Saturday, August 8, 2015

Clinton et al Thumbing Their Noses at Judge Sullivan?

Hat tip The Observer and Squid

Judge Emmett Sullivan set August 7 as a deadline for the State Department, Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin to come clean on their private emails. August 7 has come and gone, and it appears that they are ignoring the judge's order.

Here is the report from Judicial Watch:

Hopefully, Judge Sullivan will follow the example of Judge John Sirica during the Watergate scandal and use all means at his disposal to force compliance. The State Department is acting like a rogue department, and as for Hillary and her cronies, they are acting like what they are-outlaws.


Squid said...

Hillary has feigned full cooperation with the court and stated she has done nothing wrong. Yah, my backside. With the avoidance of the court appearance of Hillary, along with Mills and Abedin, we know this does not pass the smell test. The DoJ prosecuted General Petraeus, after the FBI raided his home, finding confidential State documents. He was convicted of a misdemeanor and had to pay a heavy fine. Hillary has done much worse, with no action by the DoJ or the FBI. It does fall on Judge Sullivan to bring these lawless miscreants to justice. Let us hope that the Obama/Clinton machine does not have an effect on his decisions.


elwood p suggins said...

(Brought forward/updated from dead-letter page).

What in the world is it with the Clintons and their herd when it comes to classified information/non-secured computers??

In addition to the fairly ancient history of Sandy Berger and David Petraeus, on Bill Clinton's last day in office, he pardoned his former CIA Director, John Deutch, who was under investigation by DOJ (FBI??) for, you got it, having classified documents on his unsecured home computer. Sound at all familiar?? He obviously needed pardoning to avoid criminal exposure.

Now we have Hillary and her right and left hands, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. All three were under a Federal court order to answer certain questions and furnish certain information, under penalty of perjury, relative to e-mails, etc., by Aug. 7th.

Abedin and Mills, via their attorneys, did not comply with the order but instead advised that they would not, under penalty of perjury, answer the questions posed by the judge in his order. This would appear, at least for now, to be a tacit/backhanded way of taking the Fifth without taking the Fifth, and is certainly indicative of an admission of criminal behavior.

Mills' attorney(s) further advised that Mills had previously furnished some electronic data to the court, "did not believe" that she had any pertinent paper documents in her possession, and had been instructed to destroy remaining electronic data on her server/computer by Aug. 10th.

Hillary, of course, did not even bother to respond to the court order in any manner.

And she wants to be Prez?? And Siarlys would vote for her??

This is a real no-brainer. Between Mills and Abedin, simply pick out the weakest. Make her a deal she can't refuse to snitch against the other two and whoever else may be involved. Mills may possibly be as tough as Susan McDougal but I betcha Abedin is not.

Squid said...

There is a big problem here. Failure to appear in court is a criminal offense and depending on the circumstances can result in additional fines and fees or a warrant being issued for your arrest. If anyone reading this comment and I were to not show up in court, as ordered, a warrant for our arrest would be issued. We would be picked up by law enforcement officers and thrown in jail. We would then have to appear in court and be sentenced for contempt of court.
So, if you or I were a high level politician, we would get off the hook, like Hillary. Mighty nations have fallen because of the deterioration of the rule of law and America is on its way.


elwood p suggins said...

Siarlys Jenkins said...

When did I say I would vote for her, elwood? I've been "Anybody but Hillary" longer than I can remember -- back to when her hubby was still president. I think I've said that if it came down to Trump v. Hillary, I might vote for her. Rubio vs. Hillary, I'd find a third party to vote for. Kasich v. Hillary, I might, possibly, vote for Kasich, but he'll have to show more of what is really inside him first.

August 9, 2015 at 7:03 PM

A little while back, we had a discussion about candidates, voting, etc. ( I cannot find the original posts and I apparently did not save them for future reference, as I often do. Or else I did and can't find them either. "Oldtimer's" disease maybe??). My memory is that you said then that if it came to Trump/Hillary, you "would", not "might", vote for her.

In any event, even if you previously said "might" rather than "would", as you do now, your inconsistency is showing anyway. Is it really "ABH", as you claim, or is it "AABH" (with the first "A" for "almost"), as it seems to factually be?? "ABH" would appear to fairly clearly indicate that you would not vote for her under ANY conditions. That is what I would mean if I said it.

And possibly/probably scarily, I am also taking a look at Kasich. I liked him way back when he was in the House and conjectured then that he possibly had a future. Almost makes me think/fear there is something really bad about him that you know and I don't. He does occasionally choke/tear up and sling snot, kind of like Boehner, no??

Siarlys Jenkins said...

What I said was if it came down to Trump v. Hillary I would vote for Hillary, which would feel a bit like voting for Hindenberg in preference to Hitler. Not a ringing endorsement, and certainly a significant qualifier to your original statement. Yes, if you REALLY scrape for a truly horrible choice, I might actually vote for her. Against Trump, I would, because Hillary would do less damage than Trump, which is a very low bar.

Kasich is, for starters, a sane man who would think about what he was doing, even if his criteria are not entirely mine. That says a lot in the Republican field. Second, I am impressed that he seems to have learned something from the experience of ramming anti-union laws similar to Scott Walker's through the legislature, only to have them overturned by referendum with something like a 60-40 margin. Republicans, not unlike Democrats, but perhaps with a bit more fervor and a bit less cause, frame everything in their program as "The people want..." Well, Kasich learned that the people did NOT want vicious anti-union legislation. Probably most of the 40 percent who did voted for Kasich, but that's not enough to govern with, and a decisive 10-20 percent of voters who DID see merit in Kasich as governor did NOT see merit in that legislation. I appreciate a politician who can learn from experience and change their tune.

That probably is something that will turn you off to him.