Hillary Clinton aide moves to block release of deposition video

[NWCorona]

"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.

"We are concerned that snippets or soundbites of the deposition may be publicized in a way that exploits Ms. Mills’ image and voice in an unfair and misleading manner," attorneys Beth Wilkinson and Alexandra Walsh wrote in the motion submitted to U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. "Ms. Mills is not a party to this action. She is a private citizen appearing voluntarily to assist in providing the limited discovery the Court has permitted... Judicial Watch should not be allowed to manipulate Ms. Mills’ testimony, and invade her personal privacy, to advance a partisan agenda that should have nothing to do with this litigation."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/05/hillary-clinton-cheryl-mills-deposition-223583#ixzz49iGpCAL4
Hmm.

[aspirant]

1. "she is a private citizen"

Her testimony entails actions as a Dept. of State employee, not what restaurant she went to last week.

[roguevalley]

14. more slag from Ms Transparency

[Bobbie Jo]

2. Hmm

We seem to have a lot of interest in the "conservative group," Judicial Watch, around here lately.

Hmm...

[NWCorona]

3. Hmm we have a lot of people brushing off serious issues around here lately

Hmm indeed!

[Bobbie Jo]

5. Standards

Last edited Thu May 26, 2016, 01:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Looking forward to their return here.

I know you don't remember, it was before your time. Pimping RW sites and causes were discouraged here, in fact, this kind of thing would have one laughed off the board in short order.

Carry on, for now...

[NWCorona]

6. Please! You can save it as I've had RW sites used against me by team Hillary.

I didn't know I needed your permission.

[Bobbie Jo]

9. Actually,

I can put it right here. No permissions involved here, just making an observation.

I'm not sure what that "they did it first" nonsense even means. Not that it makes any difference, really.

Dig, dig, dig while you can! Time is short...

[NWCorona]

10. I'll be just fine.

Can I lone you my copy of 1984?

[Bobbie Jo]

13. Meh

They come, they go...

[reddread]

17. time is so short

sometimes you cant even tell when its up.

[riversedge]

18. The 'for now' is the important part.

[NWCorona]

19. ...

[IdaBriggs]

12. I miss the integrity everyone displayed

before the Hillary team decided it was okay to support Republican style actions. Remember when Karl Rove hid emails on the RNC servers, and everyone was up in arms at his horrific behavior? Now we have people fussing that FOIA laws only apply when we like people!

[Bobbie Jo]

15. That's a stretch

"Republican style actions?" What? That Faux-style nonsense just rolls off the keyboard, no?

What does Fox or Breitbart have to say about all this? I'll wait for someone to drag it up in here if they haven't already. Did Trump have a pithy quote??

Live it up, folks. We're down to days at this point.

[IdaBriggs]

16. I believe you are correct that we are down to days, but not the way

you think.

[malokvale77]

21. Standards?

Laughable coming from you.

[Bobbie Jo]

22. Whatever that means.

Yes, standards.

Before your time too, apparently.

[zappaman]

11. Any port in a storm

[JoePhilly]

20. A lot of interest in letting a conservative group smear democrats actually.

Some Bernie supporters would be perfectly fine letting Judicial Watch smear ANY Democrat so long as it could potentially hurt Hillary.

[Bob41213]

4. After seeing today's helpful report

I don't think they need to do anything to distort her testimony.

[4139]

7. Hmm, what could be so bad of a video of her testifying : I don't recall, I don't recall,

I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, ......

[Babel_17]

8. She could demand they release it all, or do so herself

Same with the transcript.

[liberal_at_heart]

23. good point. If she doesn't want snippets of it released, she should release the whole thing.