Federal Judge orders Hillary Clinton deposed

[Conager]

The article is a factual recounting of US District Court judge Royce Lamberth's issuance of an order to Hillary Clinton in connection with a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch. She is ordered to appear personally for a sworn deposition which she has never done in the past. It's quite amusing how the DELUSIONAL LEFT are dancing like a Daddy Longlegs on a red hot griddle.

Dancing is right.

It was an outrage! to investigate candidates Hillary Clinton and Quid Pro Joe (but not Trump.) Now adrina tells us that because she is not president there's no point in following up on her obstruction.

-as if there would have been if she were.

 

[adrina]

This isn't about "using private emails" especially by non-cabinet officials. This is about actual, willful defiance of subpoenas, actual obstruction of justice, actual destruction of devices and evidence, actual perjury, and actual obstruction of congress, if there was such a thing.

Repeating your false equivalency again doesn't make it any more analogous.

Try again, snowflake.

Sure thing. The more you rely on terms like snowflake just demonstrates how much skin you have in this game.

I'm sure this whole rabbit hole journey of yours will include your utter shock and outrage at the current administration for doing the very same things.

Right?

 

[Conager]

Wrong.

No one (but you) is even alleging this administration is doing anything similar to Hillary's obstruction, much less, "the very same thing," snowflake.

 

[icanhelp1]

Dancing is right.

It was an outrage! to investigate candidates Hillary Clinton and Quid Pro Joe (but not Trump.) Now adrina tells us that because she is not president there's no point in following up on her obstruction.

-as if there would have been if she were.

Be careful how you deal with the delusional left, they'll have you conflating the fairness of the Mueller report to Hillary's Benghazi testimony, both were shams but for opposite reasons! ORANGE MAN BAD!! HILLARY GOT ROBBED!!!

 

[adrina]

If you say so. It's obviously very important to you that HRC is investigated. Again.

Trump could indeed shoot someone on 5th avenue and you would find a way to excuse and defend it.

Thoughts and prayers. Maybe one day you'll pull your head out of your ass. Maybe.

Please carry on with your bandwagon.

 

[bellisarius]

I wonder if her sworn deposition will be compared to the FBI's 302's on file from her 'interview'?

Wanna bet she'll fall back on her "my minds in a blender" routine?

 

[YesBZ]

I wonder if her sworn deposition will be compared to the FBI's 302's on file from her 'interview'?

Wanna bet she'll fall back on her "my minds in a blender" routine?

supposedly there were no notes taken of the interview, nor a video, nor was she sworn in...all against FBI regs

 

[bellisarius]

supposedly there were no notes taken of the interview, nor a video, nor was she sworn in...all against FBI regs

I know she wasn't "sworn" but that makes no difference when you misremember to the FBI. right?

 

[Conager]

If you say so. It's obviously very important to you that HRC is investigated. Again.

Trump could indeed shoot someone on 5th avenue and you would find a way to excuse and defend it.

Thoughts and prayers. Maybe one day you'll pull your head out of your ass. Maybe.

Please carry on with your bandwagon.

It's obviously important to you that she not be.

After whinging for months about how Trump should want to "prove" his innocence by having all of his executive privileges violated (how did that work out with the Mcgann subpoena?) I would think you would be thrilled Hillary is going to get a chance to "prove" her innocence under oath.

You may go now, as you obviously have nothing to contribute here.

 

[bellisarius]

It's obviously important to you that she not be.

After whinging for months about how Trump should want to "prove" his innocence by having all of his executive privileges violated (how did that work out with the Mcgann subpoena?) I would think you would be thrilled Hillary is going to get a chance to "prove" her innocence under oath.

You may go now, as you obviously have nothing to contribute here.

Comedic breaks.

 

[adrina]

I find pointing out the hypocrisy in the rabid obsession you all have with a has been and your cavalier excusal of the current admin to be very interesting.

It's like you're desperate or something. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Conager]

I find pointing out the hypocrisy in the rabid obsession you all have with a has been and your cavalier excusal of the current admin to be very interesting.

It's like you're desperate or something. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You just said "carry on," hashtag. You are supposed to exit stage left in a huff, snowflake.

Restating your already refuted false equivalency, yet again, does not make it analogous. Still.

No one, including yourself, find you "interesting."

 

[YesBZ]

I know she wasn't "sworn" but that makes no difference when you misremember to the FBI. right?

no notes were taken

it was not recorded in any way shape or form

so now one "remembers" what she said.....

 

[YesBZ]

no notes were taken

it was not recorded in any way shape or form

so now one "remembers" what she said.....

so the 302's are what the FBI agents wrote and we know they cant be trusted

 

[YesBZ]

so the 302's are what the FBI agents wrote and we know they cant be trusted

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286849-fbi-didnt-record-clinton-interview-no-sworn-oath

 

[Conager]

no notes were taken

it was not recorded in any way shape or form

so now one "remembers" what she said.....

I'm sure they looked at each other and realized that they couldn't write a single word down because she was so obviously lying.

Hillary seems to be under the impression that I can't recall is the functional equivalent of taking the fifth. Your choices are testify truthfully or take the fifth. You don't get to lie about what you don't recall when it strains credulity that you have no recollection of something that you clearly have every reason to recall.

 

[icanhelp1]

I wonder if her sworn deposition will be compared to the FBI's 302's on file from her 'interview'?

Wanna bet she'll fall back on her "my minds in a blender" routine?

EXACTLY!!!! Let her get a taste of what Flynn had to go through, only difference! she broke the law, we can start with {8 US code 1924}!! I'm sure lot's of QUID PRO QUO events will be exposed with their phony foundation. I'm sure Andrew Weissmann, one of Hillary's cronies, could also be investigated for violations to the statute 8 U.S.C. 1001 while protecting the Clintons and feloniously mischaracterizing the Mueller investigation.

 

[adrina]

You just said "carry on," hashtag. You are supposed to exit stage left in a huff, snowflake.

Restating your already refuted false equivalency, yet again, does not make it analogous. Still.

No one, including yourself, find you "interesting."

Apparently you do. You keep coming back for more.

Hint: you're trying too hard.

 

[Conager]

Ah, the Rory defense. If you respond he wins, if you don't, you lose.