State Dept. wants to limit questions Hillary aides can be asked over email scandal

You might think that this would be a routine blocking tactic used by defense lawyers, but no -- this is the Obama regime's official United States State Department, headed by Obama appointee, John Kerry, who is seeking to limit any questioning regarding a probe into the email scandal that Hillary Clinton and her cohort have been trying to deny and evade for many months.

The State Department, not some bunch of private lawyers, wants to choke and cripple the questioning of Hillary's aides who worked for her at State during her long reign there during the Obama presidency. Why? Because these people will be under oath when they testify, and you can bet their own private attorneys will be looking out for what is in their own individual best interests....

Links:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-emails-state-department-221612
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/sta...tive-group-can-ask-clintons-aides-under-oath/
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/st...icial-watch-questioning/2016/04/06/id/722643/

But, not to worry, Hillary fans! On March 11th, Obama told "donor-class" Democrats to get solidly behind Hillary and back her only. Plus, who runs the FBI? An Obama appointee, James Comey. And who runs the Justice Department? Obama appointee, Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The choreography of this little "schauspiel" may be clumsy and heavy-handed, but the intent is clear. Whitewash this whole thing and make it "go away" as fast as possible! The hyperliberal political agenda and President Wonderful's "legacy" must be protected at all costs....

 

Of course they do. They are afraid that they too may be shown as crooks.

 

They are asking for the questioning to be limited to the SCOPE of the investigation. Not sure how you see wrong in that. Why would you want questioning on other topics unrelated to the scope of the investigation? What this prevents is the partisan hacks from purposely drawing out the questioning on unrelated topics just so it can hurt Clinton in the election.

All questions in the scope of the investigation are fair game. My my watching the cons twist and spin is hilarious.

 

Gotta love this krazy conclusion: "Why? Because these people will be under oath"

 

Based on the Court’s statements at the Febr
uary 23 hearing, State understands the scope
of permissible discovery to be “the reasons for
the creation of [the clintonemail.com] system.”


Is what they want to limit it to and that is a direct quote from the PDF in question.

The FBI is investigating more then why Clinton created the email address/server.

 

Right - as if Under Oath means anything to Hillary.

 

And the FBI investigation is an ONGOING investigation. Therefore questions related to that investigation are not going to be allowed. That is STANDARD for ANY investigation.

 

Not quite true or you wouldnt have one person given immunity already.....

The State Dept would not try to limit questions to why the address/server was created unless they thought those being questioned would be damaged by further questioning.. We already have Clintons answer supposedly she was to stupid to have 2 email addresses.

 

The answer has been given and substantiated you just don't like it. Well tough (*)(*)(*)(*). Your assuming and spinning doesn't change that fact.

 

So you do think Clinton is two stupid to handle two email addresses?

 

No I think the right is so desperate for anything to stick, they just want to throw out any accusation hoping it sticks. Don't be disappointed when your witch hunt turns up nothing. I see a lot of crying and whining cons at the end of this.

 

That was her excuse make up your mind.. Do you or do you not think Hilary Clinton can handle two email accounts.

 

No it was easily explained:

http://mashable.com/2015/03/10/hillary-clinton-email-blackberry/#u7HOevT4Xgqa

Since it had been set up and used she continued. And yet again, it was not a good choice, but it wasn't illegal. The fact the right is throwing out all sorts of accusation is just slinging their (*)(*)(*)(*) on the wall hoping it sticks.

Don't be surprised when you are disappointed. Lots of teeth mashing will be done by the right.

 

Laptops did not exist in 2013? Other smart phones did not exist in 2013? Come on man.. We are back to she was to stupid.. Now do you REALLY want her lemmings in front of Congress testifying that the former Sec of State and possible next POTUS was two stupid to have two email addresses?

Btw know who said?

"It would've been better for me to use two separate phones and two email accounts," she said. "I thought using one device would be simpler, and obviously, it hasn't worked out that way."

 

Lots of people, including Republicans, went with the one device method. Again, poor choice, but not illegal. That's the part you cons don't like, its not ILLEGAL. You can criticize her all you want, I think she made a poor choice as well, but illegal? Nope. That (*)(*)(*)(*) don't stick and in the end the cons will be crying and mashing their teeth.

It wasn't being stupid, it was trying to be efficient.

 

So we are back to her being to stupid got you.

 

Nope those are YOUR words, stop being dishonest. Why is it when some cons are proven wrong, they have to resort to lying?

Have fun with your with hunt, you will be disappointed.

 

I bring you back to what the State Department wants to limit the questions to... Yell and scream at them if you must.

 

And I bring you back to the investigation is ongoing, so of course they won't be allowed to answer questions in connection with that investigation. Yell and scream at them if you must.

 

Why she created it is part of the investigation...

>>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<

 

And the WH spin doctors begin their work ! Nothing to see here folks , move along . The WH and the DOJ will never allow the barking dog to be charged !

 

no, as i posted in other threads, the same people that are pushing the investigation, most certainly emails from clintons server, from day one. if this was such an issue, they should have brought it up then.

i am completely against using personal systems for govt business, i would not have allowed it, but they all do it, regardless of party. this should never be allowed but they have their own rules, again, regardless of party.

 

Who on the right is involved in this witch hunt?

Besides, doesn't the FBI have an obligation to investigate any and all crimes they come across? Do you have any idea how many crimes are solved because one investigation leads to the resolution of another?

 

The IG "pushed" the investigation.......

 

This is a microaggression by the government class who believes they have special privileges. It's time we insist they check their privilege.