Hillary Rodham Clinton’s run for president has reached the critical stage. Not only is the FBI investigation into her private server and top secret documents almost complete, but a federal judge’s ruling could set in motion the legal gears that will produce a subpoena. That in turn will compel/force Ms. Clinton to give a full accounting of the charges under oath in the ongoing saga of election 2016.
In fact, Bill Clinton appointee Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia set the series of events in motion on Tuesday. Through a motion of discovery filed by Judicial Watch, much has been learned not available for public consumption before a thorough summary on Friday.
The discovery motion included questions about Clinton evading the Freedom of Information Act with her personal email account while secretary of state. The judge ruled it should go forward without hesitation. Judge Sullivan, in announcing his ruling said, there is “at least a ‘reasonable suspicion that the FOIA law had been violated.”
This in turn will lead to Clinton’s top State Department aides being questioned under oath about her email arrangement. Commenting on the ruling, Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton, president of the legal watchdog group, said that while “Clinton’s testimony may not be required initially, it may happen that her testimony is necessary for the court to resolve the legal issues about her unprecedented email practices.”
It is Judicial Watch’s official opinion that voters deserve to know why Clinton opted to use a personal email account handled by a private server. That point of view was backed up by Judge Sullivan who said, “This case is about the public’s right to know, this constant drip, drip, drip of declarations has created a strong appearance of impropriety.”
Under oath, Clinton will be cross-examined rigorously. She can expect questions about what she was trying to hide, whose emails she was trying to protect from the light of day, etc. Questions will also be raised about the now notorious Clinton Foundation such as whether her position as secretary of state quite possibly was a means in itself to funnel cash into the Clinton Foundation’s coffers.
Many critics familiar with the case feel that, like her husband who has lied under oath in the past, she won’t have any problem doing the same. The history of the Clinton’s is simply put; they have no anxiety in not telling the truth.
However, that may be a problem if it is not consistent with what her aides testify to under oath. Inconsistencies could very well bring on Hillary’s demise as a candidate for president. It will surely lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor to handle the fallout.
Clinton should have no immunity from this because of her political stature. Events at this point will be done with expediency and the people at Judicial Watch know this all too well.