatic." Okay so now the name-calling starts. Got anything else?

Stop enabling JW.

[BillZBubb]

19. Is Hillary above the law? Was Hillary wrong in her email setup?

[yellowcanine]

20. Sorry, I don't argue the merits with JW enablers.

Deal with it.

[BillZBubb]

23. In other words you won't answer two very simple questions.

You really should be ashamed of yourself. Why can't you admit Hillary has screwed up? Are you really so far down the rabbit hole of political fanaticism?

[yellowcanine]

25. What part of "not arguing" did you not understand? NT

[BillZBubb]

28. Answering two simple questions isn't arguing. I know you're afraid.

The cognitive dissonance must be tough to deal with. You know your candidate screwed up but you just can't face having to admit you know it.

[yellowcanine]

29. You don't know anything about me other than that I disagree with you about JW.

And it is arrogant of you to assume that you do. But feel free to beat on that dead horse as long as it works for you.

[BillZBubb]

31. I know a lot about you. The fact you won't answer 2 simple questions

says a lot. Nothing arrogant about that, it's a fact.

[NWCorona]

36. So why engage at all within this op?

[2cannan]

40. The respected organization CREW was the first group to file a FOIA to obtain her emails

but after David Brock took CREW over, they decide not to pursue the issue.

snip

Shortly After March 2, 2015: The main government watchdog trying to get Clinton's emails is silenced by a Clinton ally. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) had been pursuing the public release of all of Clinton's emails. CREW has been one of the top political watchdog organizations, targeting unethical and corrupt behavior in both major political parties. But in August 2014, CREW was effectively taken over by David Brock, a close Clinton ally who runs the main Super PAC (political action committee) for her presidential campaign. In December 2012, CREW filed the first Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking Clinton's emails from when she was secretary of state, and that began a long legal battle over the issue. However, after Clinton's email scandal becomes public following a New York Times story on it on March 2, 2015, the new CREW leadership decides not to pursue the issue. Anne Weismann, CREW's chief counsel who led the search for the emails, will later comment, "It was made quite clear to me that CREW and I would not be commenting publicly on the issue of Secretary Clinton using a personal email account to conduct agency business. The fact that we said nothing on that subject says volumes." Weismann soon quits CREW as a result. Others also quit. Louis Mayberg, a cofounder of CREW, quits in March 2015, saying, "I have no desire to serve on a board of an organization devoted to partisanship." He also says that CREW's lack of action regarding the email scandal is another key factor in his departure. (Bloomberg News, 4/11/2016)

Clinton Email Scandal Timeline.
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_4

[Kingofalldems]

2. Well I sure do trust that the beloved Judicial Watch is not on a

political witch hunt.

Of course they are, and it's disturbing to see DUers jump on board with them.

[840high]

3. Refute. Nothing wrong with facts no

matter where they came from.

[msanthrope]

7. Indeed.....currently, JW is suing the DOJ for having GLBT-friendly events.

You seem to think this organization is of a caliber that deserves to be taken seriously and given the privilege of notice and debate.

You are incorrect.

[magical thyme]

4. Is it disturbing to see Judge Emmett Sullivan, a Clinton appointee,

also jump on board with them? Because he was the first to open the door to discovery in a JW vs State lawsuit and has twice written in his rulings that based on the evidence he's seen Hillary may need to be deposed.

[msanthrope]

8. He's not jumping on board...he's following the FRCP. JW will do what they

always do...sputter out. But nice to see that you support the law firm that is currently suing the doj for having lgbt-friendly events.

[BillZBubb]

17. You sound like a right winger in your fanaticism.

When I opposed the Iraq War, the right wingers called me a "Saddam lover".

See, it was so simply, because I was against something that meant I had to be for the other side.

Now because I believe Hillary was wrong, and possibly criminal, in her email setup, it has to be that I support JW or I love trump!

Same fanatical lack of reasoning.

[msanthrope]

21. A suggestion....the next time you support a particular public policy

Advocacy group, you take the time to Google them. If they have a history of supporting batshit and Winger causes, it's a clue.

The mistake that's some posters here make about supporting Winger organizations like Judicial Watch is that they think they found the one noble cause that that organization has taken on. That indeed the stopped clock is actually right in this case. It is not.

[BillZBubb]

24. You sound like a wingnut. Just like my post pointed out.

You jump from my not being willing to support your candidate blindly to my being a supporter of the other side. That of course is a classic right wing dodge. The fact that so many Hillary supporters like you use it is revealing.

I know who JW is. It doesn't matter what their motives are. It is irrelevant to the legal issue in the case. Hillary, because of her foolish server decision, is in a very weak legal position.

Can't you even admit that or are you so far gone that blind support won't let you do so?

[msanthrope]

27. I don't care who you support in the primary. JW is an objectionable organization on many levels

and I object to DUER support of it.

And yes....JWs motives do matter.

[BillZBubb]

30. This isn't about JW. Quit using right wing ad hominem tactics.

It is about a legal case. Justice is blind. Look at the merits of each side's case.

Hillary made a huge error with her private server. The plaintiffs have used that error to, through the FOIA, get the information on the server--which is their legal right. Do they not have that right because they are an organization you don't like?

Now either you support the FOIA or you don't. Either way it is the law and attempts to thwart it are illegal. Hillary has used every trick in the book to avoid meeting a valid FOIA request. It doesn't matter who the plaintiff is, it is still illegal to do so.

[msanthrope]

32. Justice is blind? Wait til I quit laughing. nt

[BillZBubb]

33. Stop laughing--it should be. I know for the Hillary crowd it cannot be.

No legal proceeding against her can be viewed on it's legal merits. Gotta do or say anything to protect Her Majesty.

[msanthrope]

34. Dude.....I wish Justice was blind. so did my clients. nt

[Archae]

6. Judicial Watch is not a "watchdog." They're nuts.

This is the same group that found "ISIS camps" in Texas and Mexico, that no one else sees.

But they do have their "sources."

it seems that now in the zeal to destroy Hillary Clinton, any and every bunch of kooks are being called "watchdogs" and their wild baseless charges are believed, even decades after they were exposed as liars and kooks.

[BillZBubb]

16. It doesn't matter who JW is. They brought a suit in Federal court.

What matters in that case is who has the law on their side. Right now JW has a very strong legal position.

No one is above the law. Not even your preferred candidate.

[msanthrope]

22. Actually..it matters very much. Credibility counts. nt

[BillZBubb]

26. Oh, please, in a court of law the facts count.

The facts don't look good for Hillary. And it is her own fault.

[Angel Martin]

39. Freedom of Information Act

there appear to be no qualifications required to make a FOIA request.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=2809ca29213ba41b44fce61c7dae15d0&node=22:1.0.1.18.85&rgn=div5

In fact, it looks like you do not even have to be a US citizen.

Since the Clintons are supposed to be smart, they should have known that an outfit like Judicial Watch would use the FOIA to dig for dirt - so they would play it straight with no tricks.

Instead they do what the Clintons always do which is to try to be cute and skirt the limits of the law while remaining legal (in this case that stupid server).

As a result a fringe outfit like JW has a field day. They make FOIA requests and get some hits. Then the media jumps on the story, and now you have everyone and his dog on the email server trying to find political bombshells.

In addition, the FOIA has very specific rules about compliance and Clinton has tried to be cute about that as well and skirt the compliance rules. JW, as could be expected, uses that to launch other legal actions over compliance, which the media is also doing because it is yielding more bombshells.

The Clintons are dumb, dumb dumb...

Like Nixon, they keep handing their enemies many swords