It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge orders Clinton aides to be questioned under oath on emails

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Judge orders Clinton aides to be questioned under oath on emails


(Reuters) - A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that U.S. State Department officials and aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about whether the former secretary of state's use of a private email system was an effort to skirt open records laws.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is likely to add to the uncertainty hovering over Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for the November U.S. presidential election, about the legal consequences of her decision to exclusively use a private email server in her New York home for her government work.

The State Department and Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group suing for records about the employment of a senior Clinton aide, must agree on a plan for the depositions by April, Sullivan said in his order on Tuesday, according to court documents.

Sullivan, a judge in federal court in Washington, D.C., said there was at least "a reasonable suspicion" that open records laws were undermined, The Washington Post reported. Sullivan, who was appointed by Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, said he may order the department to subpoena Clinton to return all records connected to her private email server, the newspaper reported.

Clinton returned about 30,000 emails to the State Department in 2014, but said she deleted thousands of others her staff deemed not to be work-related.

Judicial Watch told the court it wanted to get sworn testimony from several senior State Department officials and Clinton associates, both past and present, who set up or knew about the system or dealt with requests from the public for copies of Clinton's records, according to court documents.

In court filings, the group mentioned Patrick Kennedy, the department's under secretary for management, and Cheryl Mills, Clinton's former chief of staff at the department, among others. In a statement to the media, the group said it may later seek to have Clinton testify under oath.

The State Department said it was reviewing the order but could not comment further on ongoing litigation. The department may appeal the ruling.



Looks like things are going to become interesting now that a judge is requiring aides to be interviewed under oath. The judge seems to be getting upset with the State Department dragging its feet and is agreeing with an argument that the public has a right to know whats going on since she is a candidate for public office.

I really dont see a way out for Clinton absent a coup.


ETA -
Looks like she got hit with the FOIA issue now as well. The judge granted judicial watch's request for discovery concerning violation of foia laws by Clinton.


Fed eral Court Grants Judicial Watch Discovery on Clinton Email Issue


(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan today granted Judicial Watch’s motion for discovery into whether the State Department and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton deliberately thwarted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for six years. The developments come in a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton. The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about Clinton’s separate email records (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).


click link for remainder...
edit on 24-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   
We have two options,...

1. We get her elected and she can circumvent the judicial process by being president.

Or 2,...

She gets charged in the court of law and convicted of crimes that the common citizen would have no hopes of defending.


November is coming up fast sheeples!!
edit on 24-2-2016 by smirkley because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: smirkley

I choose #2...

Worst case scenario I think Oswald's brother is still alive.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Anyone think if she weren't running for POTUS she'd already been summoned charges filed and trial underway?

Cruz still allowed to be running after being proven to be Canadian born also makes no sense...

This selection for the election is indefinable as it goes against logic and ration making the reasoning questionable.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Judge orders Clinton aides to be questioned under oath on emails, No worries, long after they've had time to be schooled on questions they will be asked and on the questions to give.

Don't expect much to come of it, its likely to resemble a stage play more than a deep and prolonged probing for the truth.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

If shes not charged / takes a deal and a Republican is elected she most likely will be. Better for her to try and resolve it now with a Democrat in control of the DOJ than the alternative.

The other thing is the anger of the American people at the federal government. Failing to act could cause a backlash towards democrats who are up for election this time around.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well, if there's one thing we've learned, it's that corrupt people under oath have terrible memories. "I do not rcall. I do not recall. I do not recall"



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Azureblue

If shes not charged / takes a deal and a Republican is elected she most likely will be. Better for her to try and resolve it now with a Democrat in control of the DOJ than the alternative.

The other thing is the anger of the American people at the federal government. Failing to act could cause a backlash towards democrats who are up for election this time around.


Thank you, you make some good points.

Unfortunately I do not see it changing much. Too much NWO power behind Hillary. If the powers that should not be had not selected her she would be gone for sure even because of the smell alone. There was a time when they would not have been hung around to stink on others and compromise the integrity of the office



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheTengriist
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well, if there's one thing we've learned, it's that corrupt people under oath have terrible memories. "I do not rcall. I do not recall. I do not recall"


Then their is the flip side -

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky".

My personal favorite was just recently when asked if she ever lied to the American people -
""You're asking me to say I have never, I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever will. I'm going to do the best I can to level with the American people," Hillary said, conclusively."



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: smirkley

Lol Clinton and aides questioned under oath? I doubt politicians have considered lying to be immoral for many, many years. I think its a requirement on the application forms, thou must telleth only lies.




Sullivan, who was appointed by Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton

Love it
edit on 24-2-2016 by RevolutionAnon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: RevolutionAnon

The difference here is they will be under oath. You lie then and get caught not only do you get more charges, in the realm of politics its giving an enemy ammunition that will be used any chance they get.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

She will tell some truth, Some lies, and get a slap on the wrist.

Do you believe she will get a prison sentence? Which is what would happen to civilians if the were found to be discussing confidential information with outsiders and those not classified to be in possession of it. If she does get found guilty (which to some degree she already is) and gets a prison sentence then I would be satisfied. Chelsea manning received 35 years and an honourable discharge from the military for a higher profile case. If she is found guilty (especially regarding the 22 so classified that cannot be revealed) then she should face a minimum of "Honourable discharge" from politics or a fair prison sentence.

Alas if she is not found guilty it means either she wasn't guilty which with governments history is hard to believe, or that corruption, favours and influence won out again.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Well, there's a few things.

1) Laws are for the little people

2) The DNC is ready to tear itself to pieces to shove her down our throats. They will make absolutely sure that nothing prevents that. Including immense political pressure and circuses to make it didn't happen.

3) If it gets bad enough, someone will throw herself on her sword to take all the blame. And then Hillary will pardon them.

4) It will be a cold day when they get Huma on the stand. Because she's Hillary's Lorena Hickok.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Questioned for 11 hours about email's by the benghazi committee and walked away unscathed. Did we forget? I would love to hear some facts sometime but this is america.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I like the Germans take on the Hitlary e-mails.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I`m thinking that someone wants to get them under oath and on record so that they perjure themselves.Then all they have to do is offer them a deal in exchange for testifying against Hillary the perjury charges will be dropped.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Cruz still allowed to be running after being proven to be Canadian born also makes no sense...


This cracks me up. If Cruz isn't eligible to run for President, Obama shouldn't be President. It is the same law that allowed Obama to be President that allows Cruz to run.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

Taken from the movie downfall...

Ironic.

Another appropriate movie to use is Conspiracy (Wannsee conference).
edit on 24-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 01:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: TheTengriist
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well, if there's one thing we've learned, it's that corrupt people under oath have terrible memories. "I do not rcall. I do not recall. I do not recall"


Then their is the flip side -

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky".

My personal favorite was just recently when asked if she ever lied to the American people -
""You're asking me to say I have never, I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever will. I'm going to do the best I can to level with the American people," Hillary said, conclusively."

It's not a lie, it's her simply misremembering and telling the "truth" even though what she said never happened.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Cruz still allowed to be running after being proven to be Canadian born also makes no sense...


This cracks me up. If Cruz isn't eligible to run for President, Obama shouldn't be President. It is the same law that allowed Obama to be President that allows Cruz to run.


How so? Unless proven without a shadow of a doubt or government then there is no precedent for Cruz still viable as a candidate.

Globalization has not eroded such lines of demarcation to my knowledge... and we have already witnessed the extremes his platform runs on for thousands of years rectifying very little for humanity and the world as a whole. The US was not founded specifically to a singular ideology, so having a figurehead that embodies a specfic ideology does not accurately represent the masses as a majority unbiased polls and public sentiment echo this.

If there is desire for further civil unrest in the masses held hostage by such outdated standards then the very migration issue the far right that Cruz respresents will become even more of an issue only fostering more control and more totalitarian ideals that are unatrainable or sustainable in an imperfect world wishing to recconect itself on every level.







 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join