The only Political Thread on Www.Hotboat.Com

[314joey]

This is hard to figure out.

[2manymustangs]

Awesome yard signs!

Attachment 62446

aaahahahahahaha

[2manymustangs]

A lawyer for a top State Department official repeatedly objected to questions about Hillary Clinton's private email address during a deposition earlier this month.

The transcript, released on Monday by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, documented June 3 testimony from Ambassador Stephen D. Mull. The ambassador previously served as executive secretary of the State Department during Clinton's tenure.

"When did you first become aware of Mrs. Clinton — the email address Mrs. Clinton was using to conduct official government business?" asked Michael Bekesha, lawyer for Judicial Watch during the deposition.

"Objection," interjected Mull's lawyer, Steven Myers. "Value. It's vague, and it's ambiguous."

When informed by Bekesha that he could answer, Mull said it was a "difficult question to answer" because he wasn't sure he "ever really became aware" that Clinton was using a private email address for official government business.

Asked about a message where "H" was listed as the sender of an email on which he was copied, Mull said that he did not "definitively" know whom the email was from.

"Based on the body of the email, does it — it appears as though H would refer to Mrs. Clinton?" Bekesha asked.

"Objection," interjected Myers. "Is there a question?"

"Based — after reviewing the entire email, do you think that the H refers to Mrs. Clinton?" Bekesha rephrased.

"Objection," Myers said again. "Calls for speculation."

When told that he was allowed to answer the question, Mull said he wasn't quite sure if the "H" referred to Clinton.

"I — I don't know," he said. "That's a reasonable assumption, but I — I don't know for a fact who would have received something at the H email."

Bekesha next asked Mull about an email sent from then State Department legal adviser Harold Koh. The message was sent to Mull and Clinton, among others.

"So this was an email from the State Department's legal adviser. Is that correct?" the Judicial Watch lawyer asked.

"Objection," Myers said. "The document speaks for itself. And I also object for lack of personal knowledge and foundation."

"You may answer the question," Bekesha said.

"It appears so, yes," Mull replied.

"OK. Would email sent by the legal — the legal adviser to the State Department usually get lost? Are those emails you would usually read?" Bekesha pressed.

"Objection," Myers said. "Vague. It calls for speculation."

Bekesha rephrased slightly, asking Myers if he would "tend to read" an email from the agency's legal adviser, given the fact the "Executive Secretariat was fast paced" and he "may have received a lot of emails."

"Objection," Myers said again. "Vague."

Mull said that he would "make an effort" to read an email from the department's legal adviser.

"But you don't recall seeing this specific email when it came in?" Bekesha asked.

"Objection," Myers said. "Asked and answered."

"You may answer the question," Bekesha advised.

"No," Mull said.

"OK. And you don't recall seeing HDR22@Clintonemail.com when you received it?" Bekesha asked.

"Objection," Myers interjected. "Also asked and answered."

Mull ultimately said that he didn't recall seeing the address.


bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla

It's because of this very type of BS that Bernie is getting traction with the younger generation, and its because of this very type of BS that Trump is resonating with the folks FED UP with the establishment squandering our tax dollars AND caving into special interest...

[2manymustangs]

The filing from Bryan Pagliano came in response to a judge's directive to disclose details of the immunity agreement, which Pagliano said he entered into after cooperating in December with the Justice Department's ongoing investigation into Clinton's server.

Though Pagliano has spoken with the Justice Department, he has invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination in refusing to answer questions from Congress and reiterated Tuesday that he would not give testimony in an ongoing lawsuit brought by conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch.

"The DOJ has not authorized a grant of immunity for Mr. Pagliano in connection with any other matter, including this civil case," Pagliano's attorneys wrote in a court filing.

Pagliano received limited "use" and "derivative use" immunity from the Justice Department, his lawyers wrote. That type of immunity generally protects witnesses from having statements they make to investigators being used against them in any criminal case — with the exception of lies or false statements — while still enabling the government to prosecute using evidence it obtains independent of that testimony.

[HB Vic]

I did my part, did you?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[2manymustangs]

I did my part, did you?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[2manymustangs]

Can a charter member of "NCLR/La Raza" provide a UNbiased ruling/perspective in a Donald Trump case??? Such as Federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel or top staffer Cecilia Muñoz???


Read up on "NCLR/La Raza" and their history before you answer.................... Maybe Trump isn't so off base asking for a change of venue???

[ChumpChange]

Since obamacare is still confusing, years after its implementation, I thought it appropriate to provide a basic explanation.

Attachment 62415

Oh, and if you can't afford it, which hundreds of thousands cannot, you get fined.
Thank democrats everywhere.

And after you're dead.....lol

[2manymustangs]

Expose these dirt bags... BLECH...



Return with us now to the saga of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the soul of the Democratic Party.

First, a quick recap: Rep. Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), chair of the Democratic National Committee, also has been an advocate for the payday loan industry. The website Think Progress even described her as the “top Democratic ally” of “predatory payday lenders.” You know — the bottom-feeding bloodsuckers of the working poor. Yes, them.

Low-income workers living from paycheck to paycheck, especially women and minorities, are the payday lenders’ prime targets — easy pickings because they’re often desperate. Twelve million Americans reportedly borrow nearly $50 billion a year through payday loans, at rates that can soar above 300 percent, sometimes even beyond 500 percent. Bethany McLean at The Atlantic recently reported that the government’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) studied millions of payday loans and found that “67 percent went to borrowers with seven or more transactions a year and that a majority of those borrowers paid more in fees than the amount of their initial loan.”

Yet when the CFPB was drawing up new rules to make it harder for payday predators to feast on the poor, Rep. Wasserman Schultz co-sponsored a bill to delay those new rules by two years. How, you ask, could the head of the party’s national committee embrace such an appalling exploitation of working people?


http://observer.com/2016/06/debbie-w...-save-her-job/

[314joey]

I'm not a super Trump fan, but will vote for him any day before voting for crooked Shillary, her and Billy have been stealing from the American people for 25 years, when are people going to wake up.