Is Hillary Trying To Circumvent Justice?

[M]

Reprinted with permission of the Tradesman;

Source; http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-preserves-option-to-s...  Large type in parenthesis are direct quotes from the article.

It looks like Hillary through the machinations of her lawyers are once again trying to thwart justice and hide the truth about her actions. The latest is an option I feel lawyers use to hide their clients guilt and stonewall justice. Today 7/18/16, Hillary's Lawyers are attempting to keep Hillary from being deposed under OATH with SWORN testimony about her E-mail. Last week they filed a motion or a brief with an obscure passage within it that may allow Hillary to postpone any such deposition on her e-mail until AFTER the election. What Clinton's legal team filed with U.S. District court Judge Emmett Sullivan had language that legal experts say will keep the option open for Clinton to BLOCK a deposition at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit if Sullivan orders one. The language in question looks innocuous, "For the sake of preserving any and all rights, counsel to Secretary Clinton respectfully submit that discovery is unwarranted in this case as a general matter,"  but, in effect it is preserving the position that can be used in an appeal. There is a little less than 100% chance it would be able to succeed, but close to it.

The group demanding that Clinton be put under oath and be deposed so any future findings show she lied, could then be used to recommend Perjury charges against her is, Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch is asking the deposition take place under the auspices of the FOIA to explore her private e-mail set up. Here's the kicker in all this; Judge Sullivan was a Clinton appointee, but has been publicly critical of Hillary's handling of her e-mails.Last august Sullivan went on record saying that Hillary violated government policy (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/judge-says-hillary-clintons-p... ) and her actions doing that was responsible for the e-mail legal problems. Last May Sullivan issued an order allowing Hillary's aides to be deposed ( http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-deposit... ) the order left open the requirement that Hillary be deposed under oath to testify on her e-mail fiasco. Why was that specific left open? WHY?

What makes me wonder about the case is the fact that Sullivan agreed to a request from a Clinton Aide, to put the deposition videos off limits to the public and then on his own expanded that order to all video depositions in the case. WHY? It goes far beyond his being concerned about those videos having the potential to become a political albatross around Hillary's neck, it deliberately keeps information from the voting public they need to make an informed choice for the election. WHY?  It also makes Hillary look as guilty as sin, but with plausible deniability like she has always used. Should Sulivan approve Hillary being deposed under oath, it would then fall to the D.C. Circuit Court to decide if Hillary would be deposed or even given her desired delay until after the election.

 To me this is the typical strong arm tactics of the Democratic/Socialist Party to get their way, and remain above the laws they dictate for us lesser mortals. Past practice by the D.C. Circuit Court shows deferential treatment for Cabinet level members. In fact it blocked a Court Ordered Deposition from Obama appointed Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson in a simple defamation of character lawsuit by Shirley Sherrod the former Agricultural employee brought against Andrew Breitbart over a video he published. That Court went on record saying (  "well-established" that c [cabinet] members should not be deposed in civil suits absent "extraordinary circumstances." ) even though Hilary is no longer a 'Cabinet Member' her filings repeatedly mention her former status as a 'Cabinet Member' 

Consider this; The Court is now split between Republican and Democrat appointed members 7-4 in favor of the Democrats with 5 Obama appointees, Clinton appointee, three G.W. Bush appointees, and one H.W. Bush appointee. Guess what most likely will happen if the appeal from Hillary's lawyers comes to that stacked court! Who is trying to mislead the public here? Could the reason it may come to the D.C. Court be because even though State is opposed to Clinton being Deposed under oath, State and it's DOJ lawyers might not appeal to block any Sworn Deposition by Clinton. Anyone can see that all the ducks are aligned to let her off like any Elitist who is above the law would be let off. The reasoning behind that speculation goes back to when Sullivan ordered depositions of State employees and Clinton Aides and State did not appeal to D.C. Court to block those depositions.

Hillary's lawyers may try the Kissinger defense to block any papers germain to the case under the FOIA citing a 1980 SCOTUS ruling that Kissinger's papers were not available under FOIA because they were not at the time under State's control.  The critical piece in this potential move is the footnote suggesting the ruling might be different if anything was deliberately put outside States control. Rehnquist Wrote;

( "We need not decide whether this standard might be displaced in the event that it was shown that an agency official purposefully routed a document out of agency possession in order to circumvent a FOIA request. No such issue is presented here. We also express no opinion as to whether an agency withholds documents which have been wrongfully removed by an individual after a request is filed," ) and that was the majority opinion. This information was cited because of the filings by Clinton's lawyers that since ( "Kissinger squarely covers this case," ) Clinton was not working for State for several months and State had no obligation to provide requested records. 

Judicial Watch President disagreed with Clinton's lawyers stating ( "both significant and disturbing" that Clinton was asserting her private email account was her private property, just as Kissinger asserted about the records he took and deposited in a restricted collection at the Library of Congress. ) it depends on what Sullivan will do with the case, and that bears strict and close watching. I feel there is already the foul stench of collusion to keep any and all testimony off the record and sequestered away from public scrutiny because I feel that Hillary is the Elites presumptive winner through hook or crook come November.

Consider these things together;

Sullivan already sequestered ALL the videos with information that would inform the public about Hillary's guilt or innocence. Information the public needs to make an informed decision on if they want someone like her for President.

The State Department culled through the 30,000 messages that Hillary turned over, and despite Hillary saying that she never transmitted any Classified Information through her private server State removed messages deemed to be "Top Secret" Information when they processed them through the FOIA request and released so far.. The sheer fact that Hillary testified that there were never any Classified messages sent through her private server State Removed "Top Secret" e-mails from hillary's cache. 

The FBI has Hillary's servers and messages proving she did in fact breech Government security with classified documents as well as breaking government protocols and Departmental regulations about messaging. Yet, Cormey refused to recommend charges be brought for things that hillary did that far surpassed the minor infractions that Gen. Petraeus committed and Cormey recommended Felony Prosecution even though the information Petraeus mishandled never leaked out, and most of it was already public information. Cormey allegedly even has e-mails that would qualify as State Department records. That mirrors what Petraeus did, and Hillary went farther but she got a free pass to be above the law with no legal accountability.

It's up in the air over how many of the records the FBI has that are Clinton's property and how many are State's. It's also unclear just who will decide which is which. I'll be willing to bet the farm it won't be cleared up because of stonewalling until after the election. If Hillary should win, I'll bet the farm that all of this will just go away like it never happened. This leaved Judicial Watch's FOIA suit to examine the e-mails in question in a very grey area. Sullivan, could also rule there is no basis in the FOIA Suit to pursue Hillary any further about her e-mails. He would then probably have to rule on the other cases filed when Hillary was still the sitting secretary of State. That could start the delay process over again and benefit Hillary because it would keep the truth from the public until learning it would be a pyrrhic victory.

The Truth would definitely impact on the election in November. Do you believe 'THE FIX' is in?

These are my 'OPINIONS'.

The 

Tradesman

[kevin kiernan]

Just heard Hillary give speech to NAACP in Cincinnati . She was so anti police in her speech. I could not believe her tone at a time like this. It was as if the cop shootings in Dallas and Baton Rouge did not happen. Very divisive speech.It is probably too early for it to be on U-tube. I will bring it later if I think of it.

[M]

Playing to their prejudices for their votes. She's a scumbag in my opinion. I'll bet this is another one jack will not address. I just wish the tradesman was a member of this site and could rebut the RINO's and closet progressives.