Discussion: Watchdog Group Sues State Dept. For Docs On Hillary Clinton's iPhone, iPad

Discussion for article #235860

OMG, she used an app to buy those shoes! And!!! She got a really excessive discount!! Shoeghazi!!!


Just say, “no.”

1 Like

Because the ‘conservatives’ have never done anything wrong and have never broken the very same rules that they are complaining about now.

They want, no wait, demand answers and all of the evidence regarding all potential wrongdoing, against just Hillary of course.

Obama is free to go, Hillary is the new black.

1 Like

Judicial Watch president Tom Litton is calling for Baltimore mayor to step down. Its filthy hands are in lots of pots.


Shouldn’t these people be better spending their time looking into the U.S. Army’s invasion and subjugation of Texas?



This is not the way FOIA works. FOIA does not give one license to go on a ‘fishing expedition’. When you invoke FOIA, you must be very specific about what you want. You simply cannot ask for all of Ms Clinton’s iphone records, assuming that they are subject to FOIA anyway, and not considered her personal property.

The legislative history of the 1974 FOIA amendments indicates that a description of a requested record that enables a professional agency employee familiar with the subject area to locate the record with a “reasonable amount of effort” is sufficient. (74) Courts have explained that “[t]he rationale for this rule is that FOIA was not intended to reduce government agencies to full-time investigators on behalf of requesters,” (75) or to allow requesters to conduct “fishing expeditions” through agency files. (76) Accordingly, one FOIA request was held invalid because it required an agency’s FOIA staff either to have “clairvoyant capabilities” to discern the requester’s needs or to spend “countless numbers of personnel hours seeking needles in bureaucratic haystacks.” (77)


I know, because I’ve worked with FOIA before. You can ask for example, for all unclassified emails sent by specified individuals concerning limits on the numbers of Iranian centrifuges between Oct 1, 2010 and Jan 31, 2011. The government is not obliged to provide you with all Iranian centrifuge-related emails, nor are they obliged to give you classified information.

This is just more right wing performance-art bullshit designed, probably, to raise money.


That must be why they never got back to me on the chemtrail thing.


I get plenty of those wacko chemtrail calls/emails already. What a sad reflection on the state of science education. Hint: Condensation occurs at high humidity levels in the atmosphere. And lingers.


Judicial Watch again. Groan. These guys masquerade as defenders of democracy but all they really do is fuck with it.


Judicial Watch files a suit every few months just to keep their fundraising mailers fresh. It would be a pity if we ever forgot Larry Klayman.

1 Like

You can make a broad request as long as you use the right language. " All email, tweets, electronic messages, instant messages, phone logs pertaining to whatever" is OK. But I think your second point " not obligated to disclose secret material" is going to be JW’s problem. These are the records of the Sec. of State they are asking for.

1 Like

Yes, you can ask more broadly, but the the key factor is the ability of an agency’s staff to reasonably ascertain exactly which records are being requested and then locate them. Court cases have determined that agencies aren’t obliged to conduct wide-ranging, “unreasonably burdensome” searches for records. That’s the point I was trying to make. You can also petition for the waiving of incidental costs for example, for copying. But acceptance of the petition is not a given. At least where I worked.

1 Like

Judicial Watch? These are the same assholes who beat the Whitewater dead horse for eight years.

1 Like

Dear Larry Klayman and Tom Fitton:

It is both my Constitutionally-protected right and my patriotic duty to invite you to piss up a rope.


How to Smell Like Desperation for Dummies…

I believe this is from Chapter 4: Elephants in the strawberry Patch.

1 Like

Judicial Watch was founded as an anti-Clinton group by Larry Klayman.

Klayman is a toxic combination of Sarah Palin’s intellect, Michele Bachmann’s sanity, Louis Gohmert’s grasp of the issues, and Ted Cruz’ lack of ethics, morals, and honesty.

So you can assume that Judicial Watch is as fine a group of moronic little shitweasels as has ever been assembled out of spare parts even Dr. Frankenstein would have rejected.


They know that. They wanted the negative response more than they wanted documents. The cover-up conspiracy works better for them than actual documents proving she didn’t do anything wrong. They deliberately manufacture their document requests to get an answer of no so they can howl at the moon about lack of transparency and cover-ups and leave the “what did she actually do or say that was wrong?” entirely to the ignorance-addled imaginations of the GOP/Teatroll base AND MSM.


Damn that Chilis app!!

Judicial Watch noted that, according to an Associated Press report, Clinton used her iPad to communicate with her State Department staff while she was secretary.

Now I know Hell really has frozen over, when conservatives are relying on the MSM to justify their arguments!

1 Like