Inquiry into State Department's handling of Clinton Emails getting interesting

Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 2 weeks ago to Government
12 comments | Share | Flag

The judge in the case outright accused the State Department officials of lying and dismissed a request for summary judgment to end the case. The judge is permitting discovery under oath from those in the Clinton email investigation. This could be very interesting.
SOURCE URL: https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/24/judge-accuses-state-department-of-making-false-statements-on-clinton-emails/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTWpkbFkySmhZekEyTWpZeCIsInQiOiJHV3AzNFFoMVREVGZjVGR2dE9HazhqdWRCS2ZRRzBDWXMrTmZQKzREcE5vT2VseUdmZXdpYkJYN011aWo5XC8yRVwvdFJHSm8rQXFmdStiM3lyOXRza1dxQlZzUmhWVXRTVEVqTlc3Mlc4XC9LeVlxN09GN0Z6bVNcL3lNam4zZytOSjYifQ%3D%3D


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Solver 1 month, 1 week ago
    Someone read 1984,
    “...
    Prince: At that time, we had produced all—
    Lamberth: It was not true.
    Prince: Yes, it was—well, Your Honor, it might be that our search could be found to be inadequate, but that declaration was absolutely true.
    Lamberth: It was not true. It was a lie.
    Prince: It was not a lie, Your Honor.
    Lamberth: What—that’s doublespeak …
    ...”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  exceller 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    I read this development earlier.

    Unless it is a new development, I understand that the State Dept defense lawyer claimed they have submitted information the Judge requested and that they have done their due diligence in the case. The Judge allegedly said he may have "misremembered".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
      The State Department lawyer claimed that they were only responsible for handing over information in their possession. The judge rejoined that the problem was that Hillary Clinton had been illegally using storage outside the State Department, so their defense was invalid. If you have more recent information, please post a link.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  exceller 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        Blarman, thanks for the update.

        No, I don't have new info. I was pleasantly surprised at this posting which means that the lawyer had no case.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
          No problem. I just like to have the latest developments in things like this and wasn't sure if maybe my source was behind the times.

          "I was pleasantly surprised at this posting which means that the lawyer had no case."

          What I thought was significant was that the judge rejected the lawyer's reasoning outright. Much of the Clinton case is about skirting the edges of the laws while trying to claim they were doing what was allowed. The judge's disposition to dismiss this nonsense is a very good sign in my book to exposing the truth.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  exceller 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            "Much of the Clinton case is about skirting the edges of the laws while trying to claim they were doing what was allowed. "

            Yes, that was the excuse Clinton was running with from the beginning.

            I remember during her campaign as she was saying with straight face that "it was allowed" for her to use private email.

            What I found upsetting though that nobody asked "allowed by whom?"

            She was the head of the State Department so I assume she allowed herself or, God forbid, was she referring to Obama?

            If a Judge is calling her out on that nonsense then maybe there is a chance that she will be exposed, under oath, unlike the friendly chat Comey arranged for her.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
              And truth be told, it was NOT allowed either by State Department policy or by law. What she did was illegal as per several statutes. She got around the policy thing because she was never forced to sign the agreement that every State Department employee must sign saying they will abide by State Department policies. That to me is a separate issue for which someone's head should roll.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  exceller 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                "she was never forced to sign the agreement that every State Department employee must sign saying they will abide by State Department policies. That to me is a separate issue for which someone's head should roll. "

                Thanks for that. I was not aware of that fact.

                Everyone is mum about that which fits in well with the Deep State "rules". How many other cases that we are not even aware of like this. DC is truly a cesspool.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo