Someone read 1984,
“...
Prince: At that time, we had produced all—
Lamberth: It was not true.
Prince: Yes, it was—well, Your Honor, it might be that our search could be found to be inadequate, but that declaration was absolutely true.
Lamberth: It was not true. It was a lie.
Prince: It was not a lie, Your Honor.
Lamberth: What—that’s doublespeak …
...”

I tend to agree with you.

The cesspool protects its own.

Unfortunately I have no trust that anyone's head will roll!

"she was never forced to sign the agreement that every State Department employee must sign saying they will abide by State Department policies. That to me is a separate issue for which someone's head should roll. "

Thanks for that. I was not aware of that fact.

Everyone is mum about that which fits in well with the Deep State "rules". How many other cases that we are not even aware of like this. DC is truly a cesspool.

And truth be told, it was NOT allowed either by State Department policy or by law. What she did was illegal as per several statutes. She got around the policy thing because she was never forced to sign the agreement that every State Department employee must sign saying they will abide by State Department policies. That to me is a separate issue for which someone's head should roll.

"Much of the Clinton case is about skirting the edges of the laws while trying to claim they were doing what was allowed. "

Yes, that was the excuse Clinton was running with from the beginning.

I remember during her campaign as she was saying with straight face that "it was allowed" for her to use private email.

What I found upsetting though that nobody asked "allowed by whom?"

She was the head of the State Department so I assume she allowed herself or, God forbid, was she referring to Obama?

If a Judge is calling her out on that nonsense then maybe there is a chance that she will be exposed, under oath, unlike the friendly chat Comey arranged for her.

No problem. I just like to have the latest developments in things like this and wasn't sure if maybe my source was behind the times.

"I was pleasantly surprised at this posting which means that the lawyer had no case."

What I thought was significant was that the judge rejected the lawyer's reasoning outright. Much of the Clinton case is about skirting the edges of the laws while trying to claim they were doing what was allowed. The judge's disposition to dismiss this nonsense is a very good sign in my book to exposing the truth.

Blarman, thanks for the update.

No, I don't have new info. I was pleasantly surprised at this posting which means that the lawyer had no case.

The State Department lawyer claimed that they were only responsible for handing over information in their possession. The judge rejoined that the problem was that Hillary Clinton had been illegally using storage outside the State Department, so their defense was invalid. If you have more recent information, please post a link.

I read this development earlier.

Unless it is a new development, I understand that the State Dept defense lawyer claimed they have submitted information the Judge requested and that they have done their due diligence in the case. The Judge allegedly said he may have "misremembered".

I hope one of the Clinton responses is, “We take the 5th.”

"Clinton and others would have to testify under oath and answer questions "

Predicted responses from the Clintonites:

"I do not recall."

"I do not recall."

"I do not recall."

"I do not recall."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp3TQ...

My reaction:
Lying, looting traitors.