"I don't recall."
Here are the 25 specific questions that Judicial Watch has submitted to Hillary Clinton, which she must answer in writing by September 29 under oath. This should keep her plenty busy for the next three weeks.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-submits-email-questions-hillary-clinton-written-answers-oath-due-september-29/
In fact, it should take a whole village of lawyers and aides to answer these questions by September 29.
Remember, Hillary. You are under oath.
10 comments:
Actually, the written response to the Judicial Watch questions will be a cake walk. All she needs is her ex-chief of staf Ms. Mills to assist her in the response. It was Mills who sat by Hillary when questioned by the FBI as support for her. It is my opinion that Mills will tell Hillary to forget everything and respond "I do not recall" to most of the questions. She did this 26 times in the FBI questioning.
This is a cake walk for lying Hillary.
Squid
If Mills was present during the interview as her legal rep, then she had a clear conflict of interest since she (Mills) was also a suspect in the whole mess.
Judicial Watch has no authority to order anyone to respond to anything, under oath or not, by any particular date. What have you been smoking?
Same thing as the judge, Siarlys. He's the one who issued the order, not JW.
Judicial watch is the same thing as the judge?
You sound like you may be fumbling your way toward saying that Judicial Watch filed suit and a judge ordered the defendant (Hillary) to turn over certain documents to the plaintiff (Judicial Watch). If so, you need to take another look at your sentence structure and choice of subject in your sentences.
Siarlys,
You and I obviously speak two different variants of English. When I said, "same thing as the judge", I was answering your question as to what I was smoking. Sorry you interpreted it otherwise.
When you can write a complete, explanatory sentence, be sure to get back to me.
I see my error, Siarlys. I should have said, "I am sorry you interpreted it otherwise." No subject-no verb.
That is what you meant, right? Otherwise, I think I answered your question. We can always call in Squid to moderate.
Your problem was the sloppiness of this sentence:
"Here are the 25 specific questions that Judicial Watch has submitted to Hillary Clinton, which she must answer in writing by September 29 under oath."
What you apparently meant to say was "Here are the 25 specific questions in the legal interrogatory that Judicial Watch has submitted to Hillary Clinton, as part of discovery under the supervision and authority of a [state/federal] judge. Clinton has been ordered by the court to answer in writing by September 29, which means her answers will be given under oath."
Uh, OK.
Post a Comment