Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hillary Ordered to Provide Written Testimony In Email Lawsuit

Hillary Ordered to Provide Written Testimony In Email Lawsuit

It’s not going away, Hillary.

Judicial Watch has tried for years to get records of Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s employment outside of the State Department, which has led to questions about Clinton’s private email server. The watchdog group has continuously received her emails from her time as Secretary of State, but overall the group does not believe Hillary has ever provided a justified answer as to why she used this server.

Now, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court in Washington put Judicial Watch a step closer by telling Hillary she must provide written testimony under oath, also known as interrogatories, about her private email server in connection to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit.

He wrote:

The Court is persuaded that Secretary Clinton’s testimony is necessary to enable her to explain on the record the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State Department business.

The watchdog group asked “permission to depose Clinton; the Director of Office of Correspondence and Records of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-CRM”) Clarence Finney; and [former Director of Informatio Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-IRM”) John] Bentel.”  They wanted to question Hillary in person while under oath, but Sullivan denied their request. He continued:

“Secretary Clinton has unique firsthand knowledge of the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State Department business,” Judge Sullivan wrote in his opinion.

But, he added, “Judicial Watch has failed to demonstrate that it cannot obtain the discovery it seeks through other, less burdensome or intrusive means.”

The court wrote:

[T] the State Department shall release all remaining documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act request by no later than September 30, 2016; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judicial Watch may serve interrogatories on Secretary Clinton by no later than October 14, 2016 … Secretary Clinton’s responses are due by no later than thirty days thereafter … Judicial Watch may depose Mr. Bentel by no later than October 31, 2016.

The announcement comes days after Judicial Watch said the State Department will hand over “all emails sent or received by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that were uncovered by the FBI in its investigation.” Clinton did not provide this entire disc of documents to the State in December 2014, but the FBI managed to unearth them. The emails fall between February 2, 2009 to January 13, 2013.

Of course, Hillary’s campaign said Judicial Watch’s investigation is only intended to hurt her campaign. But the watchdog’s group investigation has showed the former Secretary of State had many security problems with her private email server and that many of her major donors at her foundation asked for favors.

Kemberlee blogged yesterday that Clinton told the FB that former Secretary of State Colin Powell “advised her to use a private email account.” However, Powell immediately denied any involvement:

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/766623945005080576

The FBI caused waves in July when FBI Director James Comey said he will not recommend the Department of Justice press charges against Hillary, even though he admitted she and her staff were “extremely careless” using her private server.

They recently sent Congress their Hillary interview notes and heavily redacted emails so the House Oversight Committee could understand why they didn’t want to press charges. But Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) blasted them since they redacted so much information.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

One of us is confused, Mary.

I understood this to be a “deposition on written questions”, not interrogatories. They differ significantly.

buckeyeminuteman | August 21, 2016 at 11:25 am

Good 11th hour tactic, but the it’s not going to make a difference wrapping up only a week before the election. Should she win or lose, Obama is still going to pardon her. As long as she loses, I don’t really care if she is convicted of anything or not. “At this point, what difference does it make.”

    Judicial Watch may serve interrogatories on Secretary Clinton by no later than October 14, 2016 … Secretary Clinton’s responses are due by no later than thirty days thereafter

    That’s almost a week after the election.

      Humphrey's Executor in reply to tom swift. | August 21, 2016 at 11:43 am

      They should serve the interrogatories sooner, so that her answers are due before the election.

      smalltownoklahoman in reply to tom swift. | August 21, 2016 at 12:44 pm

      Yeah that’s one of the things that has me worried. You know she’ll try to stretch this out until after the elections are done in case she wins. Obama would definitely pardon her then so that she could continue the destruction he started.

Other straws in the wind?
1. DiCaprio is withdrawing from a Hilary fund raiser.
WAPO is reporting over half of Clinton foundation Foreign donors are legally ineligible to so donate.
3 Oracle through it’s Google Transparency Project is exposing Googles undue influence with the Obama administration, the Clintons, & other democrat sources.

2 1/2 months to go. Drip, drip, drip. Hilary’s sick & the decisions been made to limit her public profile, & to ride it out thru the election.
Polls are tightening, Trumps team, old & new have status quo DC increasingly in a lather. Both crony parties.

It’s becoming increasingly undeniable the dwindling #never T-rumpers bet on the wrong horse.

    murkyv in reply to secondwind. | August 21, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    Ted shoulda used the same tactic in the primaries of staying out of sight and keeping his mouth shut.

    The more people saw and heard him, the less they liked him.

    I was one of those people. I was one of Teds biggest fans until he started showing his true self to the world.

    Ragspierre in reply to secondwind. | August 21, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    Typically bullshit.

    1. “DiCaprio is withdrawing from a Hilary fund raiser.” But has made sure it comes off. http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/why-did-leonardo-dicaprio-back-out-of-hilary-clinton-fundraiser/
    (It IS Rawstory, so look under the hood.)

    2. (sic) “WAPO is reporting over half of Clinton foundation Foreign donors are legally ineligible to so donate.” Under NEW RULES. doublesucks left that out.

    3. So what?

    Hillary leads in battleground states. Up six in Ohio. Dead even in Iowa.

    And very few neverT-rump people have a horse in this cluster fluck. We won’t vote for a Collectivist thug. doublesucks LOVES him some Collectivist!

      You don’t dispute what I set out, you merely edit it to suit your candidate Hillary Clinton.
      It’s not my responsibly you’re so stupid you make a lousy advocate for that same Hillary Clinton.
      That fact is demonstrated by the reality you continually get hung up in the snares I set for you.
      You’re a loser, you’ve always been & always will be a loser. I know this because you are driven by your hatred’s, emotions, & vanity.

      And no, I won’t “suck” you .

      Ps
      Did I mention you’re stupid? I know I did but I luv to point it out.
      Enough of this, on to rinardman who brings up another interesting point.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 21, 2016 at 2:28 pm

      I have no “candidate”, lying SOS.

      I do like accurate information, however.

      Thanks for admitting you’re nothing here but a troll!

      doublesuck me.

      Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | August 22, 2016 at 1:19 am

      Ther are no new legal rules announced or proposed. Secondwind is simply lying. The WaPo story is about an internal policy that the foundation says it plans to adopt if and when Clinton becomes president. According to WaPo, had that policy been in place in the past, it would have refused more than half the donations it has received. That’s interesting, but of no legal or even political significance.

    Milhouse in reply to secondwind. | August 22, 2016 at 1:14 am

    WAPO is reporting over half of Clinton foundation Foreign donors are legally ineligible to so donate.

    Liar. There are no legal restrictions on foreign donations to US charities, and the WaPo is not claiming they are. You have simply made this up out of whole cloth.

    What the WaPo actually reported is that the donations were 100% legal, and will remain legal in the forseeable future, but if Clinton is elected the Foundation promises to voluntarily stop accepting them.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | August 23, 2016 at 3:13 am

      “Liar. There are no legal restrictions on foreign donations to US charities, and the WaPo is not claiming they are. You have simply made this up out of whole cloth.”

      This is not entirely true. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits what we are seeing. Let me be blunt. The job of the first lady in a third whirled is to launder the money. Bil.ly Jeff is doing his job.

Now, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court in Washington put Judicial Watch a step closer by telling Hillary she must provide written testimony under oath…

Or, more accurately – ‘a step closer by telling Hillary she must provide her written *lies* under oath’.

David Breznick | August 21, 2016 at 7:06 pm

Judicial Watch must be so happy that the Federal judge ordered Mrs. Clinton to provide written answers to questions concerning her private email use while Secretary of State. But before Judicial Watch begins celebrating, I have here the actual answer that Mrs. Clinton will write below each of Judicial Watch’s interrogatories:

“Objection, vague, overbroad, burdensome, harassing, is not limited in scope or time and seeks documents and information clearly beyond the scope of relevant discovery. Notwithstanding the objection, no responsive documents other than those already provided.”

If you’re pro-amnesty, a cynical eleventh-hour Trump conversion aimed at pandering to swing voters isn’t going to impress you, but if you’re anti-amnesty, it may well alienate you. He probably loses votes on balance if he does this. Which is why he — probably — won’t. Allahpundit.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend