Busted: Proof she didn’t turn them all over.
It’s not like her withholding evidence is anything new. It goes all the way back to the Rose Law Firm.
Also, In addition to continuing to pressure the thugs at the IRS, Judicial Watch continues to go after Huma:
Revelations that Hillary Clinton used a secret email account to conduct official business while serving as secretary of state has led to more decisive action today by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Judge Sullivan issued a decision to reopen a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking records about Huma Abedin, the former deputy chief of staff, to Hillary Clinton.
This is actually the second Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit that has been reopened because of Hillary Clinton’s hidden email records. Judicial Watch is aware of no prior instances of closed FOIA cases being reopened by federal courts.
Judge Sullivan ruled that the “changed circumstances” of the discovery that Hillary Clinton and members of her State Department staff used secret email accounts to conduct government business warranted “reopening” the lawsuit.
In asking Judge Sullivan to reopen the lawsuit, Judicial Watch cited a federal court rule (Rule 60(b)(3)) that allows a party to reopen a case due to “fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party”:
The State Department had an obligation under the Federal Records Act to properly preserve, maintain, and make available for retrieval records of its official functions. In fact, it is the obligation of the head of every federal agency to do so. Secretary Clinton plainly violated her own legal obligations. Doing so was misconduct.
The State Department originally agreed with Judicial Watch’s request but later changed its mind and asked the Court to reopen the lawsuit because of “newly discovered evidence.” In today’s ruling, Judge Sullivan simply reopened the case, rather than “spilling ink” on whether Hillary Clinton and the State Department committed fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct.
Good for them, and the judge. These people don’t deserve a term in the White House. They deserve a term of twenty to forty in Club Fed.
So if Hillary hasn’t turned over her emails, why should we believe those who say the IRS is true to its word? That kind of logic is pure silliness and craziness.
This is why the IRS is taking so long to go through the emails that never existed, that were then claimed lost, then existed but were destroyed, that were searched for but never found, that actually were never searched for, and that were never really destroyed.
The IRS has to make sure duplicate emails all look the same (wink wink), that no new email is determined as one that existed and should have been turned over for earlier requests, and that no new emails show chains of communications that have not been disclosed.
Anyone who thought that Clinton had in fact turned over all her official e-mails was at best demented. The fact she ordered the server wiped is proof of that, and also, now, proof of obstruction of Justice.
I don’t think this will hurt her much politically. Let’s face it, she could have been caught on camera committing the Charleston massacre and she’d still be the frontrunner for the D nomination.
Busted: Proof she didn’t turn them all over.
It’s proof that State hasn’t yet given the Blumenthal emails to the Benghazi committee. It isn’t proof that Clinton didn’t give them to State.
Lol.
Neither scenario you offer makes Clinton, the State Department, or the administration look good. Either Hillary or the State Department was withholding these documents and Obama approves of everything or his administration wouldn’t be corrupt like this.
Yeah, it’s a no-brainer that a low-level bureaucrat at State would, under penalty of lying to Congress, withhold e-mails that a Congressional investigation had requested, and that Hillary, who is merely trying to cover up bribery and influence peddling, would not. That’s the story, and we’re sticking with it!
bribery and influence peddling
You mean Gowdy isn’t really investigating the Benghazi attack, he’s just looking for political dirt to be used against Clinton in 2016? What a surprise.
Oh, you really got MfK with that one!
Jim thinks we don’t recall that the issue is why the State Department doctored a statement to Congress on the causes of the Benghazi attack? And if Hillary did ask for the doctoring to hide bribery and influence peddling, then that would show motive for doctoring the report. What we know for sure is the report was doctored, and that the attack never had anything to do with a YouTube video. The question has always been, why did State choose to claim the video caused the attack and thus lie to Congess and the American people?
Begone, troll. It used to be a nice blog when you were not posting.
“Shut up!” Eric Weder explained.
Hey look there, bob is telling Eric to shut up. I’m simply not surprised by bob’s progressive tactics.
No, he’s not. He’s saying that Eric is telling Jim to shut up.
And bob-1 knows that’s not the case. Or he would, had he read Aesop, “the boy who cried wolf”. If the lesson of that story was internalized, bob-1 would know that we’ve just gotten tired of Jim’s constant lies, to the point that if Jim said the sky was blue we’d go check.
Ed, if you understood Eric’s comment as I did, then why do you not think that bob is doing anything other than suggesting that Eric not write what Eric wrote? I may have skipped the analytical discussion, but I took bob and Eric’s comment as you did.
Eric told Jim to “be gone”.
I pointed out that Eric was using the “shut up, he explained” template which Rand often criticizes. I was not telling Eric to also shut up – I was urging Eric to actually explain why Jim was wrong, and ideally, in a much more articulate manner.
I look forward to reading Eric Weder’s future commentary, and as I’ve said before, I think Rand and his readers are very fortunate to have someone as thoughtful as Jim sharing his comments.