Posted on 05/26/2016 7:19:52 AM PDT by detective
Hillary Clinton's former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, is asking a federal judge to order a conservative group not to release audio or video recordings of a deposition Mills is scheduled to give Friday about Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
Mills' attorneys filed a motion Wednesday afternoon saying they fear that the group that sought Mills' deposition in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, Judicial Watch, will use any recording to distort Mills' testimony and advance the group's anti-Clinton agenda.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Cheryl Mills has a lot to hide from the public. She does not want the American people to see her testifying.
Ms. Mills has quite a history...
Account of Clinton Aide’s Benghazi Document Sifting Familiar to Career Public Servant
I’m guessing she took the 5th multiple times.
So release it before the judge issues an order.
After all it’s not like everything on the internet isn’t deletable.
Cheryl Mills has a lot to hide from the public
********************************************
She’s in it up to and beyond her eyeballs. She KNEW about (& was using) the private server, yet she allowed the State Dept to say there was nothing ‘responsive’ to the FOIA requests. State checked their official system - nothing there, because it was ALL on the private server. Also, Judge Nap said a couple of interesting things yesterday - there were several attempts to hack the server & it had to be shut down at least once. This meant Hilly’s Blackberry didn’t work. State offered her an official one, but in an email, Hilly acknowledged she did not want info subject to FOIA. “Intent” is not needed under the Espionage act/law, but there is proof of intent to circumvent FOIA & also Congressional oversight. Yesterday was NOT a good day for Hilly .... lots has been floating around in the air (WE all knew what she’d done), but now there is “proof” that she lied to the public regarding her emails/server and willfully violated policies & procedures in place to keep the State Department in compliance with the law. This is hurting her, regardless of what comes out (or not) of the FBI investigation - frankly, I think it’s more gas poured on the fire. Obama has started to hem & haw & the Washington Post has a damaging editorial on Hilly. In what may or may not be related, the Clintons’ best bud (Terry McAuliffe) is under investigation - just leaked & at a very inopportune time for Hilly with the November election coming up. The winds of political change have shifted ... do they stay a light breeze or pick up to hurricane force (or more likely, somewhere in between)?
The applicable rule Ms. Mills is attempting to invoke is Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in pertinent part:
A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending—or as an alternative on matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition will be taken. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:
...
(F) requiring that a deposition be sealed and opened only on court order;
I would point out that Ms. Mills bears the burden of establishing that she is entitled to the protective order, those orders are not favored under the law, and I don’t see “they intend to make political hay out of this” as a listed reason in the main paragraph. She has to show “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” The standard for “embarassment” is not that it will expose her as a lying criminal.
These protections are typically for questions of a very personal nature. They do not cover professional activities. For example, if Judicial Watch wants to question Ms. Mills on the nature of her lesbian relationship with Ms. Clinton, Ms. Mills is entitled to have the deposition, or that portion thereof, sealed. However, if the questioning is whether Ms. Clinton deliberately ordered her to bypass regular State Department security procedures in handling classified information, that is not subject to a protective order unless the information is itself classified. However, that privilege does not belong to Ms. Mills, but rather to the State Department.
Cockroaches hate the light.
Sorry that's a political argument not a legal one. Care to try again counselor?
Even OKs depot video was released. And OK was better liked than Cheryl
this conservative group needs to follow the judges order like the democrats do, they don’t and nothing ever happens to them.
She walked out of the room.
Didn’t HAVE to take the 5th...
Thank you for that explanation.
If Hitlery falls she won’t be alone. The cabal of retainers that have facilitated her are looking at jail time too.
The Clintons are living in the past. They no longer control the reins of govt. They aren’t able to intimidate govt personnel like they did. Not only that but they have made many many enemies amongst govt personnel through their bullying and arrogance. There are plenty in govt who would love to see the Clintons behind bars.
It all hinges on Obama. With Hitlery’s numbers crashing and her campaign faltering the Rats have to act now. I expect indictments by the end of June.
Wow! Birnham wood .is coming for Hillary and her flying monkeys!
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.