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 ...
While certainly a popular item for discussion here on FR, I think the FBI filegate issue is a dead horse.
Hillary didn’t do this directly. Wolfson did.
Her campaign is willing to buffer an issue like this, because it is almost impossible to prosecute her for receiving FBI files.
But it provides nice cover for the myriad campaign nightmares they have been having.
ping
“I wonder how many FBI files she has on the DNC Super delegates??????? “
Just the ones with last names starting with “A through H”.
Yes it is an odd list. Very odd.
Except for a couple 'famous people' (to us political junkies) like James 'snake head' Carville and James Baker, they are nobodies, people who are only loved by their mother.
As to why the Hildebeast would want these people's files is anyone's guess.
I'm sure ....
Mary Stewa Smallpage Bailey, Joseph Whitehouse Agin, Margaret Van Wagenen Carpenter, Barnaby Lair Brasseux, Lerma Dimaculangan Ecle and Jessie Tsui-Shih Fongare flattered that SHE took so much interest in them, but for political purposes these files are useless.
Maybe Hillary gets a kick from funny names? (there's some real doozys there). OR.... given the number of female file names, maybe she was looking for a date. /s
But 'SERIES', I think the brouhaha some FReepers make over the files is foolish and childish. The Filegate Name List has been Google accessible from day one. But instead of looking it up a few FReepers would rather throw goofy nefarious conspiracy theories around. That IMO makes FReepers look like DU Moonbats.
YES having the files was illegal. But he fact is there's no there there. These people are nobodies. The files were only good for paperweights.
Missed that flap. No loss. The FBI files incident is well documented. There’s no dispute that it happened; it’s just the “intent” that’s at issue—whether it was deliberate or the bureaucratic snafu that the clinton administration claimed.
That said, I’m a little weary of every single boneheaded or weak-kneed position being blamed on the clintons having an FBI file on someone. I have no doubt the FBI files have had their role in some things, but attributing every republican’s cave-in and rollover to an FBI file blackmail gives an undeserved, charitable reading on motive. Some people are just self-serving wusses and they’re just being themselves.
Democrats are not subject to conflict-of-interest rules.
It's in the Constitution (their copy, anyway).
Is there no end to what they get away with — ? — ping...
The majority of them, probably. But hiding the files you do want amongst a flurry of useless ones is a pretty good ploy. Plus, if you're going to claim bureaucratic snafu in the event you're found out, it's more convincing if the records reflect some level of bureacratic batch-retrieval.
First off, this could not have been known at the time the raw background reports were perused, (these were not FBI files as such, but things reported during background checks, unsubstantiated claims, unproven allegations contained therein) -- the fact that when Livingstone was using his grubby mitts to gather this information for his boss, the people involved were simply bureaucrats is irrelevant to the crime.
People ask why Hillary Clinton would want this stuff, the answer is obvious, because she COULD get it. It goes to the kind/type of character of person she is, the very thing the electorate is supposed to be judging when deciding on whether a candidate is worthy of being endowed with the Public Trust. I agree that too many people keep bringing this issue up whenever anyone *smells the proverbial rat* but they bring up the wrong point, not what use the information provides (none), not what shenanigans she will attempt on those whose privacy was invaded (again, none), but that this woman who wants to have the keys to every file, every safe, every door, no questions asked exhibited an egregious abuse of power.
dang
Royce Lamberth, eh? Yes, he is a Reagan appointee. But, as I vaguely recall, this is his second very questionable decision recently. I wonder if he’s going around the bend?
I suppose he may have some sort of technical reasons for the decision.
I only scanned the list. No names jumped out at me. I feel these may have been people who had crossed Hildabeast in some way. You can bet she was behind the aquisition with a cut-out, (Wolfson?). What we really have to worry about is President Hildabeast appointing lackeys to the DOJ, FBI and ultimately the supreme court. That alone is the scariest thing about her! A female version of Hitler...
“...but that this woman who wants to have the keys to every file, every safe, every door, no questions asked exhibited an egregious abuse of power.”
Good point, but I always thought, understanding the sorts the Clinton’s are that just the knowledge they had “THE FILES”, and seemingly made certain the fact was known WAS THEIR POINT, even if they hadn’t taken them.
Possibly the fear of the Clintons’ concocting stories (Which they do and was known even then) about anyone going against their will, and causing great financial and emotional distress, as well the possibility of career loss rebutting such fabrications would be enough to keep potential opposition to the Clinton’s at bay.
Even the Clinton’s knew then that one can only do so many “Arkancides” before it becomes too obvious./s
Except the source that ids Judge Lambert is from 2000, it has nothing to do with this case.
WHAT’s HIS NAME??
Dear HAPLESS JUDICIAL WATCH......Go after CRAIG LIVINGSTONE NOW!
TELL US!!! PLEASE.
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.