The State Department asked to halt most of the judges prying into former Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails, filing papers Thursday proposing that the cases all be combined into one so that a single judge can oversee the government’s searches and releases.
Admitting it’s “struggling” under the weight of the problem left by Mrs. Clinton’s decision to use her own email account, the State Departmentwarned it might miss the January deadline for turning over all of her emails — and might not be able to process her former aides’ emails either — unless a single judge takes over and decides what they have to do.
“They are struggling to keep up,” Marsha Edney, a Justice Department lawyer handling the case for the State Department told Judge Reggie B. Walton during a hearing on one of 32 separate cases Thursday.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Anybody would have trouble keeping up with all the lies, deceit and criminal acts committed by this witch. Obviously she can't keep the story straight either.
ReplyDeleteThe judge will be one of President Clinton's appointees during his terms.
ReplyDeleteThat means 32 possibilities to convict her and send her away!
ReplyDeleteThings would certainly be simplified if they didn't have to sue her to get her to follow the law and be 'transparent'.
ReplyDeleteJust put that lying crook in prison and get it over with.
ReplyDeleteUh huh. right.
ReplyDeleteWhat they REALLY mean is it's very hard to compromise/bribe/threaten a dozen judges, but if there is just ONE, well, he'd rather let Hillary slide then spend the rest of his life wondering what happened to his daughter.
Or have his pedophilic tendencies exposed. Or have his drug dealer testify. Or have his prior bribery actions revealed.
THAT is how the game is played.
Keep cheering.
I am just wondering how many millions of tax payer dollars her attempt and most likely success at fooling and lying to the people has and is going to cost the tax payers?
ReplyDelete