In a remarkable turnaround, Hillary Clinton will have to testify after all on the email scandal. Clinton has never been subject to true examination on the issue under oath. Instead, she was allowed to meet with investigators shortly before being cleared during the Obama Administration. D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that her prior answers were insufficient and cursory. One interesting twist is that she will not be able claim the privilege against self-incrimination on the original alleged offenses since the statute of limitations has passed. While she would have been unlikely to do so, she would have evoked on a crime that could be prosecuted. Ironically, it will be the Trump Administration that will have to defend her in opposing such demands since they are handling the litigation as it relates to her prior public service as Secretary of State.
This surprising order follows the disclosure by watchdog group Judicial Watch last December that the FBI released “approximately thirty previously undisclosed Clinton emails.” Judicial Watch has argued that the State Department “failed to fully explain” where they came from. Lamberth decided that Clinton has not answered the troubling questions related to her email system:
“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. The court believes those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. Simply put, her responses left many more questions than answers.”
While I expect that Clinton will have a lot of “I do not recall” answers given the passage of time, such examinations come at a risk of false statements under oath. Moreover, Judicial Watch can refresh her money with documents. As a lawyer, Clinton knows the risks and what to expect. However, it is astonish that, after all of these years, Clinton will finally be asked to answer questions under oath on the scandal.
Here is the order: Lamberth Order and Decision
Better late than never, I say.
However, I think this would have been relevant much earlier than today.
I also think it’s wrong that the Department of Justice (sic) has to defend her, since she was breaking the law when executing her duties, and she is not being charged with a crime (yet). Also, it wasn’t the Department of Justice (sic) or the Department of State that authorized her to do what she is being questioned in regard. And it is not the Department of Justice (sic) that is charging her in this issue.
Clinton was breaking a SD rule, but not the law. Her predecessors similarly used private email accounts and Powell advised her to.
And it is not the Department of Justice (sic) that is charging her in this issue.
If Hitlery had been present during Nazi Germany’s concentration camps, she would have added people she deemed Deplorables.
Mr. Beck, you may wish to step back and view from the wider perspective. In her capacity as SoS, Hilary Clinton was acting on and in the government’s behalf as an employee-representative of said government, There is a bond of “RESPONSIBILITY” that occurs there and it is MUTUAL and must be respected and acknowledged.
Therefore, it is right and proper TO CONCLUDE that the “government” act in her defense, BECAUSE as their employee-representative SHE did one thing that cemented a bond. SHE represented THEM in and by her actual performance whether good or bad, or whether legal or illegal.
Lock her up!
“However, it is astonish that, after all of these years, Clinton will finally be asked to answer questions under oath on the scandal.”
Professor Turley, would it be fair to say that you might have preferred to say that what is astonishing is not that she will finally be subjected to questioning under oath, but that she will be subjected to questioning under oath for the first time, after all these years?
Mr. Turley, do you allow your students to write as poorly as this “article” is written? Do you not proofread your own website writings? As a retired teacher, I wouldn’t let me students get away with such incredibly sloppy writing, editing and proofreading.
Sorry. “my” students. (I actually bother to correct my mistakes.)
Sorry: “my” students. (I actually bother to correct my mistakes.)
David Montee – as a retired teacher I had the same problem when I started, however I have now given up.
“I wouldn’t let ME students…” the pot calling the kettle black?
-.-. …. .- .-. .. .- .-.. ..-. .- – .- .- –. — .- .-.. ..-. .- .-.. .. — .- .. -. -.. .. .- -. . .-. — … ..— —-. -…. ..— ….. …..
I intensely dislike this new format.
Love that “refresh her money”, Jonathan Turley.
“Try To Remember,” Hillary.
“Try To Remember,” Hillary.
One thing on a previous topic that touched on medical care in the US and Canada.
Canada is cheaper per capita in part because it has much less reserve capacity for medical care. The city of Pittsburgh has more MRI machines than all of Canada, for example.
Because of its relatively low investment in medical capacity Canada is already pushed to its limits. The wait times for treatment are infamously long.
What happens to such a system when it receives a flood of dangerously ill people because of a pandemic?
We may be about to find out.
The United States with its complex, competing systems has a much greater reserve capacity for treating patients and even that may be overtaxed–but not as quickly as Canada and the UK will be.
On topic, I think it is great Clinton will finally be required to testify under oath.
I am wondering why a private organization like Judicial Watch is able to accomplish what the DOJ, the FBI, CIA, and the entire United States Congress, both houses, has been unable to do.
Could it be that none of them is really trying?
Young: Hillary Clinton testified under oath for 11 hours before a Republican-led congressional committee.
Seth,
Are you saying that Hillary Clinton testified in Congress about the use of her private email server?
If so, when was that? Note that the column is about the server/ email issue.
“COURT: CLINTON MUST TESTIFY ON EMAIL SCANDAL”.
That is the title and subject of today’s column, Seth.
Do you even READ these columns before spitting out your daily talking points?
“In a remarkable turnaround, Hillary Clinton will have to testify after all on the email scandal. Clinton has never been subject to true examination on the issue under oath. Instead, she was allowed to meet with investigators shortly before being cleared during the Obama Administration. D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that her prior answers were insufficient and cursory. One interesting twist is that she will not be able claim the privilege against self-incrimination on the original alleged offenses since the statute of limitations has passed.”
***********
This will save you the trouble of reading the entire column before posting additional talking points, Seth.
It’s unlikely to matter, but at least you might think about reading these columns before completing your daily talking point assignments.
Anonymous, you’re really ‘brave’ for Anonymous. Any commenter can yell at people under cloak of anonymity then melt away forever.
Anonymous Nash,
Hillary testified 11 hours before acongressional committee which included many email questions. That was in October of 2015; just before her presidential campaign.
11 hours of testimony before a mostly hostile committee is more grueling that anything Trump has endured. Trump never even sat for a deposition regarding the impeachment or Mueller Probe.
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/22/451012235/clinton-endures-an-11-hour-grilling-before-benghazi-committee
I pointed out previously that the testimony was about the Benghazi attack, Seth.
You then provide link about the Benghazi hearing as if it is evidence that the hearing was about her email server/ system.
Nice try, Slippery Seth.
Do you even read the links you post, Seth?
Or just crank them out and hope that nobody notices what the links contain?
Guess when you’re so busy continually spitting out talking points, you can’t be bothered with details.
Medical care is not the purview of government. Congress has no authority or mandate to provide medical care. Congress has no power to tax for individual welfare. Congress has only the power to tax for “…general Welfare.” General means ALL and ALL people do not use medical care, clothing, food, housing, etc., in the same amount and frequency. General welfare consists of commodities and services that are not effectively provided by free enterprise in the private sector and that ALL people use in the same amounts and frequency such as roads, water, post office (archaic), trash pick-up, electricity, sewer, etc. Individual welfare consists of individual benefits and entitlements provided to individuals and not ALL people such as public assistance, Social Security Supplemental Income, Social Security Disability, food stamps, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Obamacare, Medicare, Social Security, etc.
Just let me be the first to say that Royce C. Lamberth didn’t kill himself.
😉
Lamberth Ruling Story Lacks Clarity
Professor Turley’s column above seems oddly lacking in specifics. Therefore I googled this story for more coverage. Not too many entries came up. The story remains a bit vague. For instance, no date or venue has been set for this deposition.
Below is coverage from CNBC
…………………………………………………….
“It is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton,” Judge Royce Lamberth said in his order issued in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., where Judicial Watch is suing the State Department over its handling of searches for Clinton’s emails.
“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 wrote.
Lamberth’s order on Monday limits questioning of Clinton to “her reasons for using a private server and her understanding of State’s records management obligations.”
The judge barred Judicial Watch’s lawyers from questioning Clinton and her former chief of staff at State, Cheryl Mills, about the preparation of talking points for then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice’s Sept. 16, 2012, media appearances about the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
No date has yet been scheduled for Clinton’s deposition.
Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, declined to comment.
Edited From: “Hillary Clinton Must Testify In Email Case”
CNBC, 3/2/20
Seth,
Try reading Prof. Turkey’s column. It might prevent the posting of more nonsense from you.
For example, try reading the italisized THIRD PARAGRAPH of this column, where Turley writes exactly what you quoted from the CNBC article.
I can understand that you’re a very busy boy running your talking points machine here, but at least take time to read the damn columns before you shoot off your mouth criticizing them.