SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The FBI's year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned.
Justice Department lawyers said last week that the State Department would review and turn over Clinton's work-related emails to a conservative legal group. The records are among "tens of thousands" of documents found by the FBI in its probe and turned over to the State Department, Justice Department attorney Lisa Ann Olson said Monday in court.
The 14,900 Clinton documents are nearly 50 percent more than the roughly 30,000 emails that Clinton's lawyers deemed work-related and returned to the department in December 2014.
Lawyers for the State Department and Judicial Watch, the legal group, are negotiating a plan for the release of the emails in a civil public records lawsuit before U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington.
In a statement after a hearing at the U.S. district courthouse in Washington, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the group was pleased that Boasberg rejected the department's proposal to begin releasing documents weekly on Oct. 14, ordering it instead to prioritize Clinton's emails and to return to court Sept. 22 with a new plan.
"We're pleased the court accelerated the State Department's timing," Fitton said. "We're trying to work with the State Department here, but let's be clear: They have slow-walked and stonewalled the release of these records. They've had many of them since July 25 ... and not one record has yet been released, and we don't understand why that's the case."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @03:02PM
Have you seen her debate? She'd do better pleading the fifth. No, not that kind. The kind where she drank one and is too drunk to debate. Trump, on the other hand, killed at his debates.
Raise your hands. Is anyone surprised that buzzard is impressed by empty, insulting rhetoric?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @03:56PM
Well, answer the question - have you seen her debate? Instead of answering the question, you provide your own empty rhetoric. Imagine that . . . and you're an AC at that. You could anonymously CONTRIBUTE something to this discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @04:18PM
> Well, answer the question - have you seen her debate?
Oh look, runaway doesn't know what a rhetorical question is.
Another checkin from the braintrust of brilliance!
You guys are the best clinton collaborators because you so vividly illustrate the deep insight required to oppose her..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:03PM
You just ignored a rhetorical question in order to complain that the poster ignored a rhetorical question.
LOL. Tell me that was deliberately meant to be ironic!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 26 2016, @06:10PM
I wasn't talking about me, sweety. I was talking about The Public. Trump kills with them while Clinton blows goats no matter who's listening.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:56PM
Yeah "blows goats" is totally not a personal judgment.
Your attempts to portray yourself as unbiased are hilariously transparent. You are so full of yourself you can't tell the difference between your own opinion and facts.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 26 2016, @09:15PM
Oh I'm not unbiased. I totally hate Hillary slightly more than I hate Trump. That's no secret. She still smokes pole at debating though. If she'd had anyone halfway competent and charismatic challenging her, she would have lost the nomination. Likewise if she hadn't had acres and acres of political clout.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:07PM
> Oh I'm not unbiased.
Wooosh!
I'll spell it out for you: Even when you think you are being unbiased you are obviously not being unbiased.
> Likewise if she hadn't had acres and acres of political clout.
Yeah, a politician who is good at politics, obviously she's unqualified.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 27 2016, @02:02PM
Whoosh yourself. You think I'm all right-biased? Bzzzzt! Wrong. I'm not even on your left-right axis at all. That whole thing is a scam to give you the illusion of choice while. Your only real choice in the two major parties is which flavor of oppression you prefer. If I seem to hate the left more than the right it's only because the left are up to more oppressive fuckwadery lately.
P.S. "A politician who is good at politics." - A crooked piece of shit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.