quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A second federal judge has taken the rare step of allowing a group suing for records from Hillary Clinton's time as U.S. secretary of state to seek sworn testimony from officials, saying there was "evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith."

quote:

An understanding of the facts and circumstances surrounding Secretary Clinton’s extraordinary and exclusive use of her “clintonemail.com” account to conduct official government business, as well as other officials’ use of this account and their own personal e-mail accounts to conduct official government business is required before the Court can determine whether the search conducted here reasonably produced all responsive documents. Plaintiff is certainly entitled to dispute the State Department’s position that it has no obligation to produce these documents because it did not “possess” or “control” them at the time the FOIA request was made. The State Department’s willingness to now search documents voluntarily turned over to the Department by Secretary Clinton and other officials hardly transforms such a search into an “adequate” or “reasonable” one. Plaintiff is not relying on “speculation” or “surmise” as the State Department claims. Plaintiff is relying on constantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials. Whether the State Department’s actions will ultimately be determined by the Court to not be “acting in good faith” remains to be seen at this time, but plaintiff is clearly entitled to discovery and a record before this Court rules on that issue.

The Court must observe that the Government argues in its opposition memorandum that “the fact that State did not note that it had not searched Secretary Clinton’s e-mails when it responded to Plaintiffs FOIA request … was neither a misrepresentation nor material omission, because these documents were not in its possession and control when the original search was completed.” The Government argues that this does not show a lack of good faith, but that is what remains to be seen, and the factual record must be developed appropriately in order for this Court to make that determination.

quote:

Judge Sullivan is expected to rule on Judicial Watch’s discovery plan after April 15. Judicial Watch’s discovery plan seeks the testimony of eight current and former State Department officials, including top State Department official Patrick Kennedy, former State IT employee Bryan Pagliano, and Clinton’s two top aides at the State Department: Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin.

“This remarkable decision will allow Judicial Watch to explore the shifting stories and misrepresentations made by the Obama State Department and its current and former employees,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This Benghazi litigation first uncovered the Clinton email scandal, so it is good to have discovery in this lawsuit which may help the American people find out why our efforts to get Benghazi answers was thwarted by Clinton’s email games.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I read those articles, some time ago, and I wonder why a private organization is allowed standing in this matter.
I wonder what this nutsucker organization will uncover that several nutsucker investigations and 150 FBI agents couldn't. I am unable to see anything at all.
Of course, having a go ahead is far far away from compelling any testimony.

But it is extraordinary that such a thing is even remotely constitutional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

his name is nutsucker, nothing he does is legal.


I know you dont have a fucking clue about the constitution, but these are nutsuckers legislating from the bench.

They cannot compel anything in reality. So, they can file FOIA but thats it. Limited discovery. They aint getting shit that anybody else aint got.

This is hysterical asswipe about nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I read those articles, some time ago, and I wonder why a private organization is allowed standing in this matter.
I wonder what this nutsucker organization will uncover that several nutsucker investigations and 150 FBI agents couldn't. I am unable to see anything at all.
Of course, having a go ahead is far far away from compelling any testimony.

But it is extraordinary that such a thing is even remotely constitutional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I read those articles, some time ago, and I wonder why a private organization is allowed standing in this matter.
I wonder what this nutsucker organization will uncover that several nutsucker investigations and 150 FBI agents couldn't. I am unable to see anything at all.
Of course, having a go ahead is far far away from compelling any testimony.

But it is extraordinary that such a thing is even remotely constitutional.

LOL. Really? What constitutional issue do you *possibly* think occurs?

Judicial Watch made FOIA inquiries as permitted by law. The government is supposed to respond within two weeks. Two years later the government had not complied. JW filed suit, seeking redress.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that Clinton used two different email addresses, sometimes interchangeably, as secretary of state. She used only [email protected] as secretary of state. Also, an earlier version of this article reported that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. Two U.S. law enforcement officials have since told The Washington Post that figure is too high. The FBI will not provide an exact figure, but the officials say the number of FBI personnel involved is fewer than 50.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

nm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



Your correction is wrong. I did MAILTO: testing on HRC's server, two? years ago. I found 22 email addresses; more than one of them had been used. At the time her email server had unsecured LDAP. Since hacking the unsecured LDAP would have been of questionable legality I didn't do it. But I am quite sure others did.

She had web services enabled on her server, with a simple 4 letter password, plain text. Her server had not had a single patch applied. Out of the box, the server cam with default admin and guest accounts enabled. They did not have any root certificates enabled.

All these things werea gainst microsoft policy, fixed in later versions of microsofts server. Initially they did not have an antivirus or even a firewall. Those two items did get added after a few months. But they used a very low grade firewall. Home business grade, infact.

quote:


The Hillary Clinton email probe is getting very close to becoming another full-blown Clinton scandal. David Shuster of Al Jazeera reported on March 30th that the FBI is arranging interviews with former State Department aides Philippe Reines, Former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Clinton herself. Shuster also scooped that Justice Department prosecutors are joining the FBI team of investigators.

Here are some things that need to be understood regarding this email probe based on what has been reported. The LA Times recently reported that interviews are being arranged for the FBI to speak to HRC associates. This infers that all the preliminary investigation into this matter has been done.

The fact that subpoenas for interviews have been submitted and that one of HRC’s aides has been granted immunity means a grand jury exists to approve of the immunity and interviews.

Weeks ago it was revealed that Bryan Pagliano, the person granted immunity failed to inform his employers at the State Deptartment that while in their employ he was also employed by HRC to manage her private email server. Persons who have been US prosecutors with knowledge of the laws regarding the Clinton server have stated that it was unlawful of Pagliano to not inform his government employers he was also privately working for Secretary Clinton.

That he knew he was in violation because of this would be a strong motivation to cooperate with the FBI investigation. The crux of the case against HRC according to knowledgeable people of these laws have stated that the very existence of her private email server was a violation of law regarding national security.

We know Clinton never used the .gov email account that was created for her. It is very important to understand that HRC as Secretary of State was one of ten members of the government that had the authority to make a document classified. Like all government employees at this level, HRC signed a document that clearly states she is responsible and accountable for information that is classified regardless of when it is given the status of classified. This cuts through the smokescreen of the defense that documents that went through HRC’s private server were later identified as classified and that is all she had done. She was expected by way of law to know which material by its inherent nature was deemed worthy of this classification....

An obvious reason for HRC to want to control all of her email by private server became readily apparent when after her time as Secretary of State individuals and organizations put in FOIA requests regarding her emails. The State Department ultimately came back with the response to these requests that there were no documents to be found. The State Department mislead the requesters by not informing them that they could not be found because they were not on a government server but a private server. This would indicate the possibility that some of her old employees were trying to protect her. These would probably be the same employees who did not think to question why their Secretary of State did not use a .gov email. Apparently HRC is such an intimidating figure that no one in government thought to question this matter of national security.

In regards to access of her emails if she would have used a .gov email then not only FOIA requests were a concern for HRC but also the fact that thousands of individuals could have access to her emails. Given the Clintons penchant for scandals and their subsequent secrets it does not take any imagination to conclude why HRC only used a private server. She expected to have something to hide. The only reasonable conclusion to be made by all of this is that HRC prioritized her ability to keep secrets over the needs of national security. There is one particular area of interest that is being speculated she wanted to hide and might have been included in the 30K emails she destroyed...

President Obama and Loretta Lynch are very likely going to have a big decision to make regarding this matter. They of course do not want to deal with this but given how secrets have a way to getting to the media in DC this is certainly not something they will be able to shove under a rug even if they were tempted to. Most likely this hot potato will be passed on by them to a Special Counsel. Hopefully, once its obvious this is not going to go away easily that Hillary will withdraw from the nomination process for president. However, even though this would be the right thing to do, is it what Hillary will do? That is quite up in the air when there are three factors in their behavior that are quite consistent. They are very selfish, they fervently believe rules and laws do not apply to them, and they are totally committed to the pay to play practices that dominate US politics...