New Disclosures on Benghazi - Part II

[The Big Dog]

With regard to the emails which were the prize for JW's big win, are they proving to be worth much?

the fact that the Judge found that the State Department failed to search for and turn over documents is in and of itself a significant victory for government transparency advocates.

The documents will be produced and their substance will be scrutinized and I am sure JW will make them available for the public and prosecutors.

 

[CapelDodger]

the fact that the Judge found that the State Department failed to search for and turn over documents is in and of itself a significant victory for government transparency advocates.

"In and of itself" suggests that you know there's nothing actually in there. What, after all, might there be? Share your wildest dreams.

 

[The Big Dog]

"In and of itself" suggests that you know there's nothing actually in there. What, after all, might there be? Share your wildest dreams.

"Know"

I just explained that the documents have not been released yet.

What I do know is that we know that the Obama administration intentionally lied about the nature of the attack for political reasons despite knowing it was false.

Will these emails shed more light on light on that fact? Time will tell.

 

[The Big Dog]

Court rules on the fact that the state department is continuing to withhold documents a couple of weeks ago, and rather address that new order, people ask the thread to be moved to "history."

Although BIRS? That is clever! How do people come up with funny, funny stuff like that.

Solid gold.

Lol

 

[Giordano]

Hillary Clinton appears to have been chosen by the Republicans as their version of Emmanuel Goldstein in Orwell's 1984. The key target of the daily "Two Minute Hate." The distraction used to prevent the population from seeing the evil that the Party is doing to them. The bogey women to trot out over and over again to frighten the citizens into uniting behind Big Brother.

It angers me that the Republican Party leadership has chosen to use such a cynical strategy, but I feel truly sorry for their followers who have bought into it. I wonder how many more times can the Repulican leaders pull out the same old tattered Clinton doll and use it to work their followers into a frothy, irrational, fevered pitch? "See, it's Clinton! Emails! Benghazi! Bill's cigar! Lock her up! No, don't look at what we're doing... Look back here. Benghazi! Emails!"

How much longer will these people remain willing to be manipulated in such a transparent manner?

And to repeat my point from up thread: I am not suggesting that Clinton has lead a blameless life or represents our most ethical politician. But come on! She is out of office and certainly will stay that way. Her worse sin in the Benghazi episode is hardly likely to prove anymore than embarrassing to her. Isn't the Republican membership getting bored with this, and/or wising up to how it is being used to manipulate them?

 

[The Don]

Hillary Clinton appears to have been chosen by the Republicans as their version of Emmanuel Goldstein in Orwell's 1984. The key target of the daily "Two Minute Hate." The distraction used to prevent the population from seeing the evil that the Party is doing to them. The bogey women to trot out over and over again to frighten the citizens into uniting behind Big Brother.

It angers me that the Republican Party leadership has chosen to use such a cynical strategy, but I feel truly sorry for their followers who have bought into it. I wonder how many more times can the Repulican leaders pull out the same old tattered Clinton doll and use it to work their followers into a frothy, irrational, fevered pitch? "See, it's Clinton! Emails! Benghazi! Bill's cigar! Lock her up! No, don't look at what we're doing... Look back here. Benghazi! Emails!"

How much longer will these people remain willing to be manipulated in such a transparent manner?

And to repeat my point from up thread: I am not suggesting that Clinton has lead a blameless life or represents our most ethical politician. But come on! She is out of office and certainly will stay that way. Her worse sin in the Benghazi episode is hardly likely to prove anymore than embarrassing to her. Isn't the Republican membership getting bored with this, and/or wising up to how it is being used to manipulate them?

Re: the highlighted...

Indefinitely, or at least until a new bogeyman/bogeywoman is found. The "red peril" lasted decades, there's no reason why Hillary Clinton cannot be used as a hate figure long after her death.

People like a hero and a heel. Pro wrestling and soap operas understand this...

 

[The Big Dog]

Re: the highlighted...

Indefinitely, or at least until a new bogeyman/bogeywoman is found. The "red peril" lasted decades, there's no reason why Hillary Clinton cannot be used as a hate figure long after her death.

People like a hero and a heel. Pro wrestling and soap operas understand this...

The Judge that entered the order this month was appointed by Bill Clinton.

And while I am CERTAIN that people are impressed with the "Leave Hillary Alone" argument, I am equally certain that the Judge entered the order giving it all due consideration.

All due consideration.

Did any of our recent correspondents actually read the Order?

 

[Giordano]

The Judge that entered the order this month was appointed by Bill Clinton.

And while I am CERTAIN that people are impressed with the "Leave Hillary Alone" argument, I am equally certain that the Judge entered the order giving it all due consideration.

All due consideration.

Did any of our recent correspondents actually read the Order?

With all due respect, I find myself wondering if you did. Because the most notable aspect of the court order is that it never states or even implies that that there is any reason to believe Clinton guilty of a crime. Instead the judge states in the Introduction that: "Although this matter began with much fanfare, the only remaining dispute is whether Defendant Department of State (“State”) conducted an adequate search for records responsive to Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc.’s FOIA request," and in the Discussion "The sole remaining dispute in this case is the adequacy of State’s search for responsive records." [emphasis mine].

If you suspect that I am quoting selectively then just read the entire 10 page document yourself.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2015cv0692-48
Nowhere is there any suggestion that there might be any evidence of wrong-doing in the emaiis. The judge does not order the extension of the State Department's search due to a suspicion of wrong doing. The order is not a search warrant! Instead the judge's order focuses exclusively on the single, technical question of if the prior responses of the State Department to Judicial Watch's request, which were extensive, nonetheless fully met FOIA standards.

To quote the judge: "Because Secretary Clinton used a personal e-mail server for work-related communications, Plaintiff’s request caused State to look beyond its own e-mail servers for responsive records. State searched three external sources: (1)acache of approximately 30,000 e-mails turned over to State by Secretary Clinton; (2) documents produced by three of her top aides—Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff; Cheryl Mills, former Chief of Staff; and Jacob Sullivan, former Director of Policy Planning; and (3) the collection of e-mails recovered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) during its investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server.

"Plaintiff asserts that State’s search was deficient in two respects. First, Plaintiff contends that State should have searched the official “state.gov” e-mail accounts of Abedin, Mills, and Sullivan to identify responsive records. Second, Plaintiff maintains that State also was required to search e-mails that the FBI discovered in the fall of 2016 during an unrelated investigation of Abedin’s husband, Anthony Weiner."

Based solely on this question (should the State have also have searched these additional accounts to fulfill the FOIA requirements) the judge decided that "State’s search was inadequate insofar as it did not search the official state.gov e- mail accounts of Secretary Clinton’s three aides, and orders State to conduct a supplemental search of those accounts. With respect to the e-mails more recently discovered by the FBI, State has agreed to search those records in another case pending in this District; therefore, the court will defer its ruling as to Plaintiff’s second challenge until State’s search of those records is complete."

The judge's order was exclusively based on a determination of if, to meet the formal requiremtrents of the FOIA, the State Department's already extensive searches needed to be extended to yet several additional accounts. It was not a determination that new information of any kind would be generated, let alone incriminating information. In fact the judge also wrote:

"Admittedly, in light of State’s efforts to date, there is a reasonable probability that the only responsive e-mails stored on State’s server are duplicates of e-mails originating from the three outside sources and, thus, have already been produced to Plaintiff. State is under no obligation to produce duplicates, and Plaintiff does not contend otherwise. "

It is amazing how the right wing is presenting this judgement as some sort of evidence of wrongdoing by Clinton. The Judge's order has nothing to do with wrongdoing- it exclusively focuses only on the question of if several additional, likely duplicative accounts also need to be searched in response to the FOIA.

 

[varwoche]

<snip for brevity>

Outstanding post, thanks.

 

[The Big Dog]

With all due respect, I find myself wondering if you did. Because the most notable aspect of the court order is that it never states or even implies that that there is any reason to believe Clinton guilty of a crime. .

Spit take....

Folks you will never see a strawman/red herring argument so blatant in your lives.

The suggestion that the court overseeing the State Department's FOIA noncompliance would comment on whether or not Clinton committed a crime is so utterly amazingly specious that it is an absolute insult to our intelligence.

In fact, the above quoted sentence should for all times be appended to the dictionary definition of specious because one shall never see it exceeded.

 

[Giordano]

Spit take....

Folks you will never see a strawman/red herring argument so blatant in your lives.

The suggestion that the court overseeing the State Department's FOIA noncompliance would comment on whether or not Clinton committed a crime is so utterly amazingly specious that it is an absolute insult to our intelligence.

In fact, the above quoted sentence should for all times be appended to the dictionary definition of specious because one shall never see it exceeded.

It is nice that I stand out so much in your viewpoint, but I suspect that you must have had a sequestered life and your analysis of my post is just a little over the top. Here, allow me to explain:

1. Everything I posted was absolutely accurate and completely, fully and authentically reflected the entirety of the judge's decision. This of course includes the sentence you thoughtfully cited and bolded.

2. In contrast more than once you trotted out the judge's court order in support of your argument that the State Department is engaged in a intentional coverup and to imply that the court had advanced some indication of Clinton's culpability. But neither of these is true of the actual court order, which does not address either point in any way.

3. Therefore the court order you and the right have gloated over turns out to present no evidence, no speculation, and no hint of Clinton having committed a crime, a nasty (but legal) deed, an embarrassing faux-pas, an ineptitude, or even a tiny error. Not only is it exclusively focused on the technical question of what is appropriate for fulfilling an FOIA, it actually states that it is unlikely that any new emails will be identified in the wider search now mandated.

4. I never claimed, implied, or suggested that the court order was evidence of Clinton’s innocence. My post was entirely that the court order was not akin to a search warrant as many on the right have implied. It did not even accuse the State Department of having any improper motive in not previously releasing the remaining emails. The order was just a run of the mill adjudication of the statutory limits of FOIA requests.

I've achieved my only goal: the exact significance and implications of the judge's order have been clarified for the forum.

I must go for now but will return.

Oh, BTW, I've never heard a "spit take" before, ISF is educational!

 

[The Big Dog]

1. Everything I posted was absolutely accurate and completely, fully and authentically reflected the entirety of the judge's decision. This of course includes the sentence you thoughtfully cited and bolded.

well golly, when you put it that way, it also is truthful and factual absolutely accurate and completely true that the judge made no comment whatsoever on the fact that Huma Abedin's husband is the king of sexting, and that Bill Clinton stained Ms. Lewinsky's dress.

Oh ho! You retort, but that wasn't the issue or even before the Judge, you reply. EXACTLY. And the suggestion that the judge's silence on an issue that was not before him is noteworthy let alone meaningful is absolutely frivolous.

Your "goal' as it were was to create a strawman and "knock it down."

Although I have long been beguiled by the argument that Clinton did not create a crime, because I can flat out think of no bar that could possible be set lower. Sure she was an unelectable, incompetent, lying fraud, but not an actual felon!

High praise indeed.

 

[Giordano]

well golly, when you put it that way, it also is truthful and factual absolutely accurate and completely true that the judge made no comment whatsoever on the fact that Huma Abedin's husband is the king of sexting, and that Bill Clinton stained Ms. Lewinsky's dress.

Oh ho! You retort, but that wasn't the issue or even before the Judge, you reply. EXACTLY. And the suggestion that the judge's silence on an issue that was not before him is noteworthy let alone meaningful is absolutely frivolous.
Your "goal' as it were was to create a strawman and "knock it down."

Although I have long been beguiled by the argument that Clinton did not create a crime, because I can flat out think of no bar that could possible be set lower. Sure she was an unelectable, incompetent, lying fraud, but not an actual felon!

High praise indeed.

Once again I failed to adequately communicate to you my central point. Oddly my point is something that we absolutely agree on: the judge was silent as to Clinton's guilt or innocence. His order had nothing to do with her guilt or innocence or the judge's opinion of her guilt or innocence.Therefore anyone interpreting or referencing this court order as suggestive of her culpability (or absence of same) would be wrong.

Further, we agree (I trust) that his order was silent on whether the State Department had any nefarious motive in not releasing the requested emails. In this regard I will note his observation that in addition to its own emails "State searched three external sources: (1)acache of approximately 30,000 e-mails turned over to State by Secretary Clinton; (2) documents produced by three of her top aides—Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff; Cheryl Mills, former Chief of Staff; and Jacob Sullivan, former Director of Policy Planning; and (3) the collection of e-mails recovered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) during its investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server, " and State has agreed to search and reelease "e-mails that the FBI discovered in the fall of 2016 during an unrelated investigation of Abedin’s husband, Anthony Weiner." He also noted that "Admittedly, in light of State’s efforts to date, there is a reasonable probability that the only responsive e-mails stored on State’s server are duplicates of e-mails originating from the three outside sources and, thus, have already been produced to Plaintiff." I interpret this list of what the State Department has already done as indicative of a fairly extensive prior response by the State Department to previous requests for Clinton's emails. I also interpret this as indicating you will likely be very disappointed by the release of the additional emails.

But indeed the judge neither suggested State participated in a cover up nor absolved them of the same.

How nice- we agree on these points after all.

 

[Giordano]

"Know"

I just explained that the documents have not been released yet.

What I do know is that we know that the Obama administration intentionally lied about the nature of the attack for political reasons despite knowing it was false.
Will these emails shed more light on light on that fact? Time will tell.

And how do you know that?

 

[The Big Dog]

And how do you know that?

because I have read the Rhodes memo and the CIA/COD/FBI docs directly contradicting it, obviously

 

[PhantomWolf]

I am sure that there is enough in there to impeach President Clinton and get her out of office.... oh, wait...

 

[NoahFence]

"Know"

I just explained that the documents have not been released yet.

What I do know is that we know that the Obama administration intentionally lied about the nature of the attack for political reasons despite knowing it was false.

Will these emails shed more light on light on that fact? Time will tell.

Too bad your savior has us in a world where such a "lie" is so trivial.

 

[The Big Dog]

Too bad your savior has us in a world where such a "lie" is so trivial.

my savior? i am a bit confused. because what you just posted has zero to do with anything.

Edited by jsfisher: 

...snip... Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[snoop_doxie]

Too bad your savior has us in a world where such a "lie" is so trivial.

It's almost quaint.

The desperation to change the subject to anything besides the clown
and **** show in the White House has gone from the ridiculous to
the sublime.

Within an hour switch again.

Trying to wring something out of Benghazi now is SAD!

Meanwhile, Mueller is sending out subpoenas, for an ongoing current investigation.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The Judge that entered the order this month was appointed by Bill Clinton.

Why is who appointed the judge relevant ?