Latest Breaking News

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)

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

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 12:40 PM

Apr 2016

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.

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