>A federal judge on Thursday ordered that the videotape of Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff giving a deposition this week be sealed so it can’t be used in political attacks against the former secretary of state and likely Democratic presidential nominee.
>Judge Emmett G. Sullivan said the transcript of Cheryl Mills‘ testimony will be made public so the voters can know what she says. He said it was “unnecessary” to have the video released.
>He extended that order to all of the depositions being taken in the open records case, which also applies to Mrs. Clinton’s closest personal aide, Huma Abedin.
>Neither Ms. Mills nor Ms. Abedin cooperated with the State Department’s own internal probe, which concluded that they helped Mrs. Clinton shield her email system from public disclosure laws.
>But both Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin have been ordered to sit for depositions with Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that has filed 16 lawsuits under open records laws to get a peek at the emails Mrs. Clinton and her aides hid from view.
>Michael Bekesha, an attorney for Judicial Watch, had urged the court to release the videotapes to the public, saying people had a right to see what the aides said.
>“As Chief of Staff and Counselor to Mrs. Clinton during her entire four years as Secretary of State, Ms. Mills‘ testimony is instrumental not only to Plaintiff’s case but also to the public’s understanding of ‘the creation, purpose and use of the clintonemail.com’ system,” Mr. Bekesha wrote.
>Ms. Mills‘ attorneys, though, said Judicial Watch indicated it wanted to use the video in political attacks. “Judicial Watch’s long-standing antagonism to the Secretary is a matter of public record,” Beth A. Wilkinson told the court.
>Judge Sullivan sided with her.
>“The transcripts of all depositions taken in this case will be publicly available. It is therefore unnecessary to also make the audiovisual recording of Ms. Mills‘ deposition public,” he ruled.
>>75215566
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/26/hillary-clinton-emails-judge-orders-video-cheryl-m/
indicment incoming boys
they would release that shit if it wasn't negative
>>75215717
>indicment incoming boys
>they would release that shit if it wasn't negative
or cover up
I hope Russia drops it's Hilbomb... but not until she snags the nom.
This is the perfect storm... it's all falling down around her right as she's about to clench it
>>75215717
> do ya think the bad lady will get a whippin Pa?
>>75215796
>covering up
>by releasing transcripts
It's not like anybody was lying during that exchange, the video would definitely be grist for the meme mill and the judge is making sure the information is still available. Seems okay thus far.
>>75216301
There's no way to be sure the transcript hasn't been doctored.
>>75216301
Body language and tone communicate much more than text does on its own. Contextual information will be lost by only releasing the written transcripts.
>>75216564
and there's no way to be sure a video isn't faked or edited to pieces either, that applies either way
>>75216957
Videos are much more difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to edit realistically than changing text.
>>75217078
Haha, not anymore. We're too close to the singularity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk
PROOF
>>75217078
You believe the justice department will release faked transcripts, but you don't believe Hillary's aide would be willing to make a second video in which she doesn't have to throw her master under the bus?
>>75217282
it would be nice if the people in the examples weren't flapping their faces like muppets and they had an actor trying to actually imitate the target.
>>75217778
Again, much easier to do the former instead of the latter. It only takes one person and a text editor to forge a transcript.
>>75215566
She's benefitting from the timing of the election coinciding with the investigation.
I can understand they don't want political ads being just reproductions of the interviews or altered versions of the videos.
It sucks that there will only be a few people that can corroborate the authenticity of the transcripts.
Interviewee would most likely approve of a doctored transcript.
Interviewer I cannot gauge whether or not they would speak up if the transcripts turned out to be altered to benefit Clinton.
The bitch and all her hive really needs to fry.
Fucking crooked Clinton. I fucking hate the shit she gets away with.
Shills go fuck yourself.
>>75218607
No, it also takes everybody involved in the original testimony, including the prosecution, to not say "Hey, that's fake".
It takes the same exact number of players in either case, and almost as few hands to make the fake. But if the court and the prosecutors are both complicit to this degree then the original one was going to be horseshit anyway and literally none of this matters.
>>75219418
That is presuming all involved are going to read through the transcript line-by-line and compare it to what they remember, and also requires them to have perfect recall of exactly what was stated.
The first scenario remains far easier to implement and get away with.
>>75219631
That's not how any of this works.
This testimony didn't come out of thin air on accident with nobody interested in it and oh well now I guess the gubmit will cover it up.
The plaintiffs are conservative FOIA autists out for blood and the judge got Hillary's aides in for them to wring information out of.
There's context to this that makes your suggestion that somebody will just change the text and nobody will care or notice completely laughable. And if people were on board to that extent, they'ld be on board to fake it, and they'ld be on board to just have a complete bullshit original, but above all this situation just never would have come about in the first place.
Blind distrust is just as retarded as blind trust.
