Latest Breaking News

Gman

(24,780 posts)

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

Reply to seafan (Original post)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 12:01 PM

Apr 2016

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

105 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

State Department wants limits on questioning of Clinton aides [View all] seafan Apr 2016 OP

Stonewalling for Clinton FreakinDJ Apr 2016 #1

No doubt about it. forest444 Apr 2016 #40

Why should Judicial Watch ask about classified material? nnt msanthrope Apr 2016 #44

No attorney greiner3 Apr 2016 #56

What? no. nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #60

Gee, didn't they just say they were going to back out of the jwirr Apr 2016 #2

Yeah. They did. Guess there's somthing criminal to uncover after all. Bubzer Apr 2016 #24

I suspect that this might be to limit the extent of the inquiries to things karynnj Apr 2016 #26

they've stopped their *own* internal investigation of the emails. magical thyme Apr 2016 #54

You know this isn't about the FBI investigation, right? nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #55

WHAT are they afraid of? Kip Humphrey Apr 2016 #3

How can we trust Hillary enough to support her if there is an appearance of something to hide? TxGrandpa Apr 2016 #7

Ask her supporters. They've been doing it all along. Zira Apr 2016 #104

Why would you want Judicial Watch looking at classified info? nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #51

See my post above greiner3 Apr 2016 #58

Probably that what was done to Bill would be done to Hillary where they try to nail her for cstanleytech Apr 2016 #82

Hmmm... Judicial Watch... beastie boy Apr 2016 #4

I have faith in the FBI to act in accordance with their duties. Indictment of HRC wont suprise me. Bubzer Apr 2016 #25

To tel you the truth, I also have more confidence in FBI than in Judicial Watch beastie boy Apr 2016 #32

That's fair. Bubzer Apr 2016 #41

Let us hope.... AlbertCat Apr 2016 #5

So you support Judicial Watch being able to interfere with an ongoing investigation geek tragedy Apr 2016 #6

Are they breaking any laws? Or are you a Clinton see-no-evil? Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #8

No. But this post is whining that the State Department isn't allowing a rightwing group geek tragedy Apr 2016 #9

I thought about it. They have every right to do what they are doing. Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #13

and the state department has every right to ask that they not be allowed by the court geek tragedy Apr 2016 #14

Well, I agree with you! hamsterjill Apr 2016 #18

I don't often agree with you, but on this point... tex-wyo-dem Apr 2016 #29

I do. Period. BlueMTexpat Apr 2016 #64

Of course they have a right to ask. But they don't get to decide. Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #72

Do they? First, of all, the State Department request appears to set limits on karynnj Apr 2016 #27

But your putting the onus on the plaintiffs rather than the court. Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #71

As you note, State is requesting these guidelines from the judge -but the judge can ignore this karynnj Apr 2016 #73

Um... I'm not a Hillary hater, but... RiverNoord Apr 2016 #33

allowing them to ask potential witnesses under oath about the subject geek tragedy Apr 2016 #37

Except the FBI isn't complaining, it's the State Department. branford Apr 2016 #67

yes, we agree that they are entitled to ask about FOIA. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #68

The State Department is its own worst enemy. branford Apr 2016 #74

Lol - I just wrote the same thing about a possible FBI request to intervene... RiverNoord Apr 2016 #78

OK.... I spent a short and really unpleasant time on the 'Judicial Watch' RiverNoord Apr 2016 #77

the key point I would make is that unless Judicial Watch geek tragedy Apr 2016 #81

That could be a very dangerous strategy if it appears remotely abusive, dilatory or deceptive, branford Apr 2016 #88

I imagine the witnesses' own counsel would make geek tragedy Apr 2016 #89

Too many objections like that could be a big problem in itself. branford Apr 2016 #93

the judge can't sanction witnesses for invoking their 5th amendment rights geek tragedy Apr 2016 #94

Basically true, but with respect to the OP and our Party, the issues are indeed political. branford Apr 2016 #97

That's a far cry from: RiverNoord Apr 2016 #95

that all makes sense. one thing I was teasing out in another discussion geek tragedy Apr 2016 #96

It's more likely that the court will permit leeway in questioning during the depositions, branford Apr 2016 #98

Yes, that's probably equally possible. RiverNoord Apr 2016 #99

I am indeed a commercial litigation attorney in NYC, branford Apr 2016 #102

My apology - I thought at least two of the deposed were still with State. RiverNoord Apr 2016 #100

Yep--the Clinton Foundation is the reason the Clinton groupies at State are shitting TwilightGardener Apr 2016 #10

Most, if not all of the Clinton groupies at State, departed soon after she did karynnj Apr 2016 #30

Obama allowed her way too much leeway to turn the State Dept. into her private TwilightGardener Apr 2016 #31

Agreed karynnj Apr 2016 #35

Obama dropped the ball with her at State. She was running a rogue agency, a snake on his chest. nt thereismore Apr 2016 #46

That is certainly take on this email kerfuffle. It will ultimately expose HRC's pay-to-play 99th_Monkey Apr 2016 #47

Hell no, they need to answer ALL the questions. onecaliberal Apr 2016 #11

Hard to imagine what national interests would justify such limitations. Scuba Apr 2016 #12

because they're irrelevant to a FOIA lawsuit. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #15

My sympathies like with open and honest government. Scuba Apr 2016 #20

then you should have no problem with deposition questions geek tragedy Apr 2016 #21

Pretzel logic. Scuba Apr 2016 #22

so, you favor allowing rightwing groups to force Democratic officials to answer any question geek tragedy Apr 2016 #23

That won't happen, geek. Punkingal Apr 2016 #38

Don't bother arguing with the right wing trolls Democat Apr 2016 #50

a long time DU poster with 50K plus posts is a "rightwing troll"? stupidicus Apr 2016 #62

If you are fighting for Judicial Watch against a Democrat Democat Apr 2016 #66

Or, the person is an actual liberal and progressive, branford Apr 2016 #75

some simply lack the mental acuity to resolve things into the distinct things they are stupidicus Apr 2016 #86

says a rightwing troll stupidicus Apr 2016 #85

I will happily support either Democratic candidate over Trump or Cruz Democat Apr 2016 #105

The stonewalling on both sides should stop. LiberalArkie Apr 2016 #16

.. Jarqui Apr 2016 #17

Give it to Judicial Watch, and you can be sure they will find all those guns. beastie boy Apr 2016 #19

you realize that Judge Emmet Sullivan is a 2-time Obama appointee magical thyme Apr 2016 #57

The judge permitted a "narrowly tailored" discovery beastie boy Apr 2016 #76

and the judge in question may subpoena CLinton's entire email account magical thyme Apr 2016 #84

The State Department already turned over the entire system to the FBI beastie boy Apr 2016 #90

You'd have to ask the judge that magical thyme Apr 2016 #91

So many right wing pro-Trump trolls on this thread Democat Apr 2016 #28

Secrecy and FOIA avoidance is great, as long as it's OUR side. OnyxCollie Apr 2016 #65

It's not like the State Dept Lifers have a vested interest in limiting investigations to the mulsh Apr 2016 #34

You've got to give them credit. They've gone with one lawyer to Jarqui Apr 2016 #36

It gives the impression they're hiding something. Vinca Apr 2016 #39

BFD. it's nothing more than a right wing witch hunt anyway Gman Apr 2016 #42

Reminder: the judge in question is a 2-time Obama appointee. magical thyme Apr 2016 #59

Hillary didn't attempt to circumvent a damn thing Gman Apr 2016 #79

BS. No SOS prior or since has required a private, home server magical thyme Apr 2016 #83

Whatever Gman Apr 2016 #87

no need to but hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. nt magical thyme Apr 2016 #92

Naturally. The stink continues to grow. n/t bvf Apr 2016 #43

We have one government agency blocking another government agency. Lovely. nt thereismore Apr 2016 #45

When the fuck did Judicial Watch become a government agency? nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #52

The drip, drip, drip... SoapBox Apr 2016 #48

Why should Judicial Watch ask about classified material? nnt msanthrope Apr 2016 #53

I am going to play devils advocate and say you are right. Ash_F Apr 2016 #70

No red flag there... LS_Editor Apr 2016 #49

What is the definition of criminal conspiracy in the context of it is a crime to conceal crimes us- bobthedrummer Apr 2016 #61

of course they do stupidicus Apr 2016 #63

good for the State Dept. riversedge Apr 2016 #69

Too much fishing. LiberalFighter Apr 2016 #80

This tells me AgerolanAmerican Apr 2016 #101

Corruption in the state department Zira Apr 2016 #103