Peter1469
06-20-2016, 05:50 PM
The lawyers who could take down Hillary’s campaign (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/20/the-lawyers-who-could-take-down-hillary-clinton-s-campaign.html)
The lawyers at Judicial Watch were the ones who uncovered Hillary's private server which she used for business email to include classified, even TS/SCI information. If it was not for them, this entire thing would have been covered up. It is a long article. And a good read.
In February, a federal judge took the highly unusual step of ruling that State Department officials and aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about her use of a private email server, a controversy that has dogged the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for more than a year.
In comments from the bench, a visibly frustrated Judge Emmet Sullivan complained about the fragmentary way that new revelations about Clinton’s email use have come to light—largely through press reports and leaks and her shifting explanations for why she set up the server in her New York home rather than use an official “.gov” account when she was secretary of state.
“This is a constant drip… That’s what we’re having here, you know, and it needs to stop,” Sullivan said. He ruled that Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that had brought a lawsuit (https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/36/161905/04514426014.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3D%22D.D.C.%2013-cv-01363%20dckt%20000001_000%20filed%202013-09-10.pdf%22&X-Amz-Expires=604800&X-Amz-Date=20160608T194748Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJDK6JKKSMS3DQS4Q/20160608/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=6e8019989414f0d629684306cf71dd2ec40f2f48 3ae7cbc0a05cd648dd5723e8) seeking answers about Clinton’s email server, could question six officials and top Clinton aides about why the email system was set up in the first place and how it was used. Transcripts of those interviews must be made public.
Judicial Watch celebrated the ruling. It would like to see that drip turned into a rushing stream, one that might carry Clinton away for good. And depositions of Clinton’s closest associates and colleagues are a powerful means to unearth new information and ensure that the controversy over her email system doesn’t fade from the headlines.
The saga of Clinton’s email has become the candidate’s biggest single point of vulnerability, and the question of whether she might be indicted in the affair is her own sword of Damocles. While criminal charges seem less likely by the day, Judicial Watch, which has pursued Clinton and her husband in court for years, has guaranteed that the political threat of the email issue won’t subside. The many lawsuits the group has filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking information about Clinton’s time at the State Department are guided by a single-minded thesis: That the former secretary and potential commander-in-chief is one of the most corrupt and untrustworthy politicians in America today.
The lawyers at Judicial Watch were the ones who uncovered Hillary's private server which she used for business email to include classified, even TS/SCI information. If it was not for them, this entire thing would have been covered up. It is a long article. And a good read.
In February, a federal judge took the highly unusual step of ruling that State Department officials and aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about her use of a private email server, a controversy that has dogged the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for more than a year.
In comments from the bench, a visibly frustrated Judge Emmet Sullivan complained about the fragmentary way that new revelations about Clinton’s email use have come to light—largely through press reports and leaks and her shifting explanations for why she set up the server in her New York home rather than use an official “.gov” account when she was secretary of state.
“This is a constant drip… That’s what we’re having here, you know, and it needs to stop,” Sullivan said. He ruled that Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that had brought a lawsuit (https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/36/161905/04514426014.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3D%22D.D.C.%2013-cv-01363%20dckt%20000001_000%20filed%202013-09-10.pdf%22&X-Amz-Expires=604800&X-Amz-Date=20160608T194748Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJDK6JKKSMS3DQS4Q/20160608/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=6e8019989414f0d629684306cf71dd2ec40f2f48 3ae7cbc0a05cd648dd5723e8) seeking answers about Clinton’s email server, could question six officials and top Clinton aides about why the email system was set up in the first place and how it was used. Transcripts of those interviews must be made public.
Judicial Watch celebrated the ruling. It would like to see that drip turned into a rushing stream, one that might carry Clinton away for good. And depositions of Clinton’s closest associates and colleagues are a powerful means to unearth new information and ensure that the controversy over her email system doesn’t fade from the headlines.
The saga of Clinton’s email has become the candidate’s biggest single point of vulnerability, and the question of whether she might be indicted in the affair is her own sword of Damocles. While criminal charges seem less likely by the day, Judicial Watch, which has pursued Clinton and her husband in court for years, has guaranteed that the political threat of the email issue won’t subside. The many lawsuits the group has filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking information about Clinton’s time at the State Department are guided by a single-minded thesis: That the former secretary and potential commander-in-chief is one of the most corrupt and untrustworthy politicians in America today.