It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Judge Smacks Down DOJ Lawyers Protecting Hillary

page: 1
42
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
A Federal judge has apparently stopped the U.S. Justice Dept from holding some of Hillary Clinton's email.

Judicial Watch has been in court trying to get some as a FOIA request.

The case has been going back and forth as the Justice Department and maybe the State Department appear to be against releasing something.

Gets confusing.

So now a judge will have a look at the actual redacted segments that were classified.

People wonder why the Trump Administration department(s) are fighting ?

Maybe it's a "fight" that want to lose.

The issue is about something called the government misconduct exception (whatever that is).

Federal Judge Smacks Down DOJ Lawyers Protecting Hillary – Will Review Redacted Clinton Emails


Why is Tillerson’s State Department and Sessions’ DOJ protecting Hillary Clinton?

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch announced Thursday that a federal judge will personally review, on camera, redacted material from Hillary Clinton’s emails during her time as Secretary of State.


Via Judicial Watch:


Judicial Watch announced today that a federal judge will personally review, in camera, redacted material from emails discussing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of iPads and iPhones during her tenure at the State Department. Judge Kollar-Kotelly also ordered the State Department to file an affidavit addressing why it should not have to search new Clinton emails recovered. In taking these steps, the court rejected arguments by the Tillerson State Department and its lawyers at the Sessions Justice Department.

The court will review the blacked-out information so as to better ascertain whether the government misconduct exception would require the release of the full emails. Generally speaking, the government misconduct exception prevents government agencies from withholding information that would shed light on government wrongdoing under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).







posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Methinks it revolves around some shady business with Saudi Arabia. Trump did a 180 on that particular country IRRC.



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

She will sleep just fine, there are 2 justice systems at play here.


+3 more 
posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
More hate hillary than trump



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

The popular vote would seem to imply a different conclusion.


+10 more 
posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The percentage of American voters who voted would imply?


+1 more 
posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Hillary used her private server to circumvent the difficulties of established protocols and the problematic aftermath of having her communications being subjected to FOIA requests. Nothing to hide, nothing to worry about, right?


+10 more 
posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'm not entirely sure that metric is even valid at this point personally. As analytical and philosophical as you project being, I am quite surprised you do Phage.



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

As opposed to the metric the person I replied to used?
What, I wonder, would that be?
edit on 9/28/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Protecting her From what???

The American people??!?

Trumps DOJ that trump can hire or fire anyone, so why is the TRUMP DOJ protecting her???

Because trump wants them too??

Or is there no evidence and all the republicans are scared to death to sign their name on something trump has probably personally told them was a witch hunt. ??



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Uhhh What ?




posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Judicial watch stated the judge would personally review the emails in camera. Either that was a typo or the other source doesn't have a grasp of what that actually means, because they in turn wrote "on camera", which is the complete opposite.

If they're reviewed in camera, no one but the judge will see them. He or she will review them in private, without court officials. The public will not be given access to them.

If it's a mistake, they probably should correct it, because people are going to be screaming fake news if it really is conducted in camera...they'll be expecting to get the chance to watch it all go down in full view, captured "on camera". I don't think it's a typo, though. Agreeing to keep them out of the public view may have been the only way they were able to persuade the court to overrule the arguments of her legal team.


+5 more 
posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

The popular vote would seem to imply a different conclusion.

Who gives an eff what the popular vote was ? The people of the entire country spoke out.
Not just Cali
Done
No reply is possible
Next



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog
I know Trump won the election.

I was just responding to a claim about which one more people hate. Like it or not, the popular vote would seem to indicate that more people hate Trump. Or at least, more people hate Clinton less than they hate Trump.



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog
I know Trump won the election.

I was just responding to a claim about which one more people hate. Like it or not, the popular vote would seem to indicate that more people hate Trump. Or at least, more people hate Clinton less than they hate Trump.



People hate,
Thats what they do.


+1 more 
posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I remember a couple of years ago that the democrats didn't hate anybody because it wasn't a nice eemotion and it had been, magically,removed from their state of mind? Only the irredeemables, (low-brow) conservatives, retained that naked emotion toward others. My, or my, how times have changed.



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: sputniksteve

As opposed to the metric the person I replied to used?
What, I wonder, would that be?


No need to compare it to anything, and I didn't mean to patronize or condescend to you. We shouldn't ever compare our full measures against others halfs. I just think in this particular case, we shouldn't use that metric. I generally expect thoughtfulness from you, and that just seemed kind of half assed.



posted on Sep, 29 2017 @ 01:27 AM
link   
it doesn`t matter, the elite protect their own, 50 years after she is dead we`ll find out the truth that she was even more evil and corrupt than we think.
the elite won`t skin one of their brethren alive they wait until she is dead and well eaten by worms before they let the truth out and by then nobody will care.

edit on 29-9-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2017 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

This woman is Houdini reborn.....

Unless she's real good on the meat package, you know dirty knees and swollen lips... that sorta thing.

In Australia we'd say " she's got bloody spiders all over her " cause aint' nobody want to to touch her.
edit on 29/9/2017 by scubagravy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2017 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: scubagravy

As I understand it. In Australia, if you have spiders all over you, you're pretty much dead.
'Cuz, you know...Australia.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join