Federal judge orders Hillary Clinton deposition to address private emails: 'Still more to learn'

Fox News ^ | March 2, 2020 | Ronn Blitzer

[jazusamo]

A federal judge Monday granted a request from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sit for a sworn deposition to answer questions about her use of a private email server to conduct government business.

Clinton has argued that she has already answered questions about this and should not have to do so again, but D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said in his ruling that her past responses left much to be desired.

"As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business," Lamberth said.

[MayflowerMadam]

I can’t remember
My brain’s in a blender
It’s Jell-o
Jell-o

[entropy12]

[bkopto]

Hillary Clinton sit for a sworn deposition to answer questions

How useless is this?

"I don't recall."

"I don't remember."

"I don't recall."

"I don't remember."

"I don't recall."

"I don't remember."

"I don't recall."

"I don't remember."

"I don't recall."

"I don't remember."

"I don't recall."

"I don't remember."

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

I’m dreaming, right? A judge actually ruled against the Queen Demon from Hell Hillary F. Clinton?

[slowhandluke]

"As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business," Lamberth said.

Who cares what her state of mind was? The pertinent law does not include either intent or state of mind as excuses. She's guilty, and needs to go to jail.

[gibsonguy]

I don’t recall. What difference does it make.
I don’t recall. What difference does it make.
I don’t recall. What difference does it make.
I don’t recall. What difference does it make.
I don’t recall. What difference does it make.
I don’t recall. What difference does it make.
I don’t recall. What difference does it make.
I don’t recall. What difference does it make.
I don’t recall. What difference does it make.
I don’t recall. What difference does it make.

[Qiviut]

I’d bet Hillary is expressing much foul language right about now.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I’d bet she threw something, too. She’s been fighting answering questions, in person & under oath, tooth & nail.

[Cuttnhorse]

Thank goodness for patriots like Judge Lamberth.

And patriots like Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch...doing congresses job.

[AJFavish]

A federal case deposition is limited to 7 hours, with some rare exceptions. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_30.

See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (d)(1) at link above:

(d) Duration; Sanction; Motion to Terminate or Limit.

(1) Duration. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a deposition is limited to 1 day of 7 hours. The court must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.(p) She will profess to have little or no recollection, and it will take so much time to try to refresh her recollection with documents, that it is likely nothing will come of this, unless the deposition time is extended significantly.

[PerConPat]

ping

[wjcsux]

I hope that the good judge doesn’t become an Arkancide victim.

[PerConPat]

18 U.S.C. § 793(f) excerpt--

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—-Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

According to a 2016 DOJ Mid Year OIG Review Team report in advance of the 2016 election, "they [Comey? Strzok?] concluded that Section 793(f)(1) likely required a state of mind that was 'so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,' criminally reckless, or 'something that falls just short of being willful,' as well as evidence that the individuals who sent emails containing classified information 'knowingly' included or transferred such information onto unclassified systems."

"The Mid Year team concluded that such proof was lacking. We found that this interpretation of Section 793(f)(1) was consistent with the Department’s historical approach in prior cases under different leadership, including in the 2008 decision not to prosecute former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for mishandling classified documents."

The above was taken from the linked gov document. I apologize for the length of this post, but this sums up, IMO, the preferential treatment given to Clinton.

Gonzalez was not prosecuted because investigators found that "It is clear from the report that there is no evidence that the acknowledged shortcomings in [Gonzales'] handling of this material resulted in any unauthorized disclosure of classified information," ... I don't believe the same can be said for Clinton. Taking "handwritten notes" home and misplacing them in the work place is much different than placing classified info onto unsecured internet servers. I hope, but doubt, that things will go differently this time for Hillary

[slouper]

This Judge will be Scalia’d very soon.