Judge Lamberth + Judicial Watch = trouble for Hillary


" “The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch – it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.”"  CTH from the decree of Judge Lamberth


Pilgrims!  Pay attention!  I have testified before Royce Lamberth as an expert witness in a couple of cases.  This is nobody to mess with.  He runs a tight ship, permitting no fooling around with extraneous pleas and other similar legal vanities.  His only problem with me was that he had to tell me a couple of times to let the lawyer ask the questions BEFORE I answered them.

I can hardly wait to see how this will play out!  pl 



This entry was posted in Justice, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Judge Lamberth + Judicial Watch = trouble for Hillary

  1. Keith Harbaugh says:

    Yes, that certainly is an interesting and quite lengthy post by people at CTH.
    I find it hard to believe that sundance has both
    the expertise on the Washington scene that he has demonstrated, AND
    the detailed knowledge of our foreign interventions and fiascos discussed in the article.
    The two most interesting items I have found so far in the article:

    As [Hillary] reiterated vehemently to Greta Van Sustern during a recent interview,
    it was Hillary who wanted to help the Syrian rebels when
    no-one else wanted to assist them.

    Secretary Hillary Clinton wanted
    early and direct interventionist action in Syria
    to topple Assad just like Gaddaffi.

    With probably equally constructive results.
    2) Visit the web page and do a page search on the word MANPADS.
    Need I say more?

  2. exiled off mainstreet says:

    I hope Judicial Watch and Judge Lamberth gets her. She has gotten away with everything for far too long.

  3. Upstate NY'er says:

    Nothing will come out of this.
    The swamp (including the “judges”) protects itself.
    Look at that Amy Berman Jackson to see really stupid corruption.
    Stupid because this idiot isn’t getting any material reward for protecting the swamp;it’s just in her DNA.

  4. J says:

    Why is DOJ ‘objecting’ to Hillary and Mills have to sit for depositions? What are DOJ’s ‘objections’? Are individuals within DOJ trying to ‘protect’ Hillary, like individuals within the CIA ‘protected’ John Brennan?
    What will happen if the court finds Hillary has been or is lying under oath? Isn’t she supposed to be ‘teflon’ Hillary, or so we are led to believe by her and her supporters/backers? How can Judge Lamberth bring ‘justice’ to Hillary?

  5. Diana Croissant says:

    I wonder if Hillary will faint (or feint) on the way to court. Will they have to shove her into the witness seat?
    In any case, I am sure she will not remember anything.
    But, I would sure like to have someone finally hold her feet to the fire, as the saying goes.
    We had a Tricky Did, and it seems sometimes that HRC could be called Slippery Hillary.
    I have often wanted to see her dressed in horizontally striped prison garb.

  6. Donald says:

    Thanks for the link to the Conservative Tree House piece. As a lefty I was only vaguely aware of the site, but now I guess I will have to add it to my reading list.
    If somebody ever writes an honest book length history of the Syrian Civil War or of US foreign policy under Obama, the fact that we were essentially arming Al Qaeda ( directly or indireçtly) will be seen as the great deliberately ignored scandal of that part of our history. You get some sense of it in sources like the NYT— Robert Worth alluded to the fact that we were supporting genocidal fanatics in a great NYT Sunday Magazine piece in 2017 and he mentions the fact that the rebels were a murderous bunch in the New York Review of Books a few weeks ago, But it doesn’t seem to register with liberals for obvious reasons.

Comments are closed.