Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

[JMS]

FYI, look at the statute, it says classified information. It does not differentiate between confidential or top secret. Its not political BS, its the LAW!

 

If as you say we are discussing the violation of a clear cut statute then why after 3 years of investigation by what 4, 5 agencies has no criminal investigation been announced,  much less criminal charges being brought?

 

Why do you think this originated as a security audit and not a criminal investigation and why do you think it has never become a criminal investigation ?

 

 

Here is an honest straight forward line of questions for you to ponder..

 

(1) Where did Hillary's Email Scandal Come from?   What started it?   Hint it wasn't from inside State,  IC, or DoD.

 

(2) Given Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif) had to say about using  ----- see answer to #1------ to trash Hillary's presidential campaign does that kind of link up with the fact that this isn't and never has been a criminal investigation to lead you to what this might be about. 

[JMS]

JMS loves to post long paragraphs and tons of links even though his point is typically wrong but never admit he is wrong, 

 

I'll try to make this response short enough so you can read it without too much effort.

 

Chip I admited I was wrong a few times last week and each time thanked the person who corrected me..   I just haven't done it to you because you haven't been correct.

 

 

Just post more paragraphs and ignore the facts from those of us that work in this industry.

 

 

Nobody who has posted in this thread has claimed to work for the State Dept.    Just because the Intelligence Community and DoD also use classified information doesn't mean they share the same governance procedures/documents..  they don't.    So what is classified and what isn't is not the same,  the classification categories are sometimes different.. ( state still uses SBU, but DoD doesn't )..   Likewise how they respond to spillage is different.    And Most importantly here,  the frequency of what can causes spillage is different.

[Fergasun]

... and the late breaking news now is that the FBI is looking into public corruption charges re: Clinton foundation.

This smells of me (and all the leaks) like rank-and-file government employees getting pissed that Hillary (and Petraeus and Berger and others) don't have to follow the law.

I would still be shocked if there is an indictment - if she starts to beat Sanders, how would such action not look politically motivated?

[killerbee99]

JMS, thank you for breaking down stuff clearly instead of listening to Chipwich spewing crap, with Sacase trying to back that crap up....No one is going to jail.....thumbs up buddy

[sacase]

I'll try to make this response short enough so you can read it without too much effort.

Chip I admited I was wrong a few times last week and each time thanked the person who corrected me.. I just haven't done it to you because you haven't been correct.

Nobody who has posted in this thread has claimed to work for the State Dept. Just because the Intelligence Community and DoD also use classified information doesn't mean they share the same governance procedures/documents.. they don't. So what is classified and what isn't is not the same, the classification categories are sometimes different.. ( state still uses SBU, but DoD doesn't ).. Likewise how they respond to spillage is different. And Most importantly here, the frequency of what can causes spillage is different.

You are without a doubt 100% wrong. You are some laymen who has never worked with classified nor has been read on to any program. Handling classified is a government program. What is classified in one agency is classified in all agencies. Everyone who handles classified is required to protect it appropriately. Please Name all the agencies who make up the IC.

JMS, thank you for breaking down stuff clearly instead of listening to Chipwich spewing crap, with Sacase trying to back that crap up....No one is going to jail.....thumbs up buddy

Like I said before, you have members of the IC in this thread and JMS is not one of them. He is 100% wrong.

[Burgold]

There have been so many tales of smoking guns and corpses found when it comes to the Clinton that I always hesitate these days whenever I hear anything about them in this regard.

 

If she did order State Dept. officials to circumvent classified practices and it was then done that was bad. Two guilty culprits: the Secretary herself and whoever did it ignoring what they knew was correct. That's a little bit different than the original argument which I felt held little weight as almost every SOS before her had used a private email account and what she did was really just standard operating procedure.

 

I still want to know how much "there" there is to this "there," but this one does sound more negative to me than some of the previous there's with the email, Benghazin and countless other witch hunts.

[Larry]

You are without a doubt 100% wrong.

Now, I understand that your august expertise renders you immune from actually having to back up the bombastic announcements that you make. (Or, apparently, from actually responding to the things that people actually say.)

But do you suppose, if I asked nicely, for you to enlighten those of us who are unqualified to actually ask questions of your expertyness, by actually explaining to us exactly why some of the things he's said are "100% wrong"?

 

For example, I note that one of the things he's said is:  (My emphasis). 

 

In the latest batch of emails release 3000 or so they're saying 66 or so were "classified"  and of those 65 were confidential, which is the lowest level of classification.   Having someone's name and telephone number can be classified confidential because it's PII.   What is confidential is an incredible low bar.

 

Which he followed up on, by actually posting a link to a document which claims to contain the actual State Department classification guidelines, in this post: 

 

Confidential documents covers such things as personal identifiable information (PII) such as using someone's name and telephone number in the same document.   Or traditionally personal observations made by State Dept personnel about foreign counterparts..

​and you can check out examples of what are considered confidential documents here..

https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dos-class.pdf                   

 

(Although, I will note:  He's provided a link to a 55 page document.  And I have not read any part of it which actually supports what he's saying.  But that might be because it's a 55 page document and I've only read like 2 pages.) 

 

And, although it's only of tangential relevence to this discussion, I will observe that my late Father, who spend many years working on Top Secret programs for the government, although they were back in the 50s through 70s, and things may well have changed, has mentioned to me that the Pentagon and CIA actually have phone books which are (were) classified confidential. 

 

I will also mention that I'm pretty sure that it's been claimed, in this thread, that the State Department considers

all

information regarding foreign governments or personnel to be confidential, at least. 

 

Could you please condescend to support your assertion that PII cannot be classified? 

[TheGoodBits]

Not email related (weren't we supposed to have a separate thread on that to avoid this tedious topic?) but the NBC poll showing Bernie close in Iowa could be huge if accurate. To this point in 2008 I don't think people really believed Obama could beat Hillary. Same this year. A lot can change from a momentum perspective if Bernie could knock her off in the first two states.

[DogofWar1]

A close finish for Bernie in Iowa mixed with a win in NH would change the complexion of the race.  I think there are a lot of Dems who might switch at the last minute if Bernie is actually successful early.

 

He'd still be the underdog to Hillary after 2 races, but it'd keep him alive much longer, and the longer he's around, the better his chances are.

[Larry]

Not email related (weren't we supposed to have a separate thread on that to avoid this tedious topic?) but the NBC poll showing Bernie close in Iowa could be huge if accurate. To this point in 2008 I don't think people really believed Obama could beat Hillary. Same this year. A lot can change from a momentum perspective if Bernie could knock her off in the first two states.

Oh, I don't think people gave anybody a chance against Hillary '08 till there were like 20 states voted.

She's like the Dallas Cowboys of politics: Everybody knows she's going to win, till she's mathematically eliminated.

---

 

A close finish for Bernie in Iowa mixed with a win in NH would change the complexion of the race.  I think there are a lot of Dems who might switch at the last minute if Bernie is actually successful early.

 

He'd still be the underdog to Hillary after 2 races, but it'd keep him alive much longer, and the longer he's around, the better his chances are.

I don't see Bernie really standing mush of a chance, though.

The biggest knock Bernie has against him is "he can't possibly win in the general". And beating Hillery in Democratic primaries, no matter how many, doesn't dispel that.

[TheGoodBits]

Electability was by far the biggest knock against Obama too.

Now, Obama had a couple key things going for him that Bernie does not. First and foremost is the charisma gap. More of a push between Bernie and Hillary (which is to say neither of them are particularly charismatic). The second is a unique ability to mobilize the African American vote. Same deal, more of a push between Bernie and Hillary.

I'm still very skeptical about Bernie's ability to win but people do seem to hate Hillary at this point so who knows.

[JMS]

You are some laymen who has never worked with classified nor has been read on to any program. Handling classified is a government program. 

 

 

That's a very weak argument Sacase.   You telling me with absolute certainty my history which you have no idea of given it's something I have total command of.

 

 

Everyone who handles classified is required to protect it appropriately. Please Name all the agencies who make up the IC.

 

 

Everyone who handles classified documents are required to protect it appropriately..    That's not really what we are discussing is it.

That's a given.    What we are discussing is whether  information detailed in the The Department of State Classification Guide (DSCG) compiled under the Sec State is identical to that which is detailed in the Department Defense Directives (DoDD) under the authority of the SEC DEF on handling classified information.

 

In this case would a reasonable informed person who handles DoD or IC Data understand the procedures and specific organizations used by the State Dept to review documents for release to the public.   Would such a non State Dept employee know of example the IG is used to conduct security reviews of all documents released by the State Dept under the FOIA.    or that the IG does not conduct criminal investigations.   Or that such security audits often results in the retroactive classification of documents.   I don't think they would as I don't think they even have access to the documents which contain the state Dept procedures for handling such FOIA requests.

 

and that's what we have here.. a normal State Dept security audit preceding documents being released to the public.   Not a criminal investigation into Hillary mishandling classified documents.

 

 

You are without a doubt 100% wrong. 

 

 

Let's agree on some facts then..

 

This entire Email "scandal" has never escalated to a criminal investigation much less a personal investigation of Hillary Clinton as has been consistently misrepresented in the right wing whackadoodle press.

 

This investigation / or security audit by the IG was not begun due to concerns of the DoD, State Dept, or Intelligence Community of spillage but rather was the result of the House Benghazi Investigation seeking ammunition for their witch hunt.  A witch hunt which has subsequently been shut down after spending more than 10 million dollars,  2,300 + witnesses   nearly 40 hearings without finding any wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton or any of her aids.  

 

That after 3 years of investigating Hillary's email the State Dept, and IG and Justice have never recommended a criminal investigation nor any personal wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton or anybody working for her. 

 

GOP leadership have gone on National News and taken credit for crippling Hillary's Presidential Campaign using the House Bengazhi hearings as a political hatchet and by extension this email "scandal".    Cost Rep Kevin McCarthy the office of Speaker of the House.

 

None of these facts are debatable..   Nor is the fact that if Hillary Clinton had sent nearly 100 classified documents through her personal email server that it wouldn't have taken more than 3 years to open a criminal investigation.

 

[visionary]

I wonder how many people on the right would vote for Bernie over Cruz or Trump, assuming Bernie doesn't have some health issue pop up during the run up that takes him out of the race.

Nightmare scenario: Trump or Cruz coast to an easy win. Hillary actually does get indicted or loses in a way that makes it impossible for her to get back into the race and Bernie has a heart attack or some other health problem that forces him out before he has the opurtunity to pick a vp.

[Larry]

Let's agree on some facts then..

This entire Email "scandal" has never escalated to a criminal investigation much less a personal investigation of Hillary Clinton as has been consistently misrepresented in the right wing whackadoodle press.

I'm pretty sure that I've seen references to an FBI investigation, too.

I wonder how many people on the right would vote for Bernie over Cruz or Trump, assuming Bernie doesn't have some health issue pop up during the run up that takes him out of the race.

Zero.

[Predicto]

Did anyone notice the source of these new accusations against Clinton?  Joseph diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing have been full time "throw out **** about the Clintons and see if it sticks" since the mid-90s.   They have been pushing the Benghazi nonsense for the past few years.  Most of all, they have had been caught lying and embellishing their claims about Clinton multiple times before.   

 

Just thought that might be useful background.

[JMS]

(Although, I will note:  He's provided a link to a 55 page document.  And I have not read any part of it which actually supports what he's saying.  But that might be because it's a 55 page document and I've only read like 2 pages.)

Larry in post #10700 I cited the specific subsection which details what I had previously said.

I'll refer you to page 11, section 3, subsection c. under the heading "Types of FGI Likely to Require Classification".

I will also mention that I'm pretty sure that it's been claimed, in this thread, that the State Department considers all information regarding foreign governments or personnel to be confidential, at least.

 

 

That's kind of the crux of the problem here. The State Dept doesn't consider all such discussions classified, and it's not always readily apparent what is and isn't classified. Which is why the State Dept has the IG conduct security audits on all documents before they are released to the public. These unclassified documents are reviewed to give State the opportunity to retroactively deny them to the public by saying they are classified. That's what has occurred here. State is responding to a FOIA request from "Media Watch" a right wing whackadoodle group.. They are asking for all of Hillary's unclassified emails supena'd in the Behngazi house hearings which make them fair game. State is having the IG conduct a security review before they are released. The IG is retroactively saying we aren't releasing this and this and this because we now consider them classified.. Retroactively classifying them.

We know this because the IG is telling us this is a security probe and not a criminal case. We also know this because the Justice Dept has said continuously that this is not a criminal case it's a security review.

The only folks continuously calling this a criminal case or my favorite that the criminal case is imminent are the right wing news sources with an ax to grind.

So far there is no criminal investigation associated with Hillary's email, and no individual, not Hillary nor her aids are being personally investigated. After Three Years of going through this.

I'm pretty sure that I've seen references to an FBI investigation, too.

Yes you have. But not a criminal investigation by the FBI or anybody else. The FBI was brought into work on the security probe. No criminal investigation have been conducted with regards to Hillary's email.

[mistertim]

I wonder how many people on the right would vote for Bernie over Cruz or Trump, assuming Bernie doesn't have some health issue pop up during the run up that takes him out of the race.

Maybe if Bernie proposed legalizing the lynching of Muslims or something. Otherwise, he can't out-crazy those guys to get the whacko vote.

[DogofWar1]

I don't see Bernie really standing mush of a chance, though.

The biggest knock Bernie has against him is "he can't possibly win in the general". And beating Hillery in Democratic primaries, no matter how many, doesn't dispel that.

 

I think Bernie has a better shot than conventional wisdom suggests.  I don't think he would have a good chance to win against a moderate GOP establishment candidate, but those guys aren't really in this race.  Rubio is probably the closest with the best chance, but he really only looks the part, he's not ideologically there (but looks do count for a lot), and he's also a distant 3rd at this point.

 

If Trump and Cruz have a chance, Bernie definitely can too.  Bernie is like the anti-Trump.  He's not quite establishment, he's a huge populist, but replace all Trump's hate and fear with love.  He's also way less crazy than either, but that's a separate issue.

 

Bernie's biggest blind spot is foreign policy, but he's got some time between now and the real general run to surround himself with the best people possible and fill in those gaps.  I think Bernie is both smart enough to know he's got a blind spot, and humble enough to seek that help.  I question that with Trump, and for Cruz, I question it too, but less than with Trump; the bigger issue with Cruz is that currently a lot of foreign policy talent is tied up elsewhere in the GOP because the field is still so wide.  Getting that talent into Cruz's house will be easier said than done.

 

But on the whole, I'd rate Bernie's general chances no worse than Cruz or Trump, and arguably better.

 

Edit:

Just saw some polling for hypothetical general matchups between Trump and Hillary/Bernie, only for Iowa and NH, but in both, Hillary's margin of victory was small while Bernie's was very large, like 10+ points.  He's got a solid shot.

[Predicto]

Meanwhile, here's an actual Ted Cruz internet campaign - complete with Obama photoshopped into an SS uniform.

 

http://support.tedcruz.org/obama-wants-your-guns/aa/

[sacase]

Larry in post #10700 I cited the specific subsection which details what I had previously said.

 

 

That's kind of the crux of the problem here. The State Dept doesn't consider all such discussions classified, and it's not always readily apparent what is and isn't classified. Which is why the State Dept has the IG conduct security audits on all documents before they are released to the public. These unclassified documents are reviewed to give State the opportunity to retroactively deny them to the public by saying they are classified. That's what has occurred here. State is responding to a FOIA request from "Media Watch" a right wing whackadoodle group.. They are asking for all of Hillary's unclassified emails supena'd in the Behngazi house hearings which make them fair game. State is having the IG conduct a security review before they are released. The IG is retroactively saying we aren't releasing this and this and this because we now consider them classified.. Retroactively classifying them.

We know this because the IG is telling us this is a security probe and not a criminal case. We also know this because the Justice Dept has said continuously that this is not a criminal case it's a security review.

The only folks continuously calling this a criminal case or my favorite that the criminal case is imminent are the right wing news sources with an ax to grind.

So far there is no criminal investigation associated with Hillary's email, and no individual, not Hillary nor her aids are being personally investigated. After Three Years of going through this.

Yes you have. But not a criminal investigation by the FBI or anybody else. The FBI was brought into work on the security probe. No criminal investigation have been conducted with regards to Hillary's email.

I will deal with this when I get home from work tonight.

[skinsmarydu]

I wonder how many people on the right would vote for Bernie over Cruz or Trump, assuming Bernie doesn't have some health issue pop up during the run up that takes him out of the race.

Nightmare scenario: Trump or Cruz coast to an easy win. Hillary actually does get indicted or loses in a way that makes it impossible for her to get back into the race and Bernie has a heart attack or some other health problem that forces him out before he has the opurtunity to pick a vp.

DUDE!

[JMS]

Did anyone notice the source of these new accusations against Clinton?  Joseph diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing have been full time "throw out **** about the Clintons and see if it sticks" since the mid-90s.   They have been pushing the Benghazi nonsense for the past few years.  Most of all, they have had been caught lying and embellishing their claims about Clinton multiple times before.   

 

Just thought that might be useful background.

Exactly correct. And this has been going on for years.

People think this is a criminal investigation and Hillary is being charged with leaking documents. I have continuously heard folks try to draw comparisons between convicted criminals such as Gen Petreaus and Sandy Berger and Hillary; and that's just incorrect.

and after years of continuously having fox news announce criminal investigation is ongoing, or imminent, or amazingly President Obama has already pardoned Hillary; it should be plain to even right wingers that this is all political smoke and there is no fire here.

 

Fox: December 17, 2015

Hillary Clinton: The criminal investigation keeps moving forward

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/17/hillary-clinton-criminal-investigation-keeps-moving-forward.html

national review Nov 2015

FBI expands criminal probe of Hillary's Emails

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426970/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-investigation-widens

Oct 2015

Obama sabotages email investigation by pardoning Clinton for breach of national security

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/18/ronald-kessler-obama-pardons-hillary-clinton-for-n/

August 2015

FBI "A-team" Conducting Criminal Investigation of Hillary's E-mail

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/21485-fbi-a-team-conducting-criminal-investigation-of-hillary-s-e-mail

August 2015

FBI: Yes, Our Probe Into Hillary's Email Scheme is a Criminal Investigation

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/08/07/report-yes-the-fbis-investigation-into-hillarys-email-is-a-criminal-probe-n2035654

August 5 2015

FBI's Investigation into Hillary's emails is Criminal in nature

http://nypost.com/2015/08/05/fbi-investigation-of-hillarys-emails-is-criminal-probe/

Problem is the FBI has never had a criminal investigation into this email scandal. The IG referral was not a criminal refferal and the Justice dept has never subsequently opened a criminal case to investigate Hillary nor any of her staff.

 

From July 24th Time Magazine

Clinton and her current and former aides have not been named as targets of the investigation, and the scope of the investigation request has not been revealed.

http://time.com/3971238/hillary-clinton-email-justice-classified/

So what is going on here then...? Here are unclassified memo's from the Office of the Inspector General and State discussing what's really happening in the June / July time frame while right wing press is reporting Criminal Investigations, presidential pardons, and breaches of national security...

Basically State has to review and release some 60,000 emails, redacting classified information in them and identifying unmarked classified material among this huge pile of documents.

 

The IG is making recommendations on how to comply with the Federal Court asking for these docs under the FOIA..  The DoS is saying... forget it.. you are going to slow us up.  Your ideas don't help us.

Interestingly the memo's also say that 5 other Sec State where investigated for using personal emails and the IG's office was looking into all of them.

 

Colin Powel,  Hillary, and Kerry all used personal email servers...   Madeleine Albright and Condi Rice did not use email either government or private is what I turned up with google..  Policy changed after Clinton which disallows private emails being used even for unclassified correspondence so Kerry becomes the first Sec State to use Dept of State emails for unclass coorespondence.  Before Madeleine Albright email wasn't widely used according to my sources by State Dept execs.

 

Here are the memos between IG and State on Hillary's emails...

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-15-04-05.pdf

 

Here is my synopsis of what the letters say..

Appendix C of this doc the IG is making specific recommendations in how to handle the release of Hillary's emails. Specifically he has 4 reccomdations..

(1) He finds State is not Evaluating their data "optimally". recommends State FOIA Office request staff support from IC FOIA agencies to assist in identifying classified material relating to the Intelligence Dept.

(2) He finds Hillary's emails which she has turned over are being stored on the State Dept's secret level network (classmate) 33,000 emails and doesn't think this is right.. Recommends State Dep FOIA office review the emails to ensure ClassNet use is appropriate / not overkill.

(3) Has to do with what information in a document should be redacted and FOIA exemptions State should be using to justify it's redactions... Says State should check with inter agencies to act as final arbitrator if they have questions.

(4) The IG says he's not sure the Department of Justice is reviewing emails before FOIA release. Former Secretary of State Clinton's emails are the subject of numerous FOIA requests and multiple FOIA lawsuits. It may be prudent to integrate the Dept of Justice into the FOIA process review to ensure the redactions can withstand potential legal challenges.

Attachement B has the State Dept's response to these recommendations from the IG.

basically they tell the IG to pound Sand.. that his recommendations will slow up their review and not add any useful safeguards.

Attachement D the Inspector General references the imminent release of 55,000 of Hillary's emails and expresses concern that there are hundreds of classified emails contained within. He again requests the DoS adopt the IG's recommendations to avoid releasing any classified material in the face of the Federal Court's FOIA request.

[visionary]

Maybe if Bernie proposed legalizing the lynching of Muslims or something. Otherwise, he can't out-crazy those guys to get the whacko vote.

Well, I meant the more moderate folks on the right who are uncomfortable with Trump/Cruz. 

[visionary]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/11/donald-trump-is-getting-much-better-as-a-candidate/?postshare=9501452544111436&tid=ss_tw

Donald Trump is getting much better as a candidate

 

I've watched 90 percent of  Donald Trump's speeches at campaign rallies over the past month or so — including his latest Monday morning in Windham, N.H.  And one thing has become crystal-clear: Trump is getting better and better at delivering the message that has rallied so many Republicans to his cause.

 

His standard stump speech now is essentially a greatest-hits version of the various riffs, attacks and asides that Trump has tried out on audiences since he got into the race in mid-June.

 

Watching Trump is, to me, like watching a stand-up comedian in terms of his process.  Trump, ever the businessman-marketer, views his audiences as focus groups; he's forever testing lines to see not only which work and which don't but also how and when to deliver them for maximum impact.

 

There's no better example of Trump's workshopping of his lines than on immigration. He didn't mention a word about immigration until roughly two thirds of the way into his very lengthy announcement speech back in June. But Trump quickly realized that his strong stance against illegal immigration and his focus on building a wall was striking a chord with GOP voters. So he moved it all the way up to the top of his speeches and made it, at least for a few months, the signature policy of his candidacy. (Sidebar: Trump has rewritten history on the issue as he has continued in the race. On Monday in New Hampshire, he told the audience he had "strongly" raised immigration in his announcement speech which is, um, just not true. )

One more example of how Trump works to get better: How he deals with protesters. Trump has long been willing to engage with his audience — "are you one of the good guys?" he asks people making noise in crowds — but of late he's taken a far more aggressive approach to calling out people who disagree with him at his rallies. Last week in Burlington, Vt., Trump would yell "Get 'em out of here!" each time he was interrupted by a protester. Then, sensing that the crowd loved it, he went on a tangent about how the security is playing too nice with protesters and they won't be so nice to the next person who protests.  The crowd went bananas. Trump upped the ante even further — telling security to keep the protesters' coats when they were thrown out into the frigid Vermont night. He was joking — sort of. The crowd went even wilder.

 

Inherent in this comedian comparison is the reality that Trump is, at root, giving people what they want — which is not always the same thing as what they need. A comedian's job is to make people laugh — pure and simple. A politician's job is, yes, to convince people to vote for him. But telling people what they want to hear solely because you know it's what they want to hear opens up a dangerous path for any politician.

 

Trump is either unaware of that slippery slope or, more likely, unconcerned by it. All politicians tell people what they want to hear, I can imagine him saying, I'm just better at it.  (The pushback, of course, is that it's far easier telling people what they want to hear than what they need to hear. And part of being a politician — and a leader — is being able to tell people hard truths.)

[visionary]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-emails-lawsuits-dismissed-217581

Judge dismisses lawsuits over Clinton's emails

 

A federal judge has dismissed a pair of lawsuits aimed at forcing the government to act more aggressively to recover emails that Hillary Clinton kept on a private server while serving as secretary of state.

 

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled Monday that the suits filed by two conservative organizations are moot because the State Department and the National Archives have done all they are legally required to do to obtain messages pertaining to her four-year tenure as America's top diplomat.

 

"Defendants have taken a number of significant corrective steps to recover Clinton's emails," Boasberg wrote in a 17-page order tossing out the suits.

 

The judge noted that Clinton turned over approximately 55,000 pages of messages to the State Department at its request last December and that the agency took steps to secure electronic copies of the records. Those copies now appear to be in the possession of the FBI. State has asked the FBI to preserve those electronic files.

 

Those and other steps are good enough, the judge said.