Uh-oh! Clinton must answer Judicial Watch's questions

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Herdfan, Aug 19, 2016.

  1. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #1
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/19/politics/judge-denies-request-to-depose-clinton/index.html

    Again, used the CNN link since if I posted a Foxnews link it would be criticized.

    While she will not have to answer questions under oath, she will have to provide written answers to their questions. And the answers will be under oath.

    Now here is the kicker, she will have 30 days to answer, but the questions are not due until October 15th. I didn't see anything that would prevent them from being provided earlier (let's face it, they probably wrote the questions long ago). So if they provide them to her by the end of September, she will have to answer them before the election.
     
  2. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    And?
     
  3. Herdfan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #3
    She will have to answer questions about her email server under oath. She can't be happy about that.

    So my question is about her supporters. Will they simply be mad that a conservative watchdog group managed is forcing her to do this, or will they really be more worried about what it will reveal?
     
  4. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #4
    I've been thru the process myself. The question have to be very, very well done. I don't know if the process is the same as a regular quart case. I'm sure they well know that she will be very general and evasive. They will have to use VERY skilled people to write the questions.

    I did this a few times before, and one trick used is the "I don't understand the question" answer, which delays the process. It's more likely than not, that she will word things in such a way as to only cause delay and admit nothing. She doesn't have the ability to admit fault.

    I'd actually be surprised if it amounts to anything. Even if they had a gotcha question, she could lie and it would likely be "explained" away later. Her lawyers are very skilled.

    I'm more hopeful that the latest Trump moves and WikiLeaks can do the trick.
     
  5. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #5
    Maybe both. Maybe neither.
     
  6. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #6
    Why doesn't this "watch group" ask a judge to comply Donald Trump to answer why he won't release his tax return.
     
  7. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #7
    Never understood her position. If she says no classified information, no marked classified information, that it was properly secured, "allowed", and was not used to evade FOIA requests, then where is the mistake? Usually when somebody admits to a mistake they are admitting to an error in judgement. Well, where is it? What mistake did you make, Mrs. Clinton?

    A tax return is confidential information that can only be released by the candidate in question. This case concerns a civil complaint in which a federal judge has authorised discovery because there are questions of law to answer regarding Mrs. Clinton's conduct as Secretary of State relating to the FOIA.

    The answer to your question is that Donald Trump's tax return is a matter of politics, not law.
     
  8. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #8
    I didn't ask you.
     
  9. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #9
    I gave you the answer regardless. Thank me later. :)
     
  10. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #10
    Why ? You're in the UK.
     
  11. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #11
    On what legal basis are they asking the court to compel anyone to give testimony to a partisan political group? If this is a civil action, what damage are they claiming to have suffered? If they can't claim harm, then what is the purpose of compelling under oath testimony simply for the purposes of information? Harassment? What do they anticipate finding out that the FBI didn't?

    What is to prevent Clinton from appealing this decision in order to delay it past the election?

    And should we take this as a sign of what the next four years will be like? At least they waited until a day or two after Obama's inauguration to harass him. With Clinton, they're starting five months early.
     
  12. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #12
    Because Trump doesn't have a legal obligation to release his tax forms. But you already knew that, didn't you?

    BTW, the topic was Hillary, the context was legal obligations.
     
  13. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #13
    Here - enjoy this... it's not about Trump AT ALL.

     
  14. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #14
    Don't you want to know if she lied before?
     
  15. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #15
    Getting caught.
     
  16. jerwin macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #16
    BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP DIDN"T MURDER VINCE FOSTER, THAT"S WHY!

    Any more stupid questions?
     
  17. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #17
    Agreed. It's in the constitution. If George Washington and his successor Lincoln had to release their tax returns, so should Trump.

    The IRS can be forced to reveal them with a FOIA request.
     
  18. zin, Aug 19, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2016

    zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #18
    They are Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. In light of Mrs. Clinton admitting to using a private server last year, some lawsuits were re-opened and some were filed as new, seeking to ensure all records were properly obtained as required by the Act. Discovery in these cases is used to obtain information to determine whether or not Clinton or her aides attempted to circumvent the FOIA. Discovery is only granted after the judge rules on each motion and if there is a question of "bad faith" or misconduct by the Government in responding to the FOIA requests. These lawsuits are entirely separate to the FBI investigation.

    In relation to this particular thread,

    Edit: Just to add, there are dozens of lawsuits pending in court relating to Clinton's records requested under the FOIA, from multiple groups, including Judicial Watch and the Associated Press. Many of these were filed way before anybody knew about the private server.
     
  19. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #19
    And your evidence is what?
     
  20. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #20
    Isn't the legal basis the FOIA? I think this is the same group that just sued to get the 44 emails that show connections between the State Dept and Clinton Foundation.

    The harm would probably be covered in the FOIA. There's a lot the FBI didn't cover mainly would be the Clinton Foundation. There's take of RICO being investigated.

    The court probably accounted for any appeals, not all court decisions, esp dealing with discovery are appealable.

    There's a lot of this that will happen if Hillary wins, you can expect so much gridlock that nothing will ever get passed, but that really depends on the Senate.

    This is built into the design of our system, if they can't get along, the system slows to a crawl.

    This is usually the final stage before a civil war, we're pretty much there already.
     
  21. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #21
    Step 1: Form your own group
    Step 2: Get court order to force Trump to release tax returns
    Step 3: ????
    Step 4: Profit
     
  22. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    From your source ...
    I agree with the judge.

    Hillary will repeat what she told congress. She will repeat what she told the F.B.I. She will repeat what she has said in public. She won't reveal anything new, and instead will repeat the same story that we've heard over, and over, and over.

    Happy hunting. If you ever want to actually catch something, you'd probably have better luck going after snipes.
     
  23. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #23
    I think the media is creating this illusion that this lawsuit is against Hillary Clinton directly, it's not*. Clinton is merely being deposed, aka providing testimony regarding the case against the DOJ regarding the Freedom of Information Act. They're not seeking damages they're suing for the release of information. According to the Judicial Watches press release:

    The request arises in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit before Judge Sullivan that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton. The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

    *Against is a relative term of course. While she's not the defendant, she seems to be the overall target. This is just one battle in the war.


    Clinton testifying here doesn't necessarily mean anything. I'm sure she'll put the safest answers possible. Maybe this is part of the end game to get more information. Maybe they're just going through this nonsense looking for her to put an answer they expect and later slam her with "new" evidence that completely contradicts it. Who knows.
     
  24. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #24
    I can't even imagine that they would waste the time asking question that aren't more specific. They must have transcripts of everything she's said. If they have 1/2 a clue, they would have very specific, targeted questions.

    If they have a full clue, they'll wait for the next WikiLeaks and find something in there that they can ask about.
     
  25. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #25
    FBI recommended no charges. So what ?
     

Share This Page