On Friday a federal judge handed down an order that will force Hillary Clinton to answer questions from a Judicial Watch, a government watchdog organization, about her use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State. U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, issued the order in response to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.
Judge Sullivan ruled that Mrs. Clinton would have to answer Judicial Watch’s questions in writing and within 30 days of receiving their questions. Though Judicial Watch had asked to question Mrs. Clinton under oath and in person, they still cheered the judge’s decision to force Clinton to be accountable to the people she was supposed to be serving. The organization’s Director of Investigations, Chris Farrell, praised the ruling in a statement to Fox News, “Judicial Watch will get Clinton under oath regarding the set-up of her outlaw server – something no other person, organization or agency has been able to do, to date.We believe it is a victory for law and order to get Hillary Clinton under oath answering questions about the server setup and why she did it,” Farrell said.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign spokesperson, Brian Fallon, meanwhile argued that this was actually a victory for the Clinton camp before once again blaming the “vast right-wing conspiracy” for having to deal with yet another lawsuit against Clinton. “Judicial Watch is a right-wing organization that has been attacking the Clintons since the 1990s. This is just another lawsuit intended to try to hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and so we are glad that the judge has accepted our offer to answer these questions in writing rather than grant Judicial Watch’s request,” Fallon complained.
This ruling is a mixed-bag (and probably leaning towards a loss for accountability) as you can gather from the report from Fox News.
While Judicial Watch is getting to ask their questions of Hillary Clinton, is there really anything new that they can ask, that hasn’t already been asked? Probably not. Getting her responses under oath is important, because that hasn’t been done since her testimony before Congress. But since she is writing her answers down, she’ll be able to reply in as vague and circuitous a manner as she wants without fear of Judicial Watch trying to nail her down on her answer. The decision to allow her to respond in writing will also drag this process out, perhaps even long enough that by the time we get her answers… the election will have already passed.
While the ruling is frustrating, we cannot allow it to stop us from fighting for more transparency and accountability from our government officials. Just because it seems that the Clinton Crime Family is made of Teflon and stands above our laws… doesn’t mean that we can relax in the fight for justice. We must keep fighting because the battle isn’t about us; it’s about the future. Keep your heads up and keep on fighting.
Article reposted with permission from Constitution.com
Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don’t see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.