Ex-Aide to Hillary Clinton Testifies About Email Server

a reply to: atomish

ETA: I believe other users have posted the agreement she signed that has been put forth as proof she did indeed know what her responsibilities as an OCA were. I will try to find this if someone else doesn't post it first.

Here it is on Scribd

Its pretty clear as to what her responsibility was and it is equally clear that she failed in that responsibility, on numerous occasions.

originally posted by: atomish
I believe EO13526 from Dec 29, 2009 is what designates the SoS as an OCA.

a reply to: butcherguy

Duly impressed. Thanks for enlightening me. There's no doubt she broke the law in my mind now ... Could have been charged with a felony even.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: atomish

ETA: I believe other users have posted the agreement she signed that has been put forth as proof she did indeed know what her responsibilities as an OCA were. I will try to find this if someone else doesn't post it first.

Here it is on Scribd

Its pretty clear as to what her responsibility was and it is equally clear that she failed in that responsibility, on numerous occasions.

That's the one!

Thanks for picking up my slack.

originally posted by: Snarl
Duly impressed. Thanks for enlightening me. There's no doubt she broke the law in my mind now ... Could have been charged with a felony even.

I am still trying to wrap my head around this whole thing but from what I can see so far, it does not look good for her.

As far as what law was broken or what she could be charged with for what seems like, at the very least, a wanton disregard for her position as a classifying authority, I don't know. I would like to hear specifics on that if possible but regardless of whether or not an indictment is handed down or even recommended, she does not seem fit to hold office in my opinion.

One thing is for sure, I can definitely see now why friends, family and people I've spoken to online that are or have been involved in the intelligence community or have held clearances are so taken aback by this whole thing. It's concerning, to say the least.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Another point to note is that this is the lawsuit in which the judge determined that the State Department did not act in good faith in response to a FOIA request and the Hillary could be deposed depending on what is learned in the current round of discovery.

Oh, one more thing. The judge who made the above determination was appointed by Bill.

Thanks for adding interesting and pertinent comments to the thread!

I can't wait to see the public release of Luken's deposition, it should be a good read or ummm bad for Hilley!

Anticipation is making me wait!

Release of the transcript could cause Hillary to excuse herself from the election.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Release of the transcript could cause Hillary to excuse herself from the election.

No, they will have to pry the nomination out of her cold....

lol!

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: atomish
I believe EO13526 from Dec 29, 2009 is what designates the SoS as an OCA.

a reply to: butcherguy

Duly impressed. Thanks for enlightening me. There's no doubt she broke the law in my mind now ... Could have been charged with a felony even.

Depending on the contents of those 30,000 deleted emails that the NsA most probably have, as well as the Russians and Guciffer, they could possible add fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, espionage and treason. One can dream...

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: AlaskanDad

You're welcome. I appreciate that.

The Clintons have a long history of sidestepping consequences.

In this particular circumstance, it will be determined whether or not there was a deliberate attempt to circumventing FOIA laws in the way she dealt with her communications while Secretary of State.

Limited discovery was granted, and I dont know if they will be able to go beyond these questions:

1. Who was responsible for processing and/or responding to record requests, including FOIA requests, concerning emails of Mrs. Clinton and other employees of the Office of the Secretary;

2. Who was responsible for the inventorying or other
accounting of Mrs. Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’. emails, records, and information;

3. Who was responsible for responding to Plaintiff’. FOIA request from the date of submission to the present; and

4. Which State Department officials and employees had and/or used an account on the clintonemail.com system to conduct official government business.

i don't know if they get follow up questions.

The judge's comments:

Discovery is rare in FOIA cases.

...

Discovery should be permitted, however, when a plaintiff raises a sufficient question as to the agency’s good faith in processing documents in response to a FOIA request.

...

Relying on the facts discussed above, Judicial Watch raises significant questions in its Motion for Discovery about whether the State Department processed documents in good faithin response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request. Judicial Watch is therefore entitled to limited discovery.

emphasis mine

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: atomish
I believe EO13526 from Dec 29, 2009 is what designates the SoS as an OCA.

a reply to: butcherguy

Duly impressed. Thanks for enlightening me. There's no doubt she broke the law in my mind now ... Could have been charged with a felony even.

Depending on the contents of those 30,000 deleted emails that the NsA most probably have, as well as the Russians and Guciffer, they could possible add fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, espionage and treason. One can dream...

Cheers - Dave

It's Conspiracy to commit a crime that always gets overlooked. If there are two or more people involved in a criminal activity, that's a free felony charge.

I don't think felons are eligible candidates for POTUS. The left may get to feel the bern after all.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: atomish
I believe EO13526 from Dec 29, 2009 is what designates the SoS as an OCA.

a reply to: butcherguy

Duly impressed. Thanks for enlightening me. There's no doubt she broke the law in my mind now ... Could have been charged with a felony even.

Depending on the contents of those 30,000 deleted emails that the NsA most probably have, as well as the Russians and Guciffer, they could possible add fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, espionage and treason. One can dream...

Cheers - Dave

It's Conspiracy to commit a crime that always gets overlooked. If there are two or more people involved in a criminal activity, that's a free felony charge.

I don't think felons are eligible candidates for POTUS. The left may get to feel the bern after all.

I would like to see Bernie given a fair shake even though I prefer Trump, but fair is fair. Unfortunately Hillary probably has so much dirt on so many career criminals, er I mean politicians, she is making it difficult. But then both sides are doing the same thing to people's choices. If the establishment doesn’t want a popular revolution, they will charge Hillary. I can't see so many empassioned people from both sides standing for that corrupt witch as POTUS.

Cheers - Dave

Damage !!!!

The president of the watchdog group Judicial Watch says that information that a former State Department official provided about Hillary Clinton and her private email system in a lawsuit deposition conducted on Wednesday will be embarrassing for the former secretary of state.

Tom Fitton, whose group is suing the State Department, says he is restricted in what he can legally say about an interview conducted with Lewis Lukens, who served as deputy assistant secretary of state and the executive directory of the secretariat during Clinton’s tenure. But the Judicial Watch president did tell The Daily Caller that Clinton will not be pleased with the information he provided.

“The testimony was not helpful for Clinton or the State Department,” Fitton told TheDC in a phone interview.

Judicial Watch President: State Dept. Official’s Deposition Was ‘Embarrassing’ For Hillary

they gotta get to Huma Abedin - she knows everything

a reply to: xuenchen

De ja vus?

Now, that being said, it could possibly impact the FBI investigation if any answers given in these depositions conflict what the FBI knows already based upon what they've learned from Clinton's, the State Department's, and Pagliano's server.

I would imagine the FBI would be quite interested in the testimony given during these depositions.

If they are found as having intentionally tried getting around FOIA law, the rest if their arguments evaporate pretty quickly.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: xuenchen

De ja vus?

Now, that being said, it could possibly impact the FBI investigation if any answers given in these depositions conflict what the FBI knows already based upon what they've learned from Clinton's, the State Department's, and Pagliano's server.

I would imagine the FBI would be quite interested in the testimony given during these depositions.

If they are found as having intentionally tried getting around FOIA law, the rest if their arguments evaporate pretty quickly.

That's very true. If they actively skirted FOIA laws, is there any other reasonable assumption to make other than that team is the epitome of laziness and dereliction of duty or they had some serious business to hide? I'd like to know what other logical reason there could be, if this comes to light.

Neither implication is particularly sparkling.