Hillary Clinton lost her appeal, order stands to testify on private server and Benghazi emails

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Hillary Clinton lost her appeal about forty years ago, if she ever had any.

 

[Claudette]

I work with lots of ex military and every one of them told me that if they had done what she did they would all be in Leavenworth.

 

[depotoo]

Here comes the Supreme court...
Ooops. Misread it. Good.

wonder if she will appeal to the Supreme Court?

oh wait. I was right. That was overturned today. She doesn’t have to testify.

Appeals court nixes Hillary Clinton deposition on emails

D.C. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins suggested it was time to consign the Clinton email imbroglio to the history books.

www.politico.com

Bet jw takes it to the Supreme court.

 

[daveman]

If she didn't do anything wrong, she doesn't have to worry about what might be revealed in a trial, right?

At least, that's what Democrats say about Republicans.

 

[asaratis]

Judicial Watch Issues Statement on Appeals Court Decision Blocking Hillary Clinton Testimony



Today I made the following statement about the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding the request of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s and her former Chief of Staff, Chery Mills to avoid testifying under oath about Clinton’s emails. The court granted Clinton’s request to avoid testimony but denied Mills’.


Today’s extraordinary Appeals Court decision protecting Hillary Clinton from having to obey a court order requiring her to testify about her emails is contrary to longstanding precedent and undermines the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The opinion’s deviation from a long line of earlier mandamus cases creates the appearance of favoritism towards Clinton and undermines the public’s confidence in the fair administration of justice. One need only contrast the DC Circuit’s agony over granting General Flynn mandamus relief with the unprecedented mandamus relief so easily given to Clinton.



As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton hid her government emails, then stole them when she left office. Her lawyers unilaterally determined what would be returned later. The State Department knew this occurred but tried to game a federal trial court into shutting down Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit before Clinton’s scheme became public. In response, the trial court rightly ordered Clinton to testify about the reasons for her actions and their impact on the public’s right to know. That this was too much for the DC Circuit is a miscarriage of justice.



In addition to today’s political decision, the Justice and State Departments’ continuing efforts to avoid getting to the bottom of Clinton’s email misconduct are a scandal. President Trump should hold Secretary Pompeo and Attorney General Barr accountable for their failures of leadership.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[LA RAM FAN]

After losing an appeal to an order to testify in court about her emails and Benghazi, the untouchable crook is scheduled to be deposed beginning September 9, 2020. Part of her defense in trying to avoid the courts was her ridiculous claim (by her lawyers) that she's too important to be forced to testify. What a putz!

Perhaps she will wear that orange jumpsuit someday.

Hillary Clinton lost her appeal, order stands to testify on private server and Benghazi emails

Amid the chaos and anarchy across blue-city America that exclusively possessed public attention for the last couple of weeks, it was not hard to miss any other bit of news — especially if that news has not appeared or been even briefly mentione...

www.americanthinker.com

Clinton had argued that she shouldn't be required to testify because she was a former high-level government official and that the FBI already tried to retrieve her emails. Clinton's lawyers even mentioned some "indisputable right" allowing her not to appear in court, according to Judicial Watch. Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president, said Clinton's lawyers' petition practically states that "she's too important to have to testify to us." "She's desperate to stop this questioning by Judicial Watch because no one has asked her questions like this before[.] ... We know what the issues are, and the court wants specific questions answered, but now she's seeking this extraordinary emergency intervention to stop us."

Wonderful news!

Yeah but I’m still skeptical if anything will happen to her,the clintons are protected by some very powerful rich people in the world who control outcomes of court proceedings to high profile figures and politicians Re immune from prosecution.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here comes the Supreme court...
Ooops. Misread it. Good.

wonder if she will appeal to the Supreme Court?

oh wait. I was right. That was overturned today. She doesn’t have to testify.

Appeals court nixes Hillary Clinton deposition on emails

D.C. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins suggested it was time to consign the Clinton email imbroglio to the history books.

www.politico.com

Bet jw takes it to the Supreme court.

So they want another 33 years of "Lock Her Up".

 

[SassyIrishLass]

That fat old bitch won't ever be prosecuted.

Neither will her philandering fucktard of a husband

 

[PoliticalChic]

I believe Hillary Clinton was absolutely guilty of deliberately mishandling of classified information. I also think she deliberately tried to destroy the subpoenaed evidence AND also deliberately broke the law regarding FOIA. No doubt in my mind about it at all, BUT here's the problem; in order to convict somebody of something in a court of law you gotta have sufficient admissible evidence. Notice those 2 words: 'sufficient' and 'admissible', therein lies the rub and that's where my doubts begin to surface. You gotta have a very strong case to get a Clinton into Court and then convict them, and the Court itself has to be at least non-partisan. I wouldn't bet money that a left-leaning judge will convict her even if enough evidence does exist.

And here's the deal: even if Hillary Clinton gets deposed, she doesn't have to answer any questions. 5th amendment, right? Or she says, "I don't remember that", or "I can't recall", and plays the befuddled old lady who is confused with all this high tech stuff. BS? Sure, no question. I truly believe that she and a number of others ought to see the insides of a prison cell, but in this country you gotta have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe the current investigations will yield something that we do not yet know, some information or evidence that is useful enough to make a difference. We'll see.

I do hope that the Durham investigation will result in people at least being indicted, but Barr isn't going to do that without enough evidence to win in court. Unlike the democrats, who would use anything whether it is true or not to slime somebody, witness Michael Flynn. But Barr isn't like that, he won't use the power of the DOJ to prosecute a democrat without sufficient, admissible evidence. Nor should he. But here again is another good reason not to vote for Biden, for to do so means a return to the old days when the DOJ becomes a political weapon.

Yup.......Hillary would be in jail right now if laws applied equally to all.



18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

www.law.cornell.edu

(f)

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.

(g)

If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy
18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

The Legal Question Over Hillary Clinton's Secret Emails​

Here's What the Law Says About Hillary Clinton's Emails

Two key questions: Did she know it was classified, and did she act negligently?

time.com

There are several laws that make it a criminal offense knowingly to reveal or mishandle classified information. The main one, 18 USC 1924 reads:

Whoever being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.


Clinton also has to worry about government rules for handling secrets. In December 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13526, which renewed the long-running rules for classifying information and the penalties for revealing it.

Under that order, agency heads like Clinton are responsible for keeping secrets safe throughout their departments. And all officers of the government can be suspended, fired or have their security clearance revoked if they “knowingly, willfully, or negligently” disclosed secrets or broke the rules in any other way.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(b)

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally



18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so;

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years


18 U.S. Code § 1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision





(b)

As used in section 1505, the term “corruptly” means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.

 

[toobfreak]

After losing an appeal to an order to testify in court about her emails and Benghazi, the untouchable crook is scheduled to be deposed beginning September 9, 2020. Part of her defense in trying to avoid the courts was her ridiculous claim (by her lawyers) that she's too important to be forced to testify. What a putz!

Perhaps she will wear that orange jumpsuit someday.

Hillary Clinton lost her appeal, order stands to testify on private server and Benghazi emails

Amid the chaos and anarchy across blue-city America that exclusively possessed public attention for the last couple of weeks, it was not hard to miss any other bit of news — especially if that news has not appeared or been even briefly mentione...

www.americanthinker.com

Clinton had argued that she shouldn't be required to testify because she was a former high-level government official and that the FBI already tried to retrieve her emails. Clinton's lawyers even mentioned some "indisputable right" allowing her not to appear in court, according to Judicial Watch. Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president, said Clinton's lawyers' petition practically states that "she's too important to have to testify to us." "She's desperate to stop this questioning by Judicial Watch because no one has asked her questions like this before[.] ... We know what the issues are, and the court wants specific questions answered, but now she's seeking this extraordinary emergency intervention to stop us."

The whole thing is a joke. Hillary already beat this. It is sad enough that our pathetic "justice" system took EIGHT YEARS and great trouble and expense by pro lawyers just to get to the point of asking the obvious questions needing asked of the ONE PERSON able to answer them, but at this point, she will simply say she doesn't remember, and that will be the end of it. Hillary skates free.

 

[irosie91]

After losing an appeal to an order to testify in court about her emails and Benghazi, the untouchable crook is scheduled to be deposed beginning September 9, 2020. Part of her defense in trying to avoid the courts was her ridiculous claim (by her lawyers) that she's too important to be forced to testify. What a putz!

Perhaps she will wear that orange jumpsuit someday.

Hillary Clinton lost her appeal, order stands to testify on private server and Benghazi emails

Amid the chaos and anarchy across blue-city America that exclusively possessed public attention for the last couple of weeks, it was not hard to miss any other bit of news — especially if that news has not appeared or been even briefly mentione...

www.americanthinker.com

Clinton had argued that she shouldn't be required to testify because she was a former high-level government official and that the FBI already tried to retrieve her emails. Clinton's lawyers even mentioned some "indisputable right" allowing her not to appear in court, according to Judicial Watch. Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president, said Clinton's lawyers' petition practically states that "she's too important to have to testify to us." "She's desperate to stop this questioning by Judicial Watch because no one has asked her questions like this before[.] ... We know what the issues are, and the court wants specific questions answered, but now she's seeking this extraordinary emergency intervention to stop us."

The whole thing is a joke. Hillary already beat this. It is sad enough that our pathetic "justice" system took EIGHT YEARS and great trouble and expense by pro lawyers just to get to the point of asking the obvious questions needing asked of the ONE PERSON able to answer them, but at this point, she will simply say she doesn't remember, and that will be the end of it. Hillary skates free.

not so terrible-----it may have helped her retirement REMAIN PERMANENT

 

[asaratis]

...she will simply say she doesn't remember, and that will be the end of it.

...or take the 5th!

I doubt too that Mills will ever testify. There are too many liberal activist judges in appellant courts in DC to keep the case unresolved. The SCOTUS is no better.

 

[wamose]

I don't know what her problem is. She's been talking her ass off to anyone who will listen lately. She's obviously feeling left out, especially now that Kamala has now been named the spotlight girl. Why doesn't she testify to make sure people don't forget her imbecility. That woman is embarrassing.

 

[busybee01]

The Appeals Court reasoning was spot on. This has reached the level of harassment and it is time to move on. This has been investigated over and over again. Lamberth should be removed from this as he seems to have a personal animus towards the Clinton Administration.

 

[Care4all]

I believe Hillary Clinton was absolutely guilty of deliberately mishandling of classified information. I also think she deliberately tried to destroy the subpoenaed evidence AND also deliberately broke the law regarding FOIA. No doubt in my mind about it at all, BUT here's the problem; in order to convict somebody of something in a court of law you gotta have sufficient admissible evidence. Notice those 2 words: 'sufficient' and 'admissible', therein lies the rub and that's where my doubts begin to surface. You gotta have a very strong case to get a Clinton into Court and then convict them, and the Court itself has to be at least non-partisan. I wouldn't bet money that a left-leaning judge will convict her even if enough evidence does exist.

And here's the deal: even if Hillary Clinton gets deposed, she doesn't have to answer any questions. 5th amendment, right? Or she says, "I don't remember that", or "I can't recall", and plays the befuddled old lady who is confused with all this high tech stuff. BS? Sure, no question. I truly believe that she and a number of others ought to see the insides of a prison cell, but in this country you gotta have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe the current investigations will yield something that we do not yet know, some information or evidence that is useful enough to make a difference. We'll see.

I do hope that the Durham investigation will result in people at least being indicted, but Barr isn't going to do that without enough evidence to win in court. Unlike the democrats, who would use anything whether it is true or not to slime somebody, witness Michael Flynn. But Barr isn't like that, he won't use the power of the DOJ to prosecute a democrat without sufficient, admissible evidence. Nor should he. But here again is another good reason not to vote for Biden, for to do so means a return to the old days when the DOJ becomes a political weapon.

And you, believe wrongly.

 

[westwall]

Here comes the Supreme court...
Ooops. Misread it. Good.

wonder if she will appeal to the Supreme Court?

oh wait. I was right. That was overturned today. She doesn’t have to testify.

Appeals court nixes Hillary Clinton deposition on emails

D.C. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins suggested it was time to consign the Clinton email imbroglio to the history books.

www.politico.com

Bet jw takes it to the Supreme court.

So they want another 33 years of "Lock Her Up".

Good old Daryl, supporting criminal activity so long as it's a Dem doing it.

Little hypocrite.

 

[colfax_m]

Here comes the Supreme court...
Ooops. Misread it. Good.

wonder if she will appeal to the Supreme Court?

oh wait. I was right. That was overturned today. She doesn’t have to testify.

Appeals court nixes Hillary Clinton deposition on emails

D.C. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins suggested it was time to consign the Clinton email imbroglio to the history books.

www.politico.com

Bet jw takes it to the Supreme court.

So they want another 33 years of "Lock Her Up".

Good old Daryl, supporting criminal activity so long as it's a Dem doing it.

Little hypocrite.

This isn't a criminal trial. It's a political hack engaging in baseless speculation and expecting the court to entertain it.

Abuse of the legal system is disgraceful.

 

[westwall]

Here comes the Supreme court...
Ooops. Misread it. Good.

wonder if she will appeal to the Supreme Court?

oh wait. I was right. That was overturned today. She doesn’t have to testify.

Appeals court nixes Hillary Clinton deposition on emails

D.C. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins suggested it was time to consign the Clinton email imbroglio to the history books.

www.politico.com

Bet jw takes it to the Supreme court.

So they want another 33 years of "Lock Her Up".

Good old Daryl, supporting criminal activity so long as it's a Dem doing it.

Little hypocrite.

This isn't a criminal trial. It's a political hack engaging in baseless speculation and expecting the court to entertain it.

Abuse of the legal system is disgraceful.

Says the asshole who supported years of legal system abuse so long as it was directed at Trump.

You are dismissed. Child.

 

[colfax_m]

Here comes the Supreme court...
Ooops. Misread it. Good.

wonder if she will appeal to the Supreme Court?

oh wait. I was right. That was overturned today. She doesn’t have to testify.

Appeals court nixes Hillary Clinton deposition on emails

D.C. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins suggested it was time to consign the Clinton email imbroglio to the history books.

www.politico.com

Bet jw takes it to the Supreme court.

So they want another 33 years of "Lock Her Up".

Good old Daryl, supporting criminal activity so long as it's a Dem doing it.

Little hypocrite.

This isn't a criminal trial. It's a political hack engaging in baseless speculation and expecting the court to entertain it.

Abuse of the legal system is disgraceful.

Says the asshole who supported years of legal system abuse so long as it was directed at Trump.

You are dismissed. Child.

Because Trump is above the law, right?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

That fat old bitch won't ever be prosecuted.

Neither will her philandering fucktard of a husband

Very true,as I said,politicians are immune from prosecution ESPECIALLY presidents,it’s a fucked up world that the people let that happpen.