WASHINGTON, DC – Tom “Big Guns” Fitton has once again come through for the Republic, delivering a glancing blow to the Satanic Clinton cabal. [Read the Judicial Watch Press Statement here]
Thanks to a FOIA lawsuit submitted by Judicial Watch, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has ruled that Hillary Clinton MUST testify under oath (no Fifth Amendment!), NO LATER THAN 16 DEC 2018, and MUST answer to the following, which she had previously refused to answer:
- Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.
- During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.
Judge Sullivan stated that these questions are within the legal scope of discovery and therefore she can not plead the Fifth. If she claims she “does not recall” she will be held in contempt of court. There is well established case law which supports this:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4) treats an evasive and incomplete answer in discovery as equivalent to no answer at all. Rule 37 authorizes courts to impose sanctions for such violations, and courts have routinely used this Rule to sanction witnesses suffering from extensive memory lapses. See In re Weiss, 703 F.2d 653, 662 (2d Cir. 1983) (finding that “testimonial obduracy” may come in several forms, including “respond[ing] in a way that avoids providing information, as, for example, by denying memory of the events under inquiry, denying acquaintance with targets of the inquiry, or denying knowledge of facts sought to be elicited” or “purport[ing] to state informative facts in response to the questions while in fact testifying falsely) (collecting cases); JFB Hart Coatings, Inc. v. AM Gen. LLC, 764 F. Supp. 2d 974, 988 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (stating “It is insulting to the Court to claim that Beedie could not remember any of the alterations he made to nearly 122 documents, except for possibly removing some price information, because nearly seven months had passed between the time he created Exhibit A and his deposition and he did not have the specific documents in front of him,” and ordering an evidentiary hearing on a motion for default); Gibbs v. Union Pac. R. Co., No. 08-CV-00355JPG, 2009 WL 2143772, at *6 (S.D. Ill. July 15, 2009) (ordering sanctions where deponent had, among other conduct, repeatedly said he had no recollection of events surrounding his complaint); Andrews v. Holloway, 256 F.R.D. 136, 141-45 (D.N.J. 2009) (finding deponent in contempt where he gave false and evasive answers).
This, alone, is a huge win for America. However, let us dig further. Judge Sullivan refused Judicial Watch’s request to unseal deposition videos of Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and other Clinton State Department officials, and upheld Clinton’s objection to answering a question about why she refused to stop using her Blackberry despite warnings from State Department security personnel.
Why would the judge seemingly contradict himself in forcing Hillary to testify, but refusing to release videotaped information that would seemingly support her testimony?
It looks like Judge Sullivan is setting up a perjury trap for Hillary, much like Mueller attempted (and failed) to do to the President.
But Hillary, unlike Obama and unlike Trump, does not have, and never has had, Executive Privilege; only the President has executive privilege. It is important to note that the President can extend the Executive Privilege at his discretion and leisure; Hillary begged Obama to extend the Executive Privilege to her email server, and he refused her. He did, however, invoke Executive Privilege on his own firstname.lastname@example.org email.
Further, Hillary’s server was set up on or before 14 JAN 2009 (according to DNS records – it may be older but can not be younger) – Obama was not inaugurated until 20 JAN 2009 – therefore, her server was set up for her own private use, and not under the President’s orders. To further complicate things, Hillary used this server for not only classified government information, but for her own private financial gain through her shady “Clinton Foundation” which was in reality nothing more than a child trafficking, drug trafficking, and money laundering front. (NY Times source, The Guardian source, Capital Research source, Reason source)
Why did Obama refuse to extend his Executive Privilege to his Secretary of State, knowing it could well have saved her? Probably because he knew she was flagrantly breaking the law. She and other Democrats blocked everything Obama wanted. This author’s purpose is not to defend Obama; merely to make the case that the “Deep State” has affected EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT since at least JFK (and in reality probably much earlier) – INCLUDING and not limited to George Walker Bush and Barack Obama – and Hillary Clinton is the face, the mask, of that “Deep State” cabal.
We can only pray justice is done in this clear cut case of treason.