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

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: introvert

Yeah, a request for suppression of testimony from the "administration of transparency". Wasn't that one of the political platforms during the last election, and the election before?

There is no suppression of testimony taking place. This only refers to audio/visual.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: introvert

Yeah, a request for suppression of testimony from the "administration of transparency". Wasn't that one of the political platforms during the last election, and the election before?

There is no suppression of testimony taking place. This only refers to audio/visual.

....of a testimony. You edited that part out.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: introvert

Yeah, a request for suppression of testimony from the "administration of transparency". Wasn't that one of the political platforms during the last election, and the election before?

There is no suppression of testimony taking place. This only refers to audio/visual.

....of a testimony. You edited that part out.

I didn't edit anything. No suppression of testimony is taking place.

Why does she assume what she says WON'T vindicate and help Clinton?

a reply to: introvert

Yea I mean only the two most important modes of any media.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: introvert

Yea I mean only the two most important modes of any media.

For those too lazy to read to find the truth, I would agree.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Why does she assume what she says WON'T vindicate and help Clinton?

Anything Cheryl says will hurt Hillary.

That's because nothing she can say (without lying) will help.

a reply to: introvert
Really? Are you that naiive?

Much of her campaigns success so far has relied on the PERCEIVED idea that she will do better against a republican candidate than Bernie Sanders.

The fate of her campaign relies on the mood of the elecorate, and the way they perceive her.

Audio / visual proceedings against her will have a deeper impact than written reports. Its not just some intuition i have. This is just how society works.

a reply to: 0hlord

Much of her campaigns success so far has relied on the PERCEIVED idea that she will do better against a republican candidate than Bernie Sanders.

Bull. Anyone that can read a poll knows that Bernie would mop the floor with Trump, and Clinton is barely squeaking by.

Audio / visual proceedings against her will have a deeper impact than written reports. Its not just some intuition i have. This is just how society works.

True. People are lazy and believe what they see hear. All the more reason to stop JW and the Right Wing nuts from using her audio/visual for their propaganda purposes.

You are actually making the case for her taking this course of action. Do you realize that?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: 0hlord
a reply to: introvert

Who cares how it looks?

Hilary Clinton.

And the Right Wing nutters. Can't forget about them.

They don't care about context. They care about how it "looks".

Its not just about the right wing. Its also about the undecideds. Especially upper class influential ones.

originally posted by: introvert
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.

Or could it be that she plans on telling the truth and could say some damaging things about Hillary without the Right Wing taking things out of context. But that couldn't possibly be, right?

originally posted by: introvert
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.

It's funny you could replace "Right" with "Left" and it would be 100% accurate.

I'm a libertarian and both sides are absolutely full of it.

a reply to: introvert

Well we know that most people are lazy and believe what they see and hear. That's why we have the current president in office, but repubs didn't vote him in did they.

- oh and obamacare, that's working out great isn't it?
Hope and change "folks"

It's Freedom OF Information Act...NOT...Freedom FROM Information Act.
Cheryl seems to not be grasping the concept behind FOIA.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Cheryl's just bothered by the idea that she'll be under oath and doesn't quite know exactly what the Feds have.

a reply to: introvert

No, im just explaining the real reasons behind this action, not making the case.

Bernie would mop the floor (apparently) with trump.. says the polls... that is true...
but Clinton is 500 pledged delegates ahead of Bernie sanders... barely squeeking by? ...that is definately not true...
Infact a large part of the media have written Bernie out of the race at this point...

The obvious solution would be for her to ask that it be released to the public,that way the people can see the whole thing and decide for themselves.The only reason she would object to it being released publicly is if there is something on there that will make her look bad.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: IAMTAT

Cheryl's just bothered by the idea that she'll be under oath and doesn't quite know exactly what the Feds have.

Maybe she is bothered because she has a good idea of what the feds do have and being between that and a very dangerous pair of friends (Bill and Hill) redefines a rock and a hard place.

a reply to: avgguy

This particular interview is not with the FBI, this is Judicial Watch limited discovery depositions that might lead to Hillary having to give her own deposition depending on what is learned from answering these questions:

1. Who was responsible for processing and/or responding to record requests, including FOIA requests, concerning emails of Mrs. Clinton and other employees of the Office of the Secretary;

2. Who was responsible for the inventorying or other
accounting of Mrs. Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’. emails, records, and information;

3. Who was responsible for responding to Plaintiff’. FOIA request from the date of submission to the present; and

4. Which State Department officials and employees had and/or used an account on the clintonemail.com system to conduct official government business.

The judge's comments from the [ur;=http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-discovery-approved-01363/]court order[/url]:

Discovery is rare in FOIA cases.

...

Discovery should be permitted, however, when a plaintiff raises a sufficient question as to the agency’s good faith in processing documents in response to a FOIA request.

...

Relying on the facts discussed above, Judicial Watch raises significant questions in its Motion for Discovery about whether the State Department processed documents in good faithin response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request. Judicial Watch is therefore entitled to limited discovery.

emphasis mine

I've been wondering who Hillary will throw under the bus first...Until this, I was thinking it would be Huma Danger.
Cheryl is now looking like she may be the first to be thrown on her sword.