Results 1 to 6 of 6
Like Tree7Likes
  • 2 Post By lorrie
  • 2 Post By lorrie
  • 3 Post By joe s

Thread: Clinton’s Lawyer Rips Into Judicial Watch For Wanting to Depose Her Under Oath

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member lorrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Redondo Beach, California
    Posts
    6,765

    Clinton’s Lawyer Rips Into Judicial Watch For Wanting to Depose Her Under Oath

    Clinton’s Lawyer Rips Into Judicial Watch For Wanting to Depose Her Under Oath

    4:35 pm, July 15th, 2016



    In a motion filed in federal court Friday to fight the deposition of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, her attorneys ripped into conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch. Clinton’s attorneys don’t believe that it’s necessary that Clinton testify under oath about her emails.

    David Kendall, who represents Clinton on the email server issue, repeatedly asserts that Judicial Watch has mischaracterized and inaccurately represented the record in order to get what they want.

    Judicial Watch is attempting to depose Clinton under oath as part of a FOIA lawsuit. The group wants to determine if Clinton and her aides thwarted Freedom of Information Act requests for her emails. Clinton’s attorney writes in his motion opposing her deposition:

    As Judicial Watch concedes, Secretary Clinton has publicly stated that she used a private e- mail account for the sake of convenience. Director Comey has testified that she said the same thing to the FBI. Judicial Watch identifies no evidence suggesting that, if deposed, Secretary Clinton would identify an improper purpose, contrary to her many statements.

    Because it has no actual evidence of an intent to thwart FOIA, Judicial Watch flatly mis- represents the record and manufactures inconsistencies where none exist. [citation omitted]

    Judicial Watch’s attorneys say that Clinton’s deposition is necessary to give the American people a clearer picture of what happened and to “complete the record.”

    “To [Judicial Watch’s] knowledge, Secretary Clinton has never testified under oath why she created and used the clintonemail.com system to conduct official government business. Her only public statements on the issue are unsworn,” Judicial Watch wrote in a response brief.

    U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan will hear arguments on Monday, July 18, 2016 regarding whether Clinton will be required to testify.

    Read Hillary Clinton’s Motion Below:

    Hillary Clinton's Motion

    http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/cli...epose-clinton/



  2. #2
    Senior Member lorrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Redondo Beach, California
    Posts
    6,765

    Judicial Watch chief: Slowly but surely, the Clinton email cover up is unraveling

    Judicial Watch chief: Slowly but surely, the Clinton email cover up is unraveling

    July 13, 2016



    It is no surprise that neither Hillary Clinton nor the Obama State Department agrees with our request to depose Mrs. Clinton concerning her exclusive use of her non-state.gov email account to house and send tens of thousands of official emails throughout her entire tenure as secretary of state.

    What is notable is that the State Department finally admits that Clinton’s practice of supposedly emailing other State officials using her non-state.gov account was not an “appropriate method of preserving federal records or making them available for searches under FOIA.”

    Second, it is both significant and disturbing that Hillary Clinton now asserts a private “claim of right” over her non-state.gov email account, including any of the 55,000 pages of federal records she returned to the State Department. She further claims that these and other emails, including emails that may have contained classified information, have “never been the property of or in the possession or control of the State Department.”

    Also important is the difference between the State Department’s and Mrs. Clinton’s most fundamental claims as to why neither agency staff nor Mrs. Clinton should testify.

    It is both significant and disturbing that Hillary Clinton now asserts a private
    “claim of right” over her non-state.gov email account, including any of the
    55,000 pages of federal records she returned to the State Department.

    The State Department claims that no one at the agency really knew anything about Mrs. Clinton’s non-state.gov email system, so there is nothing left to say.

    Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, claims that everyone at the agency knew all about her non-state.gov system, so, once again, there is nothing left to say.

    Mrs. Clinton’s deposition might clear up this and other issues.

    The legal battle about whether Hillary Clinton will have to testify about her email system could be decided as early as this Monday at a hearing before a federal judge.

    In the meantime, this Judicial Watch lawsuit again forced more government transparency. Following a prior court order, the State Department asked the FBI for any Clinton emails it recovered. And, late Tuesday, the FBI wrote back that it would turn over the emails that Mrs. Clinton had either deleted or held back from the American people.

    Slowly but surely, the Clinton email cover up is unraveling.

    Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch. Founded in 1994, Judicial Watch Inc. is a constitutionally conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.


    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/...nraveling.html
    artist and joe s like this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member lorrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Redondo Beach, California
    Posts
    6,765

    Court hearing on Clinton set for Monday, July 18, 2016

    Judicial Watch: Hillary Clinton Testimony Essential

    JULY 14, 2016

    Court hearing on Clinton email testimony set for Monday, July 18, 2016.

    (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced it submitted reply briefs (available here and here) to the court in response to the State Department’s and Secretary Clinton’s oppositions to Judicial Watch’s request for permission to depose former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Director of Office of Correspondence and Records of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-CRM”) Clarence Finney; and the former Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-IRM”) John Bentel. Today’s filings arise in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit before U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan 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 the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

    In its replies Judicial Watch argues, among other things, that:

    Secretary Clinton’s deposition is necessary to complete the record. Although certain information has become available through investigations by the Benghazi Select Committee, the FBI, and the State Department Inspector General, as well as through Plaintiff’s narrowly tailored discovery to date, significant gaps in the evidence remain. Only Secretary Clinton can fill these gaps, and she does not argue otherwise.

    ***
    To [Judicial Watch’s] knowledge, Secretary Clinton has never testified under oath why she created and used the clintonemail.com system to conduct official government business. Her only public statements on the issue are unsworn.

    Very soon after making its filings, Judicial Watch received notice that the court ordered Clinton and the State Department to file responses to Judicial Watch’s reply briefs no later than Friday at 12 noon. The court specified that they “shall not repeat any argument made previously.”

    District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan will hear arguments in this case on Monday:
    Date: Monday, July 18, 2016
    Time: 10:00 am ET
    Location: Courtroom 24 A – 4th Floor
    U.S. District Court District of Columbia
    333 Constitution Ave NW
    Washington, DC
    artist and Beezer like this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    856
    What is notable is that the State Department finally admits that Clinton’s practice of supposedly emailing other State officials using her non-state.gov account was not an “appropriate method of preserving federal records or making them available for searches under FOIA.”
    Very disturbing that part of the purpose was to make them (emails) unavailable for searches under FOIA.

    Second, it is both significant and disturbing that Hillary Clinton now asserts a private “claim of right” over her non-state.gov email account, including any of the 55,000 pages of federal records she returned to the State Department.
    That is corruption and arrogance at its core. Anyone voting for or supporting Hillary Clinton supports corruption in politics, which is essentially what the Clintons represent.
    Beezer, Mayday and lorrie like this.

  5. #5
    Senior Member European Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    France
    Posts
    4,548

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    856
    Dirty Hillary.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-08-2016, 11:08 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-21-2016, 08:25 PM
  3. Judicial Watch Lawsuit Uncovers More Hillary Clinton Emails
    By lorrie in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-08-2016, 09:12 PM
  4. Judicial Watch scrutinizing controversial Clinton White Hous
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-20-2008, 08:37 PM
  5. Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit to Obtain Records from Clinton
    By avenger in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-16-2007, 03:50 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •