Posted on 04/02/2008 8:47:10 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Clinton Testimony on FBI Files Blocked Apr 2 11:20 AM US/Eastern WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge has rejected an effort to force Hillary Rodham Clinton to testify in a decade-old lawsuit over White House acquisition of FBI background files.
The court ruling spares Clinton a politically sensitive deposition at a time when she is fighting to overtake Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The lawsuit is over the Clinton White House's acquisition of hundreds of FBI files on Republican appointees to White House jobs in previous administrations. The conservative group Judicial Watch accused the former first lady of masterminding a conspiracy and has been trying to question her for years.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
A lifetime in FReeper-land.
And, of course, no indication of who the Judge is which means that we can't determine who appointed this Judge.
Lastly, we are expected to believe that 900 Classified FBI files are requested by the WH, including those of Pres Bush 1, and that this is somehow acceptable.
Ridiculous decision.
bookmark for later
District Judge Robertson was appointed in 1994 by guess who?
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/robertson-bio.html
If you google his name.. Judge James Robertson and go to the Newsmax link you will discover...AhHA!
That he is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton Crime Family.
I’m shocked I tell ya!
Darn.
Care to elaborate?
What you say? Judicial Watch, after taking in nearly $100 million dollars over the yars has basically never won a case?
Never mind......
Rush needs to hear about this.
Heard of him -- had a good record when he was presiding in Texas, iirc. Wonder what he's doing up in D.C.
Here is the FILE LIST . If you find a 'famous name' Super Delegate let us know.
(ps: I don't think James Carville is one)
So the Klinton machine had dirt ont he judge. Nothing to see here, or we should fear arkincide.
what an odd list of names- i wonder what they all have in common or why the clintoons were interested in their FBI files.
Very annoying. This identical AP wireservice report has appeared all over the country, without giving the judge’s name.
Maybe it will be available later, but they must have figured out that if they give the judge’s name, people can google it to learn who appointed him.
It seems as if it’s ALWAYS a clintonoid judge who does these things.
It looks like Robertson is handling the clinton library case and Lamberth is handling the suit against the FBI—two different cases involving the clintons and Judicial Watch.
Lamberth seems to be a reasoned and fair judge. I’d like more info on why he denied deposition in the FBI lawsuit. For all we know, it may be some technical error in the way JW filed or argued...which might explain why JW doesn’t have anything on their website about the ruling. They did have a link to their filing for discovery, which apparently is what this ruling was responding to. But the court docs aren’t even dated, so who knows?
[singing] Oh Whitewater, keep on rollin’...
The DC District Court website doesn’t have this case listed in its list of recent opinions, which seems to have been updated today—at least not that I can find.
There were a few freepers *very* recently poo-poohing this telling us we were saps and fools and an embarrasment to the forum for buying into the 900 FBI file ‘conspiracy’.
Are they "classified" because they were stolen, or were they classified by the FBI before they were stolen?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.