2016 Postmortem

grasswire

(50,130 posts) Mon May 30, 2016, 04:24 PM May 2016

Late Thurs, DoJ filed document to prevent HRC from testifying in FOIA case.

Here's a link to the actual document.

Why is the DoJ defending her here?

How does this conflict of interest manifest itself?

Prosecuting her AND defending her simultaneously??

https://www.scribd.com/doc/314038492/merged-56902-1-1464381040

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Late Thurs, DoJ filed document to prevent HRC from testifying in FOIA case. (Original Post) grasswire May 2016 OP

Read the document, it's clearly explained. Hoyt May 2016 #1

thanks for the kick! nt grasswire May 2016 #11

thanks for the kick! nt grasswire May 2016 #12

They are not prosecuting her. hrmjustin May 2016 #2

you deny that the DoJ is involved in the FBI investigation... grasswire May 2016 #6

"laying groundwork for prosecution" hrmjustin May 2016 #9

must be a tasty morsel here... grasswire May 2016 #10

Shame on me? Because i challenge you? hrmjustin May 2016 #17

Shame on you for defending someone with her flagrant penchant for... grasswire May 2016 #21

Yes i suppose there must be a special place in hell for people like me. hrmjustin May 2016 #23

there is no logic in grasswire's statements to you. Not shame on you. MariaThinks May 2016 #28

as the others have told you.. and I'll add this is the stupid harassing lawsuit by Judicial Watch OKNancy May 2016 #3

thanks for the kick!! grasswire May 2016 #8

no matter how many posts you make here on DU OKNancy May 2016 #25

Oh Jeebus.....is this. the follow-up to your legal analysis on privilege? nt msanthrope May 2016 #4

DAMN. There 60 pending related to HRC's personal email account and server underthematrix May 2016 #5

thanks for the kick! nt grasswire May 2016 #14

The person responsible for the lawsuits IdaBriggs May 2016 #16

hi... ready to pay for pizza!! LOL OKNancy May 2016 #26

Already responded and on the Greatest Page, too! IdaBriggs May 2016 #27

Once the hair goes on fire ... JoePhilly May 2016 #7

thanks for the kick grasswire May 2016 #15

Everyone enjoys a good bonfire. JoePhilly May 2016 #19

This is nothing. Fawke Em May 2016 #13

didn't she say "anytime, anywhere?" nt grasswire May 2016 #18

She did, but government's first response is to ALWAYS obfuscate and foot-drag. Fawke Em May 2016 #20

Yup nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #24

Who is the defendant in this? State nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #22

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)

1. Read the document, it's clearly explained.

Reply to grasswire (Original post)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:29 PM

May 2016

grasswire

(50,130 posts)

11. thanks for the kick! nt

Reply to Hoyt (Reply #1)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:48 PM

May 2016

grasswire

(50,130 posts)

12. thanks for the kick! nt

Reply to Hoyt (Reply #1)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:48 PM

May 2016

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)

2. They are not prosecuting her.

Reply to grasswire (Original post)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:33 PM

May 2016

You really should take a breath.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)

6. you deny that the DoJ is involved in the FBI investigation...

Reply to hrmjustin (Reply #2)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:45 PM

May 2016

...because they are laying groundwork for prosecution?

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)

9. "laying groundwork for prosecution"

Reply to grasswire (Reply #6)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:47 PM

May 2016

Did foxnews tell you that?

Or was it drudge?

grasswire

(50,130 posts)

10. must be a tasty morsel here...

Reply to hrmjustin (Reply #9)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:48 PM

May 2016

...from the pushback from HRC defenders.

Shame on you.

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)

17. Shame on me? Because i challenge you?

Reply to grasswire (Reply #10)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:50 PM

May 2016

grasswire

(50,130 posts)

21. Shame on you for defending someone with her flagrant penchant for...

Reply to hrmjustin (Reply #17)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:52 PM

May 2016

..hiding things that belong to the American people.

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)

23. Yes i suppose there must be a special place in hell for people like me.

Reply to grasswire (Reply #21)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:53 PM

May 2016

MariaThinks

(2,495 posts)

28. there is no logic in grasswire's statements to you. Not shame on you.

Reply to hrmjustin (Reply #17)

Mon May 30, 2016, 05:21 PM

May 2016

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)

3. as the others have told you.. and I'll add this is the stupid harassing lawsuit by Judicial Watch

Reply to grasswire (Original post)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:39 PM

May 2016

it has zero to do with what the FBI is looking into.

Nothing will happen in this lawsuit either. This is about record keeping, not security.

Oh and she is not being prosecuted.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)

8. thanks for the kick!!

Reply to OKNancy (Reply #3)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:46 PM

May 2016

We know this is the FOIA case.

And we have learned a great deal from it.

Keep digging that hole!

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)

25. no matter how many posts you make here on DU

Reply to grasswire (Reply #8)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:54 PM

May 2016

and I've seen a lot of yours... you can't change the votes that have been made or the outcome of the nomination.
Hillary will be the Democratic candidate.
If you chose to not vote for her and enable Trump, that is your choice.

I will not engage you further.

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

4. Oh Jeebus.....is this. the follow-up to your legal analysis on privilege? nt

Reply to grasswire (Original post)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:40 PM

May 2016

underthematrix

(5,811 posts)

5. DAMN. There 60 pending related to HRC's personal email account and server

Reply to grasswire (Original post)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:43 PM

May 2016

Here's my question has anyone tried Judicial Watch for wasting taxpayer money on frivolous lawsuits?

grasswire

(50,130 posts)

14. thanks for the kick! nt

Reply to underthematrix (Reply #5)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:49 PM

May 2016

IdaBriggs

(10,559 posts)

16. The person responsible for the lawsuits

Reply to underthematrix (Reply #5)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:50 PM

May 2016

is Hillary Clinton, as was clearly explained by last week's report from the State Department's Inspector General. It's the law.

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)

26. hi... ready to pay for pizza!! LOL

Reply to IdaBriggs (Reply #16)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:55 PM

May 2016

IdaBriggs

(10,559 posts)

27. Already responded and on the Greatest Page, too!

Reply to OKNancy (Reply #26)

Mon May 30, 2016, 05:05 PM

May 2016

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)

7. Once the hair goes on fire ...

Reply to grasswire (Original post)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:46 PM

May 2016

grasswire

(50,130 posts)

15. thanks for the kick

Reply to JoePhilly (Reply #7)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:50 PM

May 2016

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)

19. Everyone enjoys a good bonfire.

Reply to grasswire (Reply #15)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:52 PM

May 2016

More people should see your keen legal mind at work.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)

13. This is nothing.

Reply to grasswire (Original post)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:49 PM

May 2016

I've read plenty of lawsuits. State is just trying to keep this from being a fishing expedition by forcing JW to limit their request.

This is nothing but a way for the government to foot-drag and is very common in FOIA request lawsuits.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)

18. didn't she say "anytime, anywhere?" nt

Reply to Fawke Em (Reply #13)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:51 PM

May 2016

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)

20. She did, but government's first response is to ALWAYS obfuscate and foot-drag.

Reply to grasswire (Reply #18)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:52 PM

May 2016

I've filed enough FOIA requests to know that.

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

24. Yup

Reply to Fawke Em (Reply #20)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:54 PM

May 2016

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

22. Who is the defendant in this? State

Reply to grasswire (Original post)

Mon May 30, 2016, 04:53 PM

May 2016

who defends state? The DOJ... this is standard, but it does appear to be a conflict of interest. But thanks into my downloads it goes. For the record this is not different from the DA defending the county in a civil lawsuit, while prosecuting the same person in a criminal case. Yes it happens. They usually have a solid wall between both teams, except for discovery of relevant evidence that is common to both cases.

Hell, my county has the prospect of precisely this in the next 3 years. Right now they are in Superior court with the criminal case, but after that is done. they will be in the Federal Court across the street, defending against the civil case, I can bet the Prosecutor will not be involved in the defense.

Reply to this discussion