I've followed this some and I'm not ready to shoot the messenger this time (Reply #33)

Jarqui

(10,788 posts)

33. I've followed this some and I'm not ready to shoot the messenger this time

Tue May 31, 2016, 07:46 PM

May 2016

This isn't a David Brock smear job. This is a court. Judge Sullivan seems like a reasonable judge.

Given Judicial Watch is right leaning and biased that way - we have to bear that in mind.

But if you've followed the case, they've made their arguments based on evidence and legal reasoning. Judge Sullivan is not the only judge to see that this issue looks like bad faith and something smelly going on and allowing depositions (unusual in FOIA cases).

We have the media reviewing the IG of the State Department report that adds to the list of lies Hillary has told about this. Judicial Watch didn't utter those lies or put a server with classified material in their house.

Why is Hillary lying so much about this?

Hillary's server guy cuts an immunity deal .. for a little "mistake"?

Cheryl Mills, a lawyer for Hillary Clinton (who is also a lawyer) had five other lawyers defending her when she was deposed and avoided answering a bunch of their questions. Hillary avoided answering the IG's questions unlike what she promised in the media. Doesn't that strike you as a little mind boggling for a little "mistake" as Hillary has claimed?

The Inspector General for the Intelligence Community has yet to report after looking at this for a year.

The FBI have been at this for close to a year. Why that long for a little "mistake"?

Sorry folks. Shooting the messenger Judicial Watch on this one doesn't cut the mustard. There is something going on here - more than Hillary has told us. Hillary has always lied for a reason. This time is no different. They just haven't nailed down why she's lying yet. Maybe like Watergate, they're following the money ... to the Clinton Foundation. Whatever.

Something here stinks and the media, judges, inspector generals and FBI seem to know it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

70 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

BREAKING: HILLARY AIDE REFUSES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT EMAIL [View all] Halliburton May 2016 OP

If true,this is a holy shit moment. wendylaroux May 2016 #1

You mean like, "Holy Shit...we're blowing this way of proportion?" nt anotherproletariat May 2016 #36

I don't think so anymore. wendylaroux May 2016 #50

And in F'ING CAPS!!!! That proves that this is series Sheepshank May 2016 #54

Lawyer client privilege is now some reason to go into shock MattP May 2016 #2

Ask John Dean. gordianot May 2016 #7

Has the Daily Mail been a pro-Clinton outfit? Ash_F May 2016 #3

rightwing UK tabloid nt geek tragedy May 2016 #5

Daily Beast is the one. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #6

Daily Mail leans right emulatorloo May 2016 #11

The Daily Mail not only leans right. It is also a seedy and sensationalist tabloid. barrow-wight May 2016 #27

You'll get no arguments from me emulatorloo May 2016 #28

I just don't know how that qualifies as news. barrow-wight May 2016 #29

Better source and story here: emulatorloo May 2016 #37

Yeah. barrow-wight May 2016 #39

yes, but the case is supervised by a federal judge appointed by Clinton. grasswire May 2016 #51

Of course. I am answering Amy's question about whether Daily Mail was pro-Clinton emulatorloo May 2016 #52

Mills has no grounds to claim Attorney Client Privilege berni_mccoy May 2016 #4

Why not? I admit it looks very convenient for her, but if she was the attorney then it should be ok JonLeibowitz May 2016 #9

Crime-fraud exception berni_mccoy May 2016 #15

Mill became one of Hillary's attorneys after hillary left the state dept... 4139 May 2016 #12

Mills is likely involved in the cover up. Crime-fraud exception. berni_mccoy May 2016 #16

She did refuse to be interview by State's IG = guilty 4139 May 2016 #20

Cover up of what? annavictorious May 2016 #21

What is the crime? Cicada May 2016 #31

I don't think that's a rule Sheepshank May 2016 #18

co conspirators cannot claim atty client privilege. grasswire May 2016 #56

And your expertise in this area is based on what? onenote Jun 2016 #65

Good. seabeyond May 2016 #8

Its not ecven a goverment deposition.... Historic NY May 2016 #10

I know. annavictorious May 2016 #23

This is really starting to stink bad ... nt Jarqui May 2016 #13

Yeah, but the BS cheerleaders are going to put up sewage OP after sewage OP, until the 16th n/t SFnomad May 2016 #19

Sewage is EXACTLY what the $Hillary Campaign has been SPEWING...Lie after Lie after LIE. AzDar May 2016 #45

Just more sour grapes ... maybe your candidate should have been better prepared instead of making SFnomad May 2016 #46

Yes, because BERNIE caused Hillary to set up an unsecure, possibly ILLEGAL server and LIE about it. AzDar May 2016 #47

I can't wait until this place won't sound like Free Republic, Red State, etc. any more n/t SFnomad May 2016 #48

Truth hurts... Gotta be tough though : defending the indefensible. AzDar May 2016 #57

I don't much hear of the truth coming from BS cheerleaders around here SFnomad May 2016 #60

I agree annavictorious May 2016 #24

I've followed this some and I'm not ready to shoot the messenger this time Jarqui May 2016 #33

Interesting. I wonder if that is why she became Clinton's lawyer. Ash_F May 2016 #14

Maybe you should read the transcript if you want to know something onenote Jun 2016 #66

K&R for the people's right to know. senz May 2016 #17

That is surprising! Waiting For Everyman May 2016 #22

She has no ideal where the email thingy came from Mnpaul May 2016 #49

She sent over 300 emails, did she never see the address? Downwinder May 2016 #25

Exactly /nt trudyco May 2016 #44

So she didn't notice the address she was emailing didn't have a .gov at the end... onecaliberal May 2016 #26

And when the server was down after Sandy? Chief of staff not involved? Barack_America May 2016 #30

Nothing her or her aides or surrogates say is believable IMO. onecaliberal May 2016 #35

Perjurers now. Barack_America May 2016 #38

It's just beyond the pale. onecaliberal May 2016 #43

They've gone Full Nixon. grasswire May 2016 #58

My meter doesn't seem to be registering... Tarc May 2016 #32

Move along everybody. Nothing to see here. senz May 2016 #34

The voters have been looking for many months now Tarc May 2016 #41

Oh is that why her approval numbers are so low & unlikeabilty so high? senz May 2016 #42

Wow, that's terrible news, since opinion polls determine election winn... Tarc May 2016 #59

The MSM, the corrupt corporate media that adores Hill senz May 2016 #61

Oh, you're complaining about a news blackout now? Tarc Jun 2016 #64

We wouldn't expect it to, dear. sibelian Jun 2016 #67

3023373 votes, 270 pledged delegates. "Dear". Tarc Jun 2016 #68

Is that one of those cannabis cigarettes I see you smoking? sibelian Jun 2016 #69

I don't think I've smoked since college, so, 2002 or so. Tarc Jun 2016 #70

When Judicial Watch becomes the heroes of the Bernie movement ... barrow-wight May 2016 #40

We're a long way from the little birdie thing aren't we? CorkySt.Clair May 2016 #53

so what? tia uponit7771 May 2016 #55

This BROKE weeks ago. okasha May 2016 #62

No. Weeks ago, Mills was dodging the FBI's questions. winter is coming May 2016 #63

2016 Postmortem

Jarqui

Edit history

Recommendations