VIA| THE MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS HAS NOW HEARD ARGUMENTS FOR THE DISBARMENT OF HILLARY’S LAWYERS WHO DELETED WORK-RELATED EMAILS WHILE THEY WERE UNDER SEVERAL SUBPOENAS.
The court gave no indication of how they would rule but they did deny a defense motion to remove the cameras from the proceeding, indicating that they want full transparency on the charges. The question before the court is whether or not the lawyers broke the law by destroying evidence against Hillary. That seems obvious.
The fly in the ointment is that under the rules at the time that lawyer Ty Clevenger filed the complaint, he had no standing.
After he filed the complaint the Maryland Bar Association changed the rules to say that you have to have personal knowledge that a crime occurred. In this particular case, no one is denying that the emails were deleted.
But at the time, Hillary and her lawyers insisted that the emails were personal and not work-related. However, the FBI found thousands of the emails and they were definitely work-related. Comey said so himself on national TV.
On Friday, Ms. McDonald argued that the circuit court, which had ordered an investigation, had overstepped its powers and only the Court of Appeals could force a probe.
At this point, Ms. McDonald said, any request would also have to happen under the new rules that took effect last summer — after Mr. Clevenger’s complaint, but before the lower court’s hearing — that allows complaints to be tossed because the complainer doesn’t have knowledge.
“That rule became effective August 1, 2017 and applies to all pending litigation as well as future complaints,” Ms. McDonald told The Washington Times in an email Friday after the hearing. “Under that rule, it is clear that Bar Counsel has discretion to decline a complaint that is not based on personal knowledge but instead is derived from published news reports of third-party sources.”
She also dismissed Mr. Clevenger’s complaint that Mr. Kendall and the other lawyers are being treated better than a non-politically connected lawyer would have been. She said a complaint about another lawyer that wasn’t based on personal knowledge “could likewise be declined under this rule.”
Clevenger is now appealing to members of Congress with personal knowledge of the destruction of the protected emails to file a complaint in case the Appeals Court rules against him.
Read more: SF&L