Uh-oh! DC Circuit Court of Appeals issues ruling that could force more Hillary email disclosures

Just when Hillary thought she was going to skate on her obvious criminal violations of national security laws, the nation’s second highest court has issued a ruling that could cause big trouble for her.  The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ranks just below the Supreme Court, since its jurisdiction extends to the federal government agencies in the nation’s capital.  Including the State Department.  It has just (via Brian Fung in the Washington Post):

… held in its decision that work email stored privately is still subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. The whole point of FOIA, the court said, is to provide transparency on public officials' behavior while in office. Circumventing that by hosting government documents on non-governmental servers defeats that purpose, Judge David Sentelle said.

In other words, work emails are work emails, no matter where they happen to live or who happens to control access to them.

This is directly relevant to Hillary:

… the ruling makes its possible that FOIA requests for Clinton's work emails could cover not only the ones stored in her government email account, but also those stored privately.

Last month, a federal judge put a temporary hold on a lawsuit related to Clinton's privately held emails, saying it would be "wise" to wait for the D.C. Circuit to issue its FOIA ruling before moving ahead with the suit. It's unclear how that lawsuit may turn out, but the judge appeared to show deference to the D.C. Circuit's eventual decision.

The D.C. Circuit's ruling that private email accounts can be subjected to FOIA requests could put greater pressure on Clinton from conservatives seeking to make the candidate's emails an election-defining issue.

At a minimum, it means the lawsuit can proceed, and perhaps succeed in exposing some of the emails Hillary has withheld from public scrutiny.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if Hillary’s people offered to fund a Supreme Court appeal of the defendants in the “unrelated” but precedent-setting case?

Hat tip: WKD

Just when Hillary thought she was going to skate on her obvious criminal violations of national security laws, the nation’s second highest court has issued a ruling that could cause big trouble for her.  The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ranks just below the Supreme Court, since its jurisdiction extends to the federal government agencies in the nation’s capital.  Including the State Department.  It has just (via Brian Fung in the Washington Post):

… held in its decision that work email stored privately is still subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. The whole point of FOIA, the court said, is to provide transparency on public officials' behavior while in office. Circumventing that by hosting government documents on non-governmental servers defeats that purpose, Judge David Sentelle said.

In other words, work emails are work emails, no matter where they happen to live or who happens to control access to them.

This is directly relevant to Hillary:

… the ruling makes its possible that FOIA requests for Clinton's work emails could cover not only the ones stored in her government email account, but also those stored privately.

Last month, a federal judge put a temporary hold on a lawsuit related to Clinton's privately held emails, saying it would be "wise" to wait for the D.C. Circuit to issue its FOIA ruling before moving ahead with the suit. It's unclear how that lawsuit may turn out, but the judge appeared to show deference to the D.C. Circuit's eventual decision.

The D.C. Circuit's ruling that private email accounts can be subjected to FOIA requests could put greater pressure on Clinton from conservatives seeking to make the candidate's emails an election-defining issue.

At a minimum, it means the lawsuit can proceed, and perhaps succeed in exposing some of the emails Hillary has withheld from public scrutiny.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if Hillary’s people offered to fund a Supreme Court appeal of the defendants in the “unrelated” but precedent-setting case?

Hat tip: WKD