Federal Judge: Hillary Clinton Is Ordered to Answer Questions from Watchdog Group
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled on Wednesday that Hillary Clinton has 30-days to answer under oath additional questions about her personal email system being used for official business during the Obama years in the White House, according to a news release from One American News Network (OANN) .
During her presidential campaign in 2016, Clinton was ordered to answer under oath written questions from the non-profit, non-partisan watchdog, Judicial Watch. The anti-corruption group has uncovered some of the biggest government scandals over the years including those involving former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, as well as their underlings.
Originally then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton balked over answering questions about the installation of her private email system in her home; her stubborn use of the system even after State Department cybersecurity officials warned her about its breach of security; and the basis for her claim that the State Department already possesses “90-95%” of the emails.from her private system.
After a lengthy hearing on Wednesday afternoon, Judge Sullivan ruled that Clinton must answer two questions that she refused to answer under-oath in a prior Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. According to OANN on Thursday, Judicial Watch’s president Tom Fitton will be given the opportunity to have one of the most opaque politicians in history answer these two important questions:
Number One: “Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.”
Number Two: “During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails ‘were in the State’s system’ and ‘if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.’ Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.”
Judge Emmet Sullivan: the veteran jurist served under Presidents Reagan, Obama, and Trump.Judge Sullivan read his opinion from the bench, ruling that the question Clinton’s privately installed and maintained email system falls within the “scope of discovery.” Judge Sullivan rejected Clinton’s assertion of attorney-client privilege on the question about the emails “in the State’s system.”
Sullivan, 71, was originally appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on October 3, 1984. On November 25, 1991, Sullivan was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to serve as an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals .
The court, however, refused Judicial Watch’s and the news media’s requests to unseal the deposition videos of Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and other Clinton State Department minions, some of whom later worked on her presidential campaign. Also, it upheld Clinton’s objections to answering a question about “why she refused to stop using her Blackberry despite warnings from State Department security personnel.”
Justice Department lawyers for the State Department defended Clinton’s refusal to answer certain questions and argued for the continued secrecy of the deposition videos.
This hearing and court ruling is the latest development in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of staff to Clinton. The lawsuit, which seeks records regarding the authorization for Abedin to engage in outside employment while employed by the Department of State, was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system ( Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)). The court also granted discovery to Judicial Watch to help determine if and how Clinton’s email system thwarted FOIA.
“[Huma] Abedin was collecting salaries from two separate full-time jobs: a top State Department staffer and a position with the Clinton Foundation. But she never had to account for her hours per day working at either Clinton-connected organizations,” said former police detective Cheryl Issikov. “The whole thing stunk to high hell with the Clintons’ organized crime syndicate,” she added.
“A federal court ordered Hillary Clinton to answer more questions about her illicit email system – which is good news,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is shameful that Judicial Watch attorneys must continue to battle the State and Justice Departments, which still defend Hillary Clinton, for basic answers to our questions about Clinton’s email misconduct.”
Video credit: SSG. Douglas M. Ducote Sr. United States Army (Ret.) Veteran Law Enforcement CEO Veterans United For Justice Cohost Real World Witness ← Intelligence Gathering & Analysis Expert: Media Coverage of Immigrant ‘Caravan’ Flawed or Inaccurate
Jim-Kouri
Jim Kouri, CPP, is founder and CEO of Kouri Associates, a homeland security, public safety and political consulting firm. He's formerly Fifth Vice-President, now a Board Member of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, a columnist, and a contributor to the nationally syndicated talk-radio program, the Chuck Wilder Show.. He's former chief of police at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at St. Peter's University and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.
One thought on “ Federal Judge: Hillary Clinton Is Ordered to Answer Questions from Watchdog Group ”
Tags
Who is online
102 visitors
I think conservativebase.com is full of shit. This article has to be a joke because no normal, rational human being can possibly believe this BS. 11 straight hours of testimony plus two FBI investigations and the right is STILL digging? LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
And no normal rational human being would believe that Hillary is innocent; and wasn't protected by a corrupt partisan Obama administration that conducted an investigation where the outcome was predetermined. If Comey had conducted the same type of investigation that Mueller is against Trump- Hillary would have never made it to the general elections.
Oh, and not one guilty pleas you mention has jack shit to do with Russian collusion in the election. Of course the get Trump at any cost crowd isn't concerned about that. Also if guilt by association is your only desire- then no one is more guilty than the Clintons.
Just using the same standard as you are for Trump. So are you ready to start screaming "Lock her up!" Oh sorry, she has that all coveted D behind her name. That makes it all a vast right wing conspiracy./S
Translation from the Trumpese: "That is some awesome bullshit!!!"
Prove it. Also, Trey Gowdy was a part of the "corrupt" admin? Nope. Every benghazi investigation, (all 9 of them), were led by REPUBLICANS.
Face it, your wet dream of "locking her up", (but knowing the guy that led those chants will be going to prison is PRICELESS), isn't going to happen. This is just yet another desperate attempt to find something, ANYTHING, against Hillary. You have been losing that battle for 20 years, but you just keep on whipping that dead horse, your desperation is really amusing.
But the real icing on the cake?
Trump investigation: 109 criminal indictments. 30+ guilty pleas. "Total witch hunt!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
9 benghazi investigations, an 11 hour live tv interrogation and 2 FBI investigations... 0 charges, nothing, NADA. But that's NOT a witch hunt?
L
M
F
A
O
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is the epitome of the expression "whistling past the graveyard." To borrow your expression, you know jack shit what information Mueller has obtained just from the likes of Flynn (LOCK HIM UP!!!) Manafort as well as from other people (Scumbag, Jr., Kushner) in the room at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016. That's the meeting about which Scumbag, Jr. wrote his Russian correspondent:
But, please, don't stop your wishful thinking. By all means, keep building up your hopes as much as possible that there's not going to be anything "there" when Mueller finishes the investigation.
And you do know? What does Mueller consult with you and share his evidence with you?
Um, you are aware that trump was under investigation at the same time Hillary was, right? And Comey said Publicly said that Hillary was under investigation, but said not one word about trump... Now please tell us how that HELPED Hillary?
LMFAO!!!!!!
Hillary refused to answer these questions when asked before by Judicial Watch via Congress. These questions are the questions she has yet to answer when asked, not additional investigations.
Well, we know that's a lie--she answered all the questions. Rightwingers just didn't like hearing the truth. But thanks for revealing that rightwing pukefunnel Judicial Watch was feeding questions to republicans on the committees. BTW, the committees failed miserably to change any of the facts despite a mighty attempt at lying about all of them.
Nope. These were the written questions she failed to answer. And, any group or citizen can submit questions to Congress to be answered in a Congressional hearing; it is up to the Representatives and Senators whether those questions do get asked.
Why should Hillary sit before a partisan conservative group and asked questions when she has done it before? How many times do you plan to recreate this congressional dog and pony show before you give up, or are you willing to admit that it isn't about facts but about trying to railroad someone? "Lock her up..........LOCK HER UP!"
Do you plan to ask the same questions to Ivanka Trump because she also used a private email, or does she get a pass because she is Donald's daughter? Maybe you could get a Ouiji board and attempt to interview the people who died in Benghazi for partisan points as a way to distract the faithful from Trump's foot in mouth epidemic?
Ivanka did not have a private server in Trump Tower where all her emails were routed through, which allows anyone with access to Trump Tower to get to the servers and download the emails after they crack the password. Hillary did, but you don't see that fact, do you?
These are the written questions Hillary was sent and did not answer by Congress. The fact she claims that the emails were in the State Department system while using a private server needs to have verification as it would be a massive security breach for the emails to only be on her private server. However, the fact any emails were on her private server in Bill Clinton's offices in New York should be a red flag that many of our State secrets may have been compromised by Bill Clinton's employees, whom would be UNAUTHORIZED personnel.
I am pretty certain Clinton will attempt or find some way to weasel out of having to answer said questions. She is convinced she is teflon coated!
That's a good thing since the people who are hounding her are covered with their own shit.
How deleriously stupid!!!
This all happened in 2016 when Clinton was campaigning....
Bwaaaahahaha.....
You got taken in by your own again!
And all the little sheep one-by-one entered the barn.
typical, considering the source
This bullshit is so old that you'd think it wouldn't still stink but it actually stinks more every time it's shoveled onto sites like this. Such is the nature of rightwing lies. It is enjoyable, nonetheless, to see that it keeps getting used and re-used since it's a leading indicator of just how big a criminal their Shitbag of a "president" is and how desperate they are to deflect attention away from that fact.
Such is the way of leftwing incomprehension.
It gives me great pleasure to watch them engage their mouth with no facts and scream to the end they are right, all their little groupies cheering them on looking as uninformed as there hero is the icing on the cake.
deleted
[Deleted]
Judicial Watch is considered a fake news /conspiracy site by Media Bias Fact Check, aka the Newstalkers bible.
That is all you need to know.
This seed is yet another sad attempt to deflect attention off the national travesty otherwise known as the Trump presidency.
Judicial Watch
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence
Bias: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda
JW is not the source of the seed...
The fact they lie about their own description is telling, "non partisan" is hardly a misnomer in this case. From the article their numerous negative descriptions of the Clinton "crime organization" and "misconduct" belie their claims of objective non partisanship.
The story is about Judicial Watch. the source is unknown to me but passes the MBFC test.....
They also reported that the Judge threw out several requests from JW.
Just another opportunity for one of the Clintons to be in the news again...
I didnt say it was. It is a big part of the topic of the seed though.
Judicial Watch is a joke.
JUDICIAL WATCH! Really?
Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group [1] and self-styled watchdog group [2] [3] that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials.
Founded in 1994, JW has primarily targeted Democrats, in particular the Clinton administration , the Obama administration , and Hillary Clinton , although it has sued Republicans as well including the administration of George W. Bush .
It has also filed lawsuits against government climate scientists; Judicial Watch has described climate science as "fraud science". The group has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, which have been picked up by right-wing news outlets. The vast majority of its lawsuits have been dismissed. [1]
Why the hell does judicial watch get to ask anything.
I say if they are going to allow groups to have their own questions and judicial proceedings, open the floodgates.
Something that some on the right might not want done.
WARNING: one of the links the seeder provided: One American News Network (OANN) leads to a page with this warning:
I got similar messages on 2 different browsers.
I disabled the links and do not recommend anyone use or pursue that link.
Thanks, I got the same message, which is actually rare for me.
Folks, cut it out with the slap-fighting. It's Thanksgiving, fer cryin' out loud.