No, I am suggesting that you have made an assertion and haven't backed it up with a primary sourced document - Hill's deposition. I am trying to cut through the JW clutter and go to a reliable source for your claim. I don't trust secondary sources, particularly Judical Watch.
I challenged you to name ONE instance where Klayman lied in a press release about Chinagate or Filegate and you haven't. Probably because you can't. Yet I could name hundreds of facts in those releases that are borne out by published sworn affidavits, court documents, interviews with the people concerned, other witnesses, and so on. Like most ardent Klayman detractors, you try and assert that everything he ever did was a lie just because he currently is not acting like you would wish. Which makes me wonder why you are so eager to throw out some of the most damning evidence found against Clinton and the DNC. Perhaps because you are a democRAT?
ALL you can come up with is an accusation involving his mother that you probably don't know any details about (because IF you did you would be using it as an example of Klayman's GOOD character instead). In fact, I challenge you to cite ANY halfway legitimate source that details the circumstances of WHY Klayman sued his mom. I doubt you will.
No, I am suggesting that you have made an assertion and haven't backed it up with a primary sourced document - Hill's deposition. I am trying to cut through the JW clutter and go to a reliable source for your claim. I don't trust secondary sources, particularly Judical Watch.
Judicial Watch is NOT a secondary source ... it's case is the very REASON Hill testified. Klayman is an officer of the court. He was ASKING the questions during the testimony. As to why I can't provide the deposition, the reason is simple ... it is under a court order seal and furthermore the testimony was done in secret (no reporters in attendance). Now don't you suppose that Hill would have come forth to deny that she ever said such an inflamatory remark if she didn't make it? I believe that Klayman on at least one occasion even stated this with Nolanda present. Funny how she wouldn't deny it then. Funny how no other liberal media outlet, hating Klayman like they do, would pick up a denial and publish it on the front page. Funny how the three judge panel didn't reprimand Klayman for making the claim in his request to reopen the Brown case. Again, you are just full of hot air because (I suspect) you don't like the fact that Klayman exposed Clinton and the DNC for the crooks they are. Again, I challenge you to show ONE INSTANCE where a statement Klayman made about Chinagate, Filegate, or the death of Brown was proven untrue ... by ANYONE. I suspect you can't.
Just as I suspected. This statement of Nolanda Hill not only doesn't state that Ron Brown was going to rat out the Clinton administration, it shows that despite her pleadings, Brown became even more aggressive in DEFENDING the Clinton administration. You see why primary sourced documents are important?
Do you honestly believe that was ALL she said about the crimes of Clinton and the DNC is that affidavit? All you demonstrate is your ignorance of the facts. If you were even halfway informed you would know that that affidavit was made BEFORE her secret testimony was given. Notice the part about her wanting it sealed for fear of retaliation? Only 3 people knew she was going to testify before Lamberth. One was in the Whitehouse and isn't it curious that only a week before her testimony was to begin she was charged with a crime ... charges which were apparently hastily compiled. People should get on the web and search for more details about this testimony. It is an eye opener about the way the Clinton campaign funding machine really worked ... selling out this country just to get reelected. And, as I maintain, murdering a Secretary of Commerce and more than 34 others just to keep what they were doing from being described in court by Ron Brown.