It also lends credence to thoughts about why she set up a private server to begin with. No she does not need to meet FOIA standards, so the question that will be pounded by the GOP is this. What is she actually hiding?

This continues to be a big deal for the front-runner candidate hoping to win a GE.

In order for a behavior to be an obstruction of justice, I think that the behavior has to have occurred after some ostensibly illegal activity. I don't know if it's possible for something to be an obstruction before-the-fact.

Maybe handling data specifically to make it inaccessible to FOIA requests is illegal, but if it is, I don't think the charge would be obstruction of justice. An OOJ charge would also probably require some proof that doing something illegal was the motive for the behavior, and motive can be even tricker to prove. I'm not saying she's home free on this (legally), or that she's in trouble. I don't know. I just don't think OOJ is likely to be the issue.

But regardless of the legality, I agree with the OP, this isn't Benghazi. Those accusations are a complete farce. This, whether technically legal or not, is not fictional, and simply doesn't look good for her.

Her best strategy here might be to say: "Of course my use of the server was not meant to get around FOIA requests. I didn't realize that having my own server changed anything from a FOIA perspective. So even though the judge has ruled that he can't enforce FOIA access on this data, I am granting it anyway, and making the data available to all FOIA requests."

are correct in that they were asked to change the length of time that back-ups were kept, then yes, there are serious legal problems.

I agree. I could give two shits about Benghazi. This is entirely different.

If, *after* inquiries were made, actions were taken to make documents unavailable (i.e. stop maintaining older backups), *that* could be obstruction of justice. Even if that did happen, though, I seriously doubt you'll see HRC's fingerprints on that request. So even then, I doubt it will be a legal problem for her, it will be some underling's head who will roll, but yeah, a political problem regardless.

But at this point, damage is done. I can't think of a single day in the last two months where there hasn't been a 'new' revelation about the Clinton server scandal.

That will undoubtedly impact her if she were to unfortunately get the Dem nod.

she and her IT people certainly violated federal digital chain of custody laws.

Welcome back!

Can you believe that shit??

I was #7

On Thu Oct 8, 2015, 09:12 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Court Rules Clinton's Private Email Backups Shielded from FOIA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251656510

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This poster is accusing of criminal conduct on the part of HRC (obstruction of justice is a felony) while completely oblivious to the fact that a FEDERAL JUDGE ruled that she didn't have to. How is it obstruction of justice? Or we can fling any accusation against her willy nilly knowing the jurors aren't going to hide it because who cares if Clinton is attacked? Please hide this post. It is shameful to see such accusations from someone who lacks legal knowledge.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Oct 8, 2015, 09:34 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I do not agree with the aleterer's interpretation. "Legitimate scandal" does not necessarily equate to criminal conduct. Something can be technically legal, and still be legitimate scandal fodder. This poster is not making a judgment as to whether this was or was not legal. S/he does not need a law degree to be able to express the opinion that it is still potentially a legit (rather than ginned up) scandal.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: So refute it! WTF??!!

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

People can complain about posts. It's fine. To clarify, obstruction of justice or criminal conduct is not something I'm alleging. I am saying what she did here was wrong. Given that there is an actual right wing witch hunt conflated with this, it can be difficult to separate legitimately bad behavior from the fake controversy brewing around it.

I think that the test here is, if you believe in open governance, substitute Mrs. Clinton's name with any other high ranking administration official from a Republican administration in the article above and see if your position on whether or not this is a scandal changes.

If you think something should be hidden you should have to state why.

EVERY thread.