Deadlines loom for answers in Clinton email probe as U.S. judge sets discovery

[Land of Enchantment]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by In_The_Wind (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Washington Post

A federal judge on Wednesday directed State Department officials and top aides to Hillary Clinton to answer questions under oath by June 29 about whether they intentionally thwarted federal open-records laws by allowing Clinton’s use of a private email server throughout her tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in Washington sets the stage for responses before July’s presidential nominating conventions — but does not ensure cooperation — from at least six current and former top officials, including Cheryl D. Mills, who was Clinton’s chief of staff at State; Huma Abedin, Mills’s deputy who now is vice chairman of Clinton’s Democratic presidential campaign; and Bryan Pagliano, a Clinton staff member during her 2008 presidential campaign who helped set up the private server.

While Sullivan did not permit questioning of Clinton herself for now, he wrote that the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch may ask to do so later if it thinks “based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.”

Sullivan’s 15-page written opinion and order came after lawyers for the government agreed to a narrowed scope of questions requested by Judicial Watch. The group filed a lawsuit over its 2013 public-records request for information concerning Abedin’s employment arrangement.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/deadlines-loom-for-answers-in-clinton-email-probe-as-us-judge-sets-discovery/2016/05/04/a661d4e2-121e-11e6-93ae-50921721165d_story.html

---

[pnwmom]

1. Here's her answer: no. She didn't. She knew that all her emails to and from .gov

accounts would be saved, and available there; and the rest she retained on her server -- and provided as soon as it was requested.

[Press Virginia]

6. Explains why the government had to ask her

to return government property

[NWCorona]

14. The state department had to repeatedly ask for Clinton's emails

[pnwmom]

15. No, they asked her once. She didn't resist. But it took a month to go through 55,000 emails.

Big deal.

[NWCorona]

16. Not true. They asked for them multiple times going back to June 2014

And the state shouldn't have even had to ask for them.

[pnwmom]

21. Link, please. Here's mine.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

Why did the State Department ask for assistance in collecting records? Why did the State Department need assistance in further meeting its requirements under the Federal Records Act?

The State Department formally requested the assistance of the four previous former Secretaries in a letter to their representatives dated October 28, 2014, to help in further meeting the Department’s requirements under the Federal Records Act.

The letter stated that in September 2013, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) issued new guidance clarifying records management responsibilities regarding the use of personal email accounts for government business.

While this guidance was issued after all four former Secretaries had departed office, the Department decided to ensure its records were as complete as possible and sought copies of work emails sent or received by the Secretaries on their own accounts.

[NWCorona]

23. And here's mine.

"This article has been updated.

Throughout the controversy over her use of a private e-mail system while she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton has described her decision last year to turn over thousands of work-related e-mails as a response to a routine-sounding records request.

“When we were asked to help the State Department make sure they had everything from other secretaries of state, not just me, I’m the one who said, ‘Okay, great, I will go through them again,’ ” Clinton said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And we provided all of them.”

But State Department officials provided new information Tuesday that undercuts Clinton’s characterization. They said the request was not simply about general rec­ord-keeping but was prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system. They also said they first contacted her in the summer of 2014, at least three months before the agency asked Clinton and three of her predecessors to provide their e-mails"




https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-departments-account-of-e-mail-request-differs-from-clintons/2015/09/22/54cd66bc-5ed9-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html

[Ash_F]

18. Yes she did. She had her lawyers stiff arm the State Department

[pnwmom]

20. Link, please. n/t

[Ash_F]

24. Here

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-asks-state-dept-to-review-emails-for-public-release.html?ref=politics&_r=1

[pnwmom]

25. . . .

The letter cited in your link below was dated October 28 and she provided the email on December 5 -- a very quick turn-around.

In October, the State Department sent a letter to Mrs. Clinton and all former secretaries of state back to Madeleine K. Albright, seeking emails and other documents in their possession that related to their government work.

Finally, in December, dozens of boxes filled with 50,000 pages of printed emails from Mrs. Clinton’s personal account were delivered to the State Department. Those documents were then examined by department lawyers, who found roughly 900 pages pertaining to the Benghazi attacks.

[Ash_F]

27. Negotiations began in August

[pnwmom]

28. Whatever the heck that means. n/t

[Ash_F]

29. It means it did not take them "1 month"

[pnwmom]

30. It took them five weeks from the time the letter was sent. And there was no official

request till the letter was sent.

[Ash_F]

31. Right just State Department officials making a request

...and then being told to meet with her lawyers.

[pnwmom]

32. The only thing we know for sure is that an official written request was sent on October 28.

And that's also the bottom line.

[Ash_F]

33. I don't think the Times was the only news source that reported on the Summer negotiations.

I am pretty sure that is not made up.

[pnwmom]

36. Nothing matters till the written letter was sent. n/t

[Ash_F]

38. To you maybe

I submit a lot of FOIAs as part of my work. It is supposed to take no more than 20 days.

Now it is coming out anyway. She should have just complied instead of lawyering up.

[pnwmom]

39. How many do you send involving 55,000 pages of emails?

[Ash_F]

43. None, but those belonged to the government in the first place

They could not even begin to respond to the FOIA until they got their own stuff back. She subverted the whole process.

[pnwmom]

44. Meh. n/t

[Android3.14]

35. After all, your source is Clinton's own website, and therefore completely trustworthy

This thing is an albatross.

[pnwmom]

37. Please prove that it isn't accurate that the first written request was sent on October 28.

Because this is a letter repeating that date that was issued by the National Archives.

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2015/pdf/state-dept-response-to-wester-04-02-2015.pdf


As you know, NARA has been updating its guidance on the management of emails. In furtherance of that guidance and to ensure that our records are as complete as possible, on October 28, 2014, Under Secretary Kennedy sent a letter to the representatives of former Secretaries Clinton, Powell, Rice, and Albright to request that copies of federal records be made available to the Department (see1attachments 4-7).

[pnwmom]

40. The same information is available from the National Archives.

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2015/pdf/state-dept-response-to-wester-04-02-2015.pdf


As you know, NARA has been updating its guidance on the management of emails. In furtherance of that guidance and to ensure that our records are as complete as possible, on October 28, 2014, Under Secretary Kennedy sent a letter to the representatives of former Secretaries Clinton, Powell, Rice, and Albright to request that copies of federal records be made available to the Department (see1attachments 4-7).

[leftofcool]

2. judicial watch BHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

These stupid right wing pigs still want to know why Huma got maternity leave.

[JonLeibowitz]

9. let me guess....

....she had a child?



These Republicans sure don't know much about women, pregnancies, or families!

[Chicago1980]

19. And some Sanders supporters are lapping it up like water out of a dog bowl.

[COLGATE4]

42. More like dogs lapping up water out of a toilet bowl. nt

[OwlinAZ]

45. where are supporters of Senator Sanders commenting at all?

(Hillary trolls)

[Chicago1980]

46. No Hillary troll, truth teller.

I see people continuously mentioning 'indictment' or email that have the Bernie avatar.

I've seen posts like that on DU an`d elsewhere.

Keep your eyes open and you'll see them too.

[Android3.14]

47. Only a fool treats these guys like fools.

You may disagree with their choices of who to pursue, but these guys are effective and usually know they can win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch#Major_investigations_and_lawsuits

[Skittles]

3. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[tomm2thumbs]

4. seems like the Clinton folks are good at closing their ears, with lots of zzzzzzzzzzz's

I don't think general election voters will be so inclined

[mooseprime]

8. i believe it's been demonstrated to the satisfaction of many

that laws don't apply to certain people. so bringing up that they may have broken the law is annoying and tiresome.

[beastie boy]

12. Indeed! Who needs any legally acceptable proof of guit when certain people are perfectly happy with

guilt by association! Screw the laws and due process!

[leftofcool]

34. I am so sorry you agree with judicial watch over Huma's maternity leave.

That is what this is about you know?

[tomm2thumbs]

41. first sentence

"A federal judge on Wednesday directed State Department officials and top aides to Hillary Clinton to answer questions under oath by June 29 about whether they intentionally thwarted federal open-records laws by allowing Clinton’s use of a private email server throughout her tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013."

[haikugal]

5. Some here laugh at FOIA and I find that curious for liberals, very curious.

[Maedhros]

17. Come on - you and I both know that those people aren't liberals.

Not by a long shot.

[haikugal]

22. Yeah, but I was being kind by calling them liberals, not correct.

[Land of Enchantment]

7. I thought the date was interesting. This part of the story

is at least moving along faster than a snail's pace. I imagine Pagliano will take the 5th, as usual.

[cstanleytech]

10. Hell I probably would take the 5th as well especially considering what they went on to nail

Bill for.

[Land of Enchantment]

11. Yeah, I think he can plead the 5th in

this lawsuit but got immunity from the DoJ for the FBI investigation...OH--I meant 'security review'...

[cstanleytech]

13. Unless its a blanket immunity for both state and federal crimes

I would probably tell them to go fuck themselves especially given how the Republicans have shown how spiteful they can be to go after someone for lying about a blowjob.

[grasswire]

26. remember - this is not the FBI investigation

This is a civil suit related to FOIA.

[In_The_Wind]

48. Locking Duplicate Thread. Continue this discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1437293


[img][/img]