{"id":235153,"date":"2016-03-31T15:23:28","date_gmt":"2016-03-31T15:23:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?p=235153"},"modified":"2016-03-31T15:23:28","modified_gmt":"2016-03-31T15:23:28","slug":"judge-rules-clinton-exhibited-wrong-bad-faith","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/breaking-news\/judge-rules-clinton-exhibited-wrong-bad-faith\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge Rules Clinton Exhibited ‘Wrong-Doing and Bad Faith’"},"content":{"rendered":"

Eric Zuesse<\/span><\/p>\n

A U.S. District Court Judge\u00a0ruled<\/span><\/a>,\u00a0on Tuesday March 29th, that in the civil matter of Hillary Clinton\u2019s State Department emails, \u201cthere is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith.\u201d Consequently, he has granted to Clinton\u2019s adversary in the proceedings, Judicial Watch, what they had been seeking, which was \u201climited discovery\u201d to seek further evidence about what she had done and why.\u00a0(NOTE: This is not in the FBI\u2019s potential criminal case against her, which remains at a preliminary stage. A main purpose of the civil case is to develop evidence that can assist in a potential criminal prosecution against the defendant.)<\/span><\/p>\n

The Judge, Royce C. Lambreth, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, further noted that there have been \u201cconstantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former officials.\u201d This was a veiled reference to the former Secretary of State, Clinton.<\/span><\/p>\n

He also said that, for these reasons, such \u201climited discovery,\u201d as Judicial Watch was seeking, \u201cis appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] cases.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Consequently, the petitioner (\u2018Plaintiff\u2019) Judicial Watch, was, in his ruling, allowed \u2014 in accord with a prior judge\u2019s ruling<\/i> \u2014 to draw up its specific list of further evidence to be sought in \u201cdiscovery,\u201d in the case (which Judicial Watch had already done on March 15th<\/span><\/a>), and, Clinton, the \u201cDefendant shall respond ten days after plaintiff\u2019s submission.\u201d The prior judge\u2019s ruling had already specified that Clinton(\u2019s lawyer, David Kendall) has until April 5th to respond. Judicial Watch is to respond to that by no later than April 15th.<\/span><\/p>\n

Clinton (via her lawyer) had requested a denial of the petitioner\u2019s request for \u201climited discovery\u201d of more evidence, and the Judge\u2019s ruling against her here is referring to what he apparently viewed as being already-existing \u201cevidence of government [i.e., of Clinton\u2019s] wrong-doing and bad faith,\u201d so as to make clear, to her \u2014 though tactfully in a way that didn\u2019t condemn her by name, but only as \u201cgovernment,\u201d in order not to harm her (political career) outside the ongoing judicial proceedings in this case \u2014 that, in his opinion, which is based upon what he has seen thus far, the prospect of a final judgment against her is very real. It\u2019s simply a warning to her.<\/span><\/p>\n

On February 23rd, a different judge, on the same Court, Emmet G. Sullivan, had already\u00a0ruled<\/span><\/a>\u00a0that Judicial Watch\u2019s request for additional evidence in the case was granted, by saying: “The Court grants [48] Motion for Discovery. \u2026 Plaintiff to Submit\u00a0Discovery Plan To\u00a0Court and Counsel by 3\/15\/2016. Defendant Response due by\u00a04\/5\/2016. Plaintiff\u00a0Replies due by 4\/15\/2016.\u201d So: that ruling established the timeline by which the Court demands responses.<\/span><\/p>\n

Judge Lambreth\u2019s ruling merely seconds Judge Sullivan\u2019s prior one, but adds to it Lambreth\u2019s veiled warning to Clinton.<\/span><\/p>\n

Whereas Judicial Watch is seeking additional evidence, Clinton has been seeking for the case to be instead either dismissed in \u201csummary judgment,\u201d or else, dragged on, until she has become elected President.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court has clearly not been convinced that the case is meritless. Consequently, the question for her, at the present stage, seems to be whether or not some additional way to postpone judgment will be able to be found by Clinton\u2019s lawyer.<\/span><\/p>\n

Already, by April 15th, the Democratic Presidential nominee might have been determined. And, if there is to be any indictment of Ms. Clinton on criminal charges, it would presumably occur after that time. Consequently, the possibility exists that she will be indicted while she is campaigning in the general election, against the Republican nominee. Anyone who votes for her before this case is cleared up is, apparently, comfortable with having helped to nominate a person who might be a criminal defendant campaigning against the Republican nominee. Alternatively, the Democratic Party\u2019s 715 superdelegates might be able, if an indictment comes down prior to the Democratic National Convention on July 25th, to hand the nomination to her competitor, Bernie Sanders. However, if an indictment comes down after the end of that Convention on July 28th, there might be no way of salvaging election-year 2016 for the Democratic Party. <\/span><\/p>\n

NOTE:<\/span><\/p>\n

Judge Sullivan was appointed to the Court by the Defendant\u2019s husband, Bill Clinton.<\/span><\/p>\n

Judge Lambreth was appointed to the Court by Ronald Reagan.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/span><\/p>\n

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of\u00a0 They\u2019re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010<\/i><\/span><\/a>,<\/i> and of<\/span> \u00a0<\/i>CHRIST\u2019S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity<\/i><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Eric Zuesse A U.S. District Court Judge\u00a0ruled,\u00a0on Tuesday March 29th, that in the civil matter of Hillary Clinton\u2019s State Department emails, \u201cthere is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith.\u201d Consequently, he has granted to Clinton\u2019s adversary in the proceedings, Judicial Watch, what they had been seeking, which was \u201climited discovery\u201d to seek further evidence […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1254,"featured_media":234874,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[487],"tags":[951,29,954,949],"class_list":{"0":"post-235153","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-breaking-news","8":"tag-clinton","9":"tag-democrats","10":"tag-hillary","11":"tag-sanders"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235153","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1254"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=235153"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235153\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/234874"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235153"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235153"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}