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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Hillary Has Until September 29 To Respond - Under Oath To These 25 Questions

page: 1
31
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+9 more 
posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Read it while it's hot! A very interesting development on hillarys email scandal, Some of these questions are going to pin her down, No doubt she will worm her way out of it as usual, Im guessing she will employ a "fall guy" to take the blame, But at the very least, these questions will expose more of her lies.

Zerohedge[edit by]edit on 30-8-2016 by ColaTesla because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ColaTesla

Couldn't she appeal this until the end of time?



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: ColaTesla

Couldn't she appeal this until the end of time?


No doubt she will try...



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
The answers will be a combination of:

"I don't recall"

"I plead the 5th"

and some assorted lies.




posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

She could just blame Brian Pagliano. He's already made a deal and plead the 5th!



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ColaTesla

The very first question is really like 10 questions bundled into 1, they will not even get a smidgen of the information they are asking for



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Don't forget "the black guy made me do it!"



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I don't see any questions.

What happened to them?



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ColaTesla


She won't get around to answering those questions because she can't without more lying. It is a carefully engineered checkmate play.

My bet is that she will soon withdrawn for health reasons--and we must wonder about the republicans bringing that reason to the fore as an excuse for her to use.

Bidden will step in, all old-time political players on both sides will be pleased, and he will win the election with a landslide.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Her lawyers will answer them for her, so she has plausible deniability.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
To the higher being that keeps allowing Hillary to get off, please allow something to finally stick...



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ColaTesla

why?
judicial watch are just showing how desperate and stupid they and their fans are, again.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: ColaTesla

why?
judicial watch are just showing how desperate and stupid they and their fans are, again.


Scared she will be proven to be a liar again for the umpteenth time?




posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: ColaTesla

why?
judicial watch are just showing how desperate and stupid they and their fans are, again.


Why is it desperate to ask for a little clarity/transparency from the person who's running for President? It's obvious that something "questionable" was happening here, so to look for clarity on a major topic like this is more than fair IMO



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ColaTesla

Do directives like "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" fit the definition of a question? Just curious if the lawyers will attempt to have a directive like that broken down into individual questions.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ColaTesla


Those are actually more like 90 questions, LOL! Maybe she'll answer them before the Sept 28th Presidential debate? One thing is clear... Colin Powell is to blame for a large chunk of her server and e-mail problems. Hillary said so herself, so it must be true.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ColaTesla


Hillarys lawyers have until the 29th... Hillary aint answering crap.. she most likely will never see the questions.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   
She may work an hour or two answering the questions, but then it's straight back to calling Mr. Trump a racist.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Judicial watch's lawsuit is civil and not criminal. In civil cases (very rare) judges can deny 5th amendment invocation and require a response. The 5th amendment is specifically geared towards criminal prosecution. While the 5th can be invoked in the civil realm its not absolute and carries a lesser degree of protection.

The 5th amendment is a personal privilege and does not apply to corporations. Corporate entities cannot refuse to turn over subpoenaed corporate documents, regardless of the possibility of those records containing information that could result in exposing criminal wrong doing by an individual. This will be used against the Clinton Foundation.

The other thing to keep in mind is this particular lawsuit / questions stem from the discovery phase. You can run into legal troubles here as well, namely obstruction, by refusing to turn over info / evidence / etc. Also, based on the lawsuits dealing with Clinton you have judges who have become pissed at the games being played by the lawyers. Ordering a person to answer questions, under oath, basically says the judge believes the party in question is lying / being untruthful in their actions / words.

What a lot of people are unaware of:
In criminal cases a person who invokes his/her 5th amendment results in the jury being instructed that they can not infer anything from the refusal.

In civil cases the opposite is true. When a person invokes their 5th amendment / refuses to testify it s allowable for inferences to be drawn by that refusal / invocation of the 5th.

Hence the reason for asking very detailed questions. If she answers them she runs the risk of the law finally catching up to the Clinton's. If she refuses to answer / invokes the 5th it creates a situation where her refusal will be used against her.

Hillary, who is a lawyer, walked herself into a catch 22.

She is damned if she does and she is damned if she doesn't.
edit on 31-8-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Those are some damn good questions.

I wish this could be a verbal Q & A, televised live.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
31
<<   2 >>

log in

join