Ex-Aide to Hillary Clinton Testifies About Email Server

[Bob41213]

FOAI testimony is beginning. Lots of potentially fun stuff could come out of this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/ex-aide-to-hillary-clinton-testifies-on-email.html

The former aide, Lewis A. Lukens, testified under oath about his knowledge of Mrs. Clinton’s private email system as part of a lawsuit brought against the State Department by a conservative legal advocacy group, Judicial Watch.

At least five other officials — including two of Mrs. Clinton’s top aides at the State Department, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin — are also scheduled to testify in the lawsuit over the next six weeks in what promises to be an unwelcome distraction for the Clinton campaign.

...

But Mr. Fitton predicted that once the testimony is publicly released — perhaps as early as next week — it would show “why the State Department and Mrs. Clinton have slow-rolled this and withheld a complete explanation of what went on with her email system. What we learned is going to be embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton and the administration — maybe more than embarrassing.”

[tazkcmo]

1. NY Times???!!!!

THAT Right Wing Rag?















sarcasm

[mindwalker_i]

6. Nice

Brought a little much-needed humor into the day.

[Barack_America]

8. GOP Clinton strategy: Defeat or Impeach.

Gotta hand it to them, those fuckers always find a way.

I'm just sick of Dems making it so damned easy for them.

[Merryland]

2. very interesting reading - thanks!

As I read the story, I thought Why in Hell would anyone do what she did? Of course, intellectually, I know it was to claim ownership of her "government service" and/or hide Clinton foundation shit....But what KIND of person does this???

[eastwestdem]

3. So now Democrats are all for frivolous lawsuits brought by "conservative legal advocacy" groups?

I don't get it. But while we're on the topic, are you not the same people who think that Hillary was planning on running for president for the past 10 years? If that is the case, then any mistakes made with her emails are highly likely to be negligence and not
anything involving criminal intent.

[jeff47]

4. Member since: Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:51 PM

Does Brock pay by the post, or is it an hourly gig? Is there a bonus for getting the first reply?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

12. Nice low post count and new member discrimination. nt

[jeff47]

21. When someone announces they are paying for people to come to places like DU

should I not believe them?

[Barack_America]

5. So NYT is out as a source now? M'kay.

[mindwalker_i]

7. Did you get a cookie?

[Jitter65]

9. Judicial Watch has been after the Clintons for over 30 years. nt

[Bob41213]

10. Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

How do you feel when the Clinton appointed judge gives a statement like this:

The judge called the email episode “very, very, very troubling.”


3 very's can't be good.

[Fla Dem]

20. Initially appointed by Ronald Reagan, then by GHW Bush. A RWer from the start.

He knows who he gets his marching orders from.

[bobbobbins01]

11. I believe that is the civil lawsuit.

I'm pretty sure the only one left to testify in the actual FBI investigation is Clinton herself. I wonder what they're waiting on.

[Bob41213]

13. It's definitely the civil suit.

I thought that was clear but it may not have been. This is the Judicial Watch civil case.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. It is the civil lawsuit

[rbrnmw]

14. Never ceases to amaze me

people who are on the left, on a site called Democratic Underground, are cheering on Judicial Watch

[Bob41213]

15. Yeah, that Clinton appointed Judge is cheerleader #1 apparently

[Fla Dem]

19. Emmet G Sullivan was first appointed by Ronald Reagan and then by GHW Bush.

Sullivan was appointed by President Reagan to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on October 3, 1984. On November 25, 1991, Sullivan was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to serve as an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

I would guess he is more of a conservative leaning judge than not.

This whole thing stinks. Judicial Watch has been after the Clintons for years. It's mind blowing that any Democrat would give them credence by posting anything about them here and use their hate filled partisan initiatives to support their candidate. But then I'm assuming the writer of the OP is a Democrat.

[paulthompson]

18. depositions

I don't like Judicial Watch. But to blame them is a classic "blame the messenger" tactic. They're not making stuff up. What they're doing is forcing the release of information. No one is accusing them of forging goverment documents or forcing witnesses to lie, especially in this case where witnesses are testifying under oath. So what we need to do is look at the info that comes out, and judge that.

Re: these new depositions, I believe the testimony can be made public in three days, including video footage. I doubt Lewis Lukens will have much of interest to say, but who knows. However, next week Clinton's former chief of staff Cheryl Mills will testify under oath, and that should be very interesting.