Posted on 04/02/2008 8:47:10 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Clinton Testimony on FBI Files Blocked Apr 2 11:20 AM US/Eastern WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge has rejected an effort to force Hillary Rodham Clinton to testify in a decade-old lawsuit over White House acquisition of FBI background files.
The court ruling spares Clinton a politically sensitive deposition at a time when she is fighting to overtake Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The lawsuit is over the Clinton White House's acquisition of hundreds of FBI files on Republican appointees to White House jobs in previous administrations. The conservative group Judicial Watch accused the former first lady of masterminding a conspiracy and has been trying to question her for years.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Uh...I wonder who appointed this judge...
Dare I ask who appointed this Federal Judge?
Well isn’t that special. She must have a file on this Federal Judge. It never ends.
OK, so who was the Federal Judge, and who appointed him/her?
Appeal the ruling.
26 seconds.... you beat my post by 26 seconds!
Notice they didn’t bother to give us the NAME of the Judge. Isn’t it a conflict of interest to have a Judge, who was probably appointed by her husband, ruling on her behalf?
what was the reason for blocking her testimony?
We KNOW the FBI files were taken, so bring the whole lot of them back into court and ask again- who ordered it? who received the files? what happened to them after that?
In the Nixon administration one person went to jail for having possession of JUST ONE FBI file. The Clintoons had 900!
No, but this decision will be reversed on appeal.
I went to post that very salient question on the breitbart comments link and wonder of wonders, it’s not working.
Too bad. My real question is how many of these FBI files she has access to may have information on the SuperDelegates that Bill is trying to “persuade” to cast their vote for Hillary?
HEY YOU BEAT ME TO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL
"Judge Royce C. Lamberth, a Reagan appointee"
No Doubt! and I don’t mean THE BAND.
I know one of the people who’s file was at the WH....the circumstances were very interesting as to why that file was requested.
From the website of Judicial Watch:
That is about the ugliest picture I have ever seen. Did he really sleep with that?
You'd think so. An honest judge with any moral integrity would recuse themselves. But in the corrupt Democrat stacked adgenda driven judicial system we have in place now those appointees are there just for reasons like this..
A lifetime in FReeper-land.
And, of course, no indication of who the Judge is which means that we can't determine who appointed this Judge.
Lastly, we are expected to believe that 900 Classified FBI files are requested by the WH, including those of Pres Bush 1, and that this is somehow acceptable.
Ridiculous decision.
bookmark for later
District Judge Robertson was appointed in 1994 by guess who?
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/robertson-bio.html
If you google his name.. Judge James Robertson and go to the Newsmax link you will discover...AhHA!
That he is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton Crime Family.
I’m shocked I tell ya!
Darn.
Care to elaborate?
What you say? Judicial Watch, after taking in nearly $100 million dollars over the yars has basically never won a case?
Never mind......
Rush needs to hear about this.
Heard of him -- had a good record when he was presiding in Texas, iirc. Wonder what he's doing up in D.C.
Here is the FILE LIST . If you find a 'famous name' Super Delegate let us know.
(ps: I don't think James Carville is one)
So the Klinton machine had dirt ont he judge. Nothing to see here, or we should fear arkincide.
what an odd list of names- i wonder what they all have in common or why the clintoons were interested in their FBI files.
Very annoying. This identical AP wireservice report has appeared all over the country, without giving the judge’s name.
Maybe it will be available later, but they must have figured out that if they give the judge’s name, people can google it to learn who appointed him.
It seems as if it’s ALWAYS a clintonoid judge who does these things.
It looks like Robertson is handling the clinton library case and Lamberth is handling the suit against the FBI—two different cases involving the clintons and Judicial Watch.
Lamberth seems to be a reasoned and fair judge. I’d like more info on why he denied deposition in the FBI lawsuit. For all we know, it may be some technical error in the way JW filed or argued...which might explain why JW doesn’t have anything on their website about the ruling. They did have a link to their filing for discovery, which apparently is what this ruling was responding to. But the court docs aren’t even dated, so who knows?
[singing] Oh Whitewater, keep on rollin’...
The DC District Court website doesn’t have this case listed in its list of recent opinions, which seems to have been updated today—at least not that I can find.
There were a few freepers *very* recently poo-poohing this telling us we were saps and fools and an embarrasment to the forum for buying into the 900 FBI file ‘conspiracy’.
Are they "classified" because they were stolen, or were they classified by the FBI before they were stolen?
While certainly a popular item for discussion here on FR, I think the FBI filegate issue is a dead horse.
Hillary didn’t do this directly. Wolfson did.
Her campaign is willing to buffer an issue like this, because it is almost impossible to prosecute her for receiving FBI files.
But it provides nice cover for the myriad campaign nightmares they have been having.
ping
“I wonder how many FBI files she has on the DNC Super delegates??????? “
Just the ones with last names starting with “A through H”.
Yes it is an odd list. Very odd.
Except for a couple 'famous people' (to us political junkies) like James 'snake head' Carville and James Baker, they are nobodies, people who are only loved by their mother.
As to why the Hildebeast would want these people's files is anyone's guess.
I'm sure ....
Mary Stewa Smallpage Bailey, Joseph Whitehouse Agin, Margaret Van Wagenen Carpenter, Barnaby Lair Brasseux, Lerma Dimaculangan Ecle and Jessie Tsui-Shih Fongare flattered that SHE took so much interest in them, but for political purposes these files are useless.
Maybe Hillary gets a kick from funny names? (there's some real doozys there). OR.... given the number of female file names, maybe she was looking for a date. /s
But 'SERIES', I think the brouhaha some FReepers make over the files is foolish and childish. The Filegate Name List has been Google accessible from day one. But instead of looking it up a few FReepers would rather throw goofy nefarious conspiracy theories around. That IMO makes FReepers look like DU Moonbats.
YES having the files was illegal. But he fact is there's no there there. These people are nobodies. The files were only good for paperweights.
Missed that flap. No loss. The FBI files incident is well documented. There’s no dispute that it happened; it’s just the “intent” that’s at issue—whether it was deliberate or the bureaucratic snafu that the clinton administration claimed.
That said, I’m a little weary of every single boneheaded or weak-kneed position being blamed on the clintons having an FBI file on someone. I have no doubt the FBI files have had their role in some things, but attributing every republican’s cave-in and rollover to an FBI file blackmail gives an undeserved, charitable reading on motive. Some people are just self-serving wusses and they’re just being themselves.
Democrats are not subject to conflict-of-interest rules.
It's in the Constitution (their copy, anyway).
Is there no end to what they get away with — ? — ping...
The majority of them, probably. But hiding the files you do want amongst a flurry of useless ones is a pretty good ploy. Plus, if you're going to claim bureaucratic snafu in the event you're found out, it's more convincing if the records reflect some level of bureacratic batch-retrieval.
First off, this could not have been known at the time the raw background reports were perused, (these were not FBI files as such, but things reported during background checks, unsubstantiated claims, unproven allegations contained therein) -- the fact that when Livingstone was using his grubby mitts to gather this information for his boss, the people involved were simply bureaucrats is irrelevant to the crime.
People ask why Hillary Clinton would want this stuff, the answer is obvious, because she COULD get it. It goes to the kind/type of character of person she is, the very thing the electorate is supposed to be judging when deciding on whether a candidate is worthy of being endowed with the Public Trust. I agree that too many people keep bringing this issue up whenever anyone *smells the proverbial rat* but they bring up the wrong point, not what use the information provides (none), not what shenanigans she will attempt on those whose privacy was invaded (again, none), but that this woman who wants to have the keys to every file, every safe, every door, no questions asked exhibited an egregious abuse of power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.