Hillary back from the dead

And just when it appeared she would slink off back into the muck, once again she is headlines fodder.

www.foxnews.com...

A federal judge Monday granted a request from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sit for a sworn deposition to answer questions about her use of a private email server to conduct government business.

sworn deposition
oh goodie
perjury traps ahoy

Clinton has argued that she has already answered questions about this and should not have to do so again, but D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said in his ruling that her past responses left much to be desired.

she no want to
judge says she has to

"As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business," Lamberth said.

The judge went on to recognize that while Clinton responded to written questions in a separate case, "those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. Simply put her responses left many more questions than answers.” Lamberth said that using written questions this time “will only muddle any understanding of Secretary Clinton’s state of mind and fail to capture the full picture, this delaying the final disposition of this case even further.”

well now
seems she will have to answer some questions that she is clearly uncomfortable with

she should have just told the truth in the first place

a reply to: shooterbrody

If this actually comes to pass and she says anything more than, 'I don't remember', or, 'I plead the 5th', I'll be beyond shocked.

a reply to: shooterbrody

A federal judge Monday granted a request from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sit for a sworn deposition to answer questions about her use of a private email server to conduct government business.

I think Trump needs to build the wall out of Hillarys emails because apparently no one can get over them.

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
Posting work written by others

a reply to: shooterbrody

Your article is short on information.

Isn't Judicial Watch using FIOA for information? How do they possibly have standing to order a former Secretary of State to sit for a deposition? For what purpose? What kind of case is pending?

a reply to: underwerks
This made me chuckle, very clever!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: shooterbrody

If this actually comes to pass and she says anything more than, 'I don't remember', or, 'I plead the 5th', I'll be beyond shocked.

It will never happen. And IF it does it will be with full immunity.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

HOW DARE THEY!!!!!!!!!!! "in my best Gretta voice I could muster"

a reply to: network dude

Do you know what the case is? Who brought it, and why Judicial Watch has court standing to issue a subpoena for a deposition to a former Secretary of State?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
she no want to
judge says she has to

"As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business," Lamberth said.

The judge went on to recognize that while Clinton responded to written questions in a separate case, "those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. Simply put her responses left many more questions than answers.” Lamberth said that using written questions this time “will only muddle any understanding of Secretary Clinton’s state of mind and fail to capture the full picture, this delaying the final disposition of this case even further.”

well now seems she will have to answer some questions that she is clearly uncomfortable with

she should have just told the truth in the first place

Nah.
She'll still avoid answering.
She's on auto-spew:

"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
"I don't recall."
or alternately.
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."
"I can't recall."

Her treason, compulsive pathological lying, criminal, child abusing outrageousness will continue until Barr or Huber or Durham have her in chains . . . and whenever a mic is near--even after that.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody

Your article is short on information.

Isn't Judicial Watch using FIOA for information? How do they possible have standing to order a former Secretary of State to sit for a deposition? For what purpose? What kind of case is pending?

judicial watch didn't order anything
a federal judge did
from the link

A federal judge Monday granted a request

comprehension much?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: shooterbrody

If this actually comes to pass and she says anything more than, 'I don't remember', or, 'I plead the 5th', I'll be beyond shocked.

It will never happen. And IF it does it will be with full immunity.

I think you're wrong. I hope & pray you're wrong.

She has throngs of folks in the know who hate her as much as she hates the USA.

And a lot of them are patriots able & determined to bring her to emphatic justice--at the end of a rope in GITMO or against a wall in GITMO for high treason & crimes against humanity.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Okay, so why does Judicial Watch have court standing to ask the court to force a former Secretary of State to give a deposition? What kind of case is this? Who brought it? What are the charges or damages or whatever?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: shooterbrody

If this actually comes to pass and she says anything more than, 'I don't remember', or, 'I plead the 5th', I'll be beyond shocked.

oh I don't disagree
but a federal judge ordering her to do so in a courtroom in person made me chuckle
if she say anything other than that she is invoking her 5th amendment right I will be shocked

a reply to: shooterbrody

"I don't recall"

Taking bets on how many times that answer is used.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: shooterbrody

A federal judge Monday granted a request from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sit for a sworn deposition to answer questions about her use of a private email server to conduct government business.

I think Trump needs to build the wall out of Hillarys emails because apparently no one can get over them.

then they would be effective?
doubly so against the corona virus!

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: shooterbrody

"I don't recall"

Taking bets on how many times that answer is used.

o/u?

a reply to: Sookiechacha
you should attempt reading the link

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Judicial Watch is suing the State Department for failing to be responsive as a bad faith actor.

Read more from the judge here.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
but a federal judge ordering her to do so in a courtroom in person made me chuckle

It will most likely not be in a courtroom but at an attorney's office with a court stenographer. Either way, she isn't going to say anything self-incriminating.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, but as a lawyer, she'll hate having to go down and be deposed for half the day. Might ruin her week.

She's not even in legal jeopardy right now. The suit is against State. The judge has already called shenanigans, so this is just letting it play out. They'll probably get awarded their fees, and a "moral victory" and nothing of substance will actually change. Other than knowing State is/was corrupt, but everyone already knows that.