Thank you Judicial Watch. Thank you for your tireless determination in bringing Hillary to answer questions about her unsecure email server, the emails lost, and the equipment destroyed. Finally, after four years, Hillary will answer the questions from 2016 which a transparent candidate would not leave without answers.
They are the questions a press without bias would have gone after. This is the information an honest political party; one with the best interests of America at heart would require of its candidate to disclose.
Hillary Clinton is a former first lady. She is also a former secretary of state. Hillary is also a former U.S. Senator. Mrs. Clinton is also a two-time loser as a presidential candidate. She is going to have to revisit the ghost of her email server 2016. While serving as our top diplomat Hillary conducted all official State Department business on a private email server that was not secure.
The use of an unsecured email server did not receive authorization by the State Department officials. That is contrary to what the former first lady said about the unusual communication arrangement. If she did ask for permission, Clinton would not have gotten permission. It was all part of the State Department Inspector General Office’s report on the matter.
This added fuel to the fire over this story during the 2016 cycle. It kept the story in the news. At the time in 2016, this was something the Hillary campaign was desperate to neutralize. It only added more suspicion and rehashed old criticisms of the Clintons. One of the criticisms was they behave like the laws don’t apply to them.
Judicial Watch has been doing exceptional work in court. They have been rooting for more details over this fiasco. Hillary admits to deleting 30,000 emails. Those emails were under subpoena. This is the government. They don’t like transparency. Transparency is especially evil when it makes a Democrat look bad.
The Judge rules; People respond
BREAKING: Federal Court Orders Deposition of Hillary Clinton on Emails and Benghazi Attack Records. Rules prior testimony "left many more questions than answers." https://t.co/pvW4CD2oBS
— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) March 2, 2020
Hillary Clinton back in court! Federal judge grants SIGNIFICANT new discovery to @JudicialWatch on Clinton email AND Benghazi scandal! Court wants us to "shake this tree" on Clinton email records! New witness testifies today. https://t.co/Hy4VW0sVIH pic.twitter.com/KhePw5IUP0
— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) September 19, 2019
Clinton has argued that she has already answered questions about this and should not have to do so again, but D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said in his ruling that her past responses left much to be desired.
“As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business,” Lamberth said.
The judge went on to recognize that while Clinton did respond to written questions in a separate case, “those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. Simply put her responses left many more questions than answers.” Lamberth said that using written questions this time “will only muddle any understanding of Secretary Clinton’s state of mind and fail to capture the full picture, this delaying the final disposition of this case even further.”
More questions than answers, a hallmark characteristic of the Clintons when they get into legal trouble. And let’s not forget that Hillary used 13 devices connected to that unauthorized and unsecured server, some of which were destroyed with hammers by her aides:
The Clinton camp doesn’t think that potentially mishandling classified information is a serious issue. But the rest of the country did, as does this federal judge. What the hell was going on here? Should we bring Obama into this? He was emailing her using a pseudonym. So, he knew about the server? Hillary shall sit for a deposition about her unsecure email server finally. Will she remain above the law?