D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to sit for a deposition over her use of a private server when she served as secretary of state.
Judicial Watch continues to demand more rounds “of discovery.” Lambert agrees because “the Court is left with more questions than answers” after every release in relation to Hillary’s emails and servers:
State asks the Court to close discovery and to move this case towards dispositive motions and an eventual resolution. But there is still more to learn. Even though many important questions remain unanswered, the Justice Department inexplicably still takes the position that the Court should close discovery and rule on dispositive motions. The Court is especially troubled by this. To argue that the Court now has enough information to determine whether the State conducted an adequate search is preposterous, especially when considering State’s deficient representations regarding the existence of additional Clinton emails. Instead, the Court will authorize a new round of discovery as follows.
The Court granted deposition of Hillary only when it comes to her “private server and her understanding of State’s records management obligations.” It denied a deposition on other matters requested by Judicial Watch except when it comes to the Benghazi attack records:
The Court holds that Secretary Clinton and Ms. [Cheryl] Mills cannot be questioned about the underlying actions taken after the Benghazi attack, but they may be questioned about their knowledge of the existence of any emails, documents, or text messages related to the Benghazi attack. Such inquiries would go to the adequacy of the search without expanding the parameters of discovery to include the substance of the government’s response to the attack.
The court granted these depositions and subpoenas:
The Court denied Judicial Watch’s request for “two additional interrogatories on State.” This includes asking the department to “[i]identify the number of FOIA lawsuits pending in 2014 that sought records relevant to Secretary Clinton’s emails from her tenure at the State Department.” The second request wanted the department “to identify the number of lawsuits the State Department attempted to settle from January 2014 through February 2015.”
The Court sided with the State Department because it found both requests “ambiguous, unduly burdensome.” Lamberth added that the second request is “disproportionate the needs of the case.” Plus the information Judicial Watch wants is “related to internal settlement discussion, which likely would be protected by the work-product doctrine.”
[Featured image via YouTube]
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY