I just read the 25 questions that Judicial Watch sent to Hillary Clinton regarding her private unsecured email system. A federal judge has ordered that Clinton's answers must be forthcoming within 30 days. Sadly, these questions are not going to clarify anything in a meaningful way.
There was no limit on the number of questions that could be asked, but the attorneys at Judicial Watch seem to have decided to keep the number small. To do this, however, they seem to have decided nevertheless to ask everything that they could think of. The result is a number of lengthy questions with multiple parts that are extremely confusing. Here's an example of one such question:
6. Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned, was it ever suggested, or did you ever participate in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws. For each instance in which you were so advised, cautioned or warned, in which such a suggestion was made, or in which such a discussion took place, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the advice, caution, warning, suggestion, or discussion.
To be fair, there is nothing improper about this question. I have to say, however, that there are very few people in America who will read that question and understand it. And this is one of the less complicated questions. The lawyers who wrote these questions may thrill themselves with the answers that they get, but no one else is going to pay much attention. Certainly, ordinary Americans are not going to pay attention to this.
It would have been much better to write simple, direct questions.
There was no limit on the number of questions that could be asked, but the attorneys at Judicial Watch seem to have decided to keep the number small. To do this, however, they seem to have decided nevertheless to ask everything that they could think of. The result is a number of lengthy questions with multiple parts that are extremely confusing. Here's an example of one such question:
6. Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned, was it ever suggested, or did you ever participate in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws. For each instance in which you were so advised, cautioned or warned, in which such a suggestion was made, or in which such a discussion took place, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the advice, caution, warning, suggestion, or discussion.
To be fair, there is nothing improper about this question. I have to say, however, that there are very few people in America who will read that question and understand it. And this is one of the less complicated questions. The lawyers who wrote these questions may thrill themselves with the answers that they get, but no one else is going to pay much attention. Certainly, ordinary Americans are not going to pay attention to this.
It would have been much better to write simple, direct questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment