Hillary Clinton aide (Cheryl Mills) moves to block release of deposition video

Former Counselor and Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills is due to "testify" in a Judicial Watch deposition soon.

Well now she has filed a motion in court to suppress anything she might say !!!!

She is worried stiff about what she says will somehow damage the Hillary Campaign and/or be used for political reasons.

Well what else would it be used for?

Other than criminal implications of course.

They are getting real nervous now, especially since the State Department has released some verified info about Hillary's lies.


Hillary Clinton aide moves to block release of deposition video

Hillary Clinton's former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, is asking a federal judge to order a conservative group not to release audio or video recordings of a deposition Mills is scheduled to give Friday about Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.

Mills' attorneys filed a motion Wednesday afternoon saying they fear that the group that sought Mills deposition in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, Judicial Watch, will use any recording to distort Mills testimony and advance the group's anti-Clinton agenda.

"We are concerned that snippets or soundbites of the deposition may be publicized in a way that exploits Ms. Mills’ image and voice in an unfair and misleading manner," attorneys Beth Wilkinson and Alexandra Walsh wrote in the motion submitted to U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. "Ms. Mills is not a party to this action. She is a private citizen appearing voluntarily to assist in providing the limited discovery the Court has permitted... Judicial Watch should not be allowed to manipulate Ms. Mills’ testimony, and invade her personal privacy, to advance a partisan agenda that should have nothing to do with this litigation."

Shattered Nerves and

and Busted Ideals !!!

Can't say I blame her. The Right Wing propaganda machine is well known for taking things out of context and editing content to fit the clickbait agenda that their consumers lap-up like a well trained dog.

a reply to: xuenchen

If she were to have us believe that the media is fair and unbiased, what does she have to fear? Why would that illogical fear she have trump our right to know what she says in her testimony?

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: xuenchen

If she were to have us believe that the media is fair and unbiased, what does she have to fear? Why would that illogical fear she have trump our right to know what she says in her testimony?

Ironic isn't it.

Same dog, same bite.

a reply to: introvert

"right wing propaganda machine" by that you must mean one news channel. I guess we can just forget about the other um-teen that are left wing, right?

a reply to: introvert

So you are in favor of this freedom of speech suppression request?

Strong rebuttals can overcome, but these type of people are not used to doing their own "work".

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: introvert

"right wing propaganda machine" by that you must mean one news channel. I guess we can just forget about the other um-teen that are left wing, right?

One news channel, almost all of talk radio and the vast array of Right Wing nutter sites on the internet, including Judicial Watch.

It doesn't appear that they are worried about the Left taking her words out of context.

Like I said, I can't blame her. JW and the Right Wing nuts are known for taking things completely out of context or making slick edits.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

So you are in favor of this freedom of speech suppression request?

Strong rebuttals can overcome, but these type of people are not used to doing their own "work".

It's not a request to suppress freedom of speech. Nice try though. You are giving us a great example of how the Right Wing takes things out of context.

a reply to: introvert

examples, examples, examples

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

examples, examples, examples

You just gave us one.

Thanks!

a reply to: introvert

Sure it is.

Because YOU are assuming the testimony will be taken out of context.

The "thought" police are in your head.

a reply to: introvert

Uhhhh...., the Left Wing propaganda machine does the same thing. Both sides are bought and paid for, blathering noise machines - wasting all of our time. Integrity is in short supply right now.

a reply to: xuenchen

It's not a request to suppress free speech.

You claim it is because of the very reason I stated.

Example...example.

originally posted by: SeaYote
a reply to: introvert

Uhhhh...., the Left Wing propaganda machine does the same thing. Both sides are bought and paid for, blathering noise machines - wasting all of our time. Integrity is in short supply right now.

Ok. That is not the point here. They are not worried about the Left taking things out of context. They are worried about JW and the Right doing so.

a reply to: introvert

And I know the left leaning media and libtards don't do that. You must have forgotten about the editing that msnbc did of the George Zimmerman phone call.

And salon and vice definitely aren't nutty right?

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: introvert

And I know the left leaning media and libtards don't do that. You must have forgotten about the editing that msnbc did of the George Zimmerman phone call.

And salon and vice definitely aren't nutty right?

JW is a Right Wing nut site, ran by a Right Wing nut. They are concerned about that, not the Left taking things out of context.

Are you going to address that aspect, or are you going to continue to deflect by saying "ya, well the Left does it too"?

a reply to: xuenchen

"Ms. Mills is not a party to this action. She is a private citizen appearing voluntarily to assist in providing the limited discovery the Court has permitted... Judicial Watch should not be allowed to manipulate Ms. Mills’ testimony, and invade her personal privacy, to advance a partisan agenda that should have nothing to do with this litigation."

Say what?

She was the Fraggin Chief of Staff and State Department Counsel, how in the hell can she claim she's not party to the action?

a reply to: introvert

She's afraid that people are going to take it in the context in which they choose. No left media spin, no Obama propoganda lines and no cover up. She's afraid that people are going to see the truth and that scares the # out of her, just like it does Hillary.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: introvert

She's afraid that people are going to take it in the context in which they choose. No left media spin, no Obama propoganda lines and no cover up. She's afraid that people are going to see the truth and that scares the # out of her, just like it does Hillary.

That hits the nail on the head

a reply to: introvert

But have they ever done what you think they will do ?