Breaking: Court rules late today Hillary Clinton must answer more email questions -- including key q's about the setting up of her email system. Court denied our request to unseal vid depositions of Clinton aides. Great work by Michael Bekesha! https://t.co/VBKkm3H8gi pic.twitter.com/00k6pRsHNe
— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) November 15, 2018
this will lead to....wait for it.......
Nothing.
Nothing."
Much like the Russians fixing the elections for Trump?
Terry
Terry
Federal Judge Orders Hillary Clinton To Answer Long-Evaded Questions About Her Secret Server —Ace of Spades
Via Mark Tapscott at Instapundit, a jidge has given Hillary Clinton a 30 day deadline to come clean.
Clean? Like with a BleachBit?
A federal judge ordered former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to answer five questions she has avoided for years about her use of a private email server to conduct official U.S. diplomatic business.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan on Wednesday gave Clinton 30 days to respond under oath to five questions.
These questions were all put to her nearly four years ago in a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit government watchdog Judicial Watch.
The five questions are:
1.) Who decided to create the clintonemail.com system?
2.) When was it created?
3.) Why was it created?
4.) Who set it up?
5.) When did it become operational?
So, is she going to claim under oath to a judge who seems suspicious of her that she created the server just so she could use one iPad or whatever bullshit reason she's offered before?
The judge added a bit more:
Sullivan also ordered Clinton to explain why, on Oct. 22, 2015, she told the House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi that virtually all of her emails "were in the State Department's system" and "if they want to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so."
The judge ordered Clinton to "identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts."
Lifezette notes that any person Clinton names as having been involved in the server will likely be asked follow-up questions by Judicial Watch.
Serious question though, are those guys standing next to each other? If so, either the guy on the left (in the pic) is giant or the guy on the right is tiny.
IF?...LOL
Proven fact she set up a non-secured server and did gov't business on it. No doubt about it.
Proven fact that email server was hacked. No doubt about it. (As an aside, I have a server sitting on my home office that is used to report the status of a wealthy man's home HVAC system. This server is under attack every day by hackers out of China. I can view the logs and see them trying to get in. Most of the hackers are coming out of a university in Bejing. So far nada, but even if they do get in, there is nothing on that server of any importance. Anyone want to claim there was nothing of importance on Hillary's email server?).
Proven fact she destroyed 10's of thousands of emails that were supposed to be turned over to the gov't.
Need we go on with the charade of "IF she is dirty"...
The real issue here is: "Why is the rule of law not being equally applied?"
JMO
You're correct on that. But the answer is disturbing......the rule of law no longer exists for the political class.
How any thinking person can still give Hillary the benefit of the doubt with regard to her actions just shows that the persons in question don't really think at all. The evidence of her malfeasance is available to all who wish to look at it. She doesn't even deny most of it.
Yet people say things like "If she is dirty"...and then those same type of people complain about how the other side won't work with them...sheesh...why would anyone work with a group who doesn't want to enforce laws against their side, but are more than willing to try and use the same laws to attack their opponents?
You want to know why this country is divided, there it is. One side (the left) wants the laws enforced against the other side, but they don't want those same laws enforced against their side.
JMO
Matt
Slade wanted a picture;)
