Connect with us

News

Federal Judge Hands Down Order For Hillary Clinton Deposition To Address Private Email Scandal

Published

on

If former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton thought she was going to completely get away from the whole private email server scandal that sparked up in 2016, she’s sorely mistaken, especially after the decision reached by a federal judge concerning a request from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

Clinton was accused of using a private email server to conduct state business, which is a violation of federal law. She also allegedly sent classified information using this server, again, a big no-no.

Here’s more on this from Fox News:

Trending: Maxine Waters Escapes Censure, Goes on MSNBC to Gloat

Clinton has argued that she has already answered questions about this and should not have to do so again — the matter did not result in any charges for the then-presidential candidate in 2016 after a high-profile investigation — but D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said in his ruling that her past responses left much to be desired.

take our poll - story continues below

Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?

  • Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business,” Lamberth said.

The judge went on to recognize that while Clinton responded to written questions in a separate case, “those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. Simply put her responses left many more questions than answers.” Lamberth said that using written questions this time “will only muddle any understanding of Secretary Clinton’s state of mind and fail to capture the full picture, thus delaying the final disposition of this case even further.”

Lamberth even gave some examples of lingering questions about Clinton’s emails, such as how did she come to believe that her private emails would be preserved under normal State Department processes, who told her this and when, at what point did she learn department records management officials did not know about the server, “[a]nd why did she think that using a private server to conduct State Department business was permissible under the law in the first place?”

The ruling on this comes after the watchdog group revealed they had obtained thirty previously undisclosed Clinton emails had been released by the FBI at a status conference back in December of last year. However, the State Department did not fully explain where these emails came from.

Speaking of the State Department, they’ve been pushing rather hard to have what is known as the “discovery phase” of the case to be closed, but Lamberth responded that he’s not quite ready to do that, claiming there is “still more to learn.”

Judicial Watch initiated this case back in 2014 and is looking for information regarding whether Clinton might have employed a private email server as a means of getting around the Freedom of Information Act and whether or not the State Department might have acted in bad faith when they tried to close the case a few years back.

There’s also some question as to whether or not the department put in the appropriate effort to locate records requested by Judicial Watch in the group’s FOIA request.

In other words, there’s still a whole lot of questions that need to be answered and the government, along with Hillary Clinton, haven’t exactly been forthcoming with answers, which has only served to make matters worse for them in the long run.

The American people deserve to know the truth. If Hillary violated the law, she must be held accountable for her actions, if for no other reason than to help restore a little faith in the justice system.

News

Thus Far in 2021, Big Tech Has Cracked Down on Free Speech More than Ever Before

Only four months into this year, an analysis finds that Big Tech has worked to eliminate free speech more than ever before.

Published

on

Only four months into this year, an analysis finds that Big Tech has worked to eliminate free speech more than ever before. An analysis of these fascist efforts to end free speech on the Internet awarded Big Tech a bit fat “F” for its un-American efforts to aid and abet the far-left. Per the Media Research Center: At least 10 separate tech platforms silenced then-sitting President of the United States Donald Trump over the speech he gave in Washington, D.C. the day of the Capitol riot. Both Google and Apple pulled Parler from their app stores. Amazon Web Services also cancelled its contract with Parler, shutting the burgeoning social media site down for more than five weeks. Google removed LifeSiteNews from its advertising programs, and YouTube shut down its channel. YouTube demonetized Steven Crowder’s channels. Amazon removed Ryan T. Anderson’s book examining transgender ideology, and it also removed a Clarence Thomas documentary while continuing to sell at least 270 hate items. That consistent assault on free speech makes 2021 an ideal time to track the biases and failures of Big Tech. Starting with this quarter and going forward every three months, the Media Research Center’s Free Speech America operation will grade the top Big Tech companies, including social media, search media and others that form the backbone of our online lives. This quarter, Big Tech earned a collective “F.” Every one of the Big Tech companies reviewed got an “F” in free speech. That’s simply appalling. The quarter began with unparalleled restriction of the president of the United States. It was unquestionably the low point for online freedom since the creation of the internet. The MRC added its report card: The MRC went on in its report to detail all the reasons why each company in the graph above have…

Continue Reading

News

The ‘New York Times’ and Its Latest Two Giant Lies

There is no doubt that the ‘New York Times’ is an agent for America’s enemies, but its two recent lies are some of its biggest in years.

Published

on

New york Times

There is no doubt that the New York Times is an agent for America’s enemies, but its two recent lies are some of its biggest in years. One is the straight up lies about the death of Capitol Hill police officer Brian Sicknick. The Times and the left have been straight out lying about this man’s demise since the instant it occurred. Time and again the left has said as if it is a fact that officer Sicknick died as a direct result of the so-called “capitol insurrection.” We now know for a fact that he did not die as a result of anything that occurred during the riot. But more specifically, we have known since day one that the direct statements of fact uttered by the media has been a lie. They never had any truth or fact to back up their bald-faced lies about Sicknick’s death, and they knew it. As Issues & Insights noted: What did the Times base its story on? Unnamed sources, of course. There were no pictures. No videos. No on-the-record accounts. No medical examiner’s report. The story fell apart, as news emerged — no thanks to the mainstream press — that Sicknick had texted his family about being in good spirits that night. Then we learned that he’d returned to his office after the events at the Capitol, and only later went to the hospital. Why the medical examiner’s report didn’t come out until more than three months had passed is a mystery, but when it was finally released this week, it turned out that Sicknick had died of natural causes — from strokes — not from any injuries during the Capitol Hill melee. The Times could have — and should have — known that its story was false from the beginning, or…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week