Terms of Endearment. Onward Together?
“What difference at this point does it make?”
Judicial Watch: Federal Court Orders Hillary Clinton to Answer Additional Email Questions Under Oath
Judicial Watch — NOVEMBER 15, 2018
(Washington, DC) –Judicial Watch announced today that U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that within 30 days Hillary Clinton must answer under oath two additional questions about her controversial email system.
In 2016, Clinton was required to submit under oath written answers to Judicial Watch’s questions. Clinton objected to and refused to answer questions about the creation of her email system; her decision to use the system despite warnings from State Department cybersecurity officials; and the basis for her claim that the State Department had “90-95%” of her emails.
After a lengthy hearing yesterday Judge Sullivan ruled that Clinton must address two questions that she refused to answer under-oath.
Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.
During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.
Judge Sullivan read his opinion from the bench, deciding that the question about the creation of the email system was within the scope of discovery. Judge Sullivan rejected Clinton’s assertion of attorney-client privilege on the question about the emails “in the State’s system.”
The court refused Judicial Watch’s and media’s requests to unseal the deposition videos of Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and other Clinton State Department officials. And it upheld Clinton’s objections to answering a question about why she refused to stop using her Blackberry despite warnings from State Department security personnel. Justice Department lawyers for the State Department defended Clinton’s refusal to answer certain questions and argued for the continued secrecy of the deposition videos.
This hearing and court ruling is the latest development in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of staff to Clinton. The lawsuit, which seeks records regarding the authorization for Abedin to engage in outside employment while employed by the Department of State, was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)). The court also granted discovery to Judicial Watch to help determine if and how Clinton’s email system thwarted FOIA.
“A federal court ordered Hillary Clinton to answer more questions about her illicit email system – which is good news,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is shameful that Judicial Watch attorneys must continue to battle the State and Justice Departments, which still defend Hillary Clinton, for basic answers to our questions about Clinton’s email misconduct.”
See at: https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-federal-court-ordered-hillary-clinton-to-answer-additional-email-questions-under-oath/
Okay, looks good on it’s face. My conclusion would be the insult this whole thing is to our system of justice. Here we had Clinton commit violations that were far outside the law.
So now because of the fact she did it all under the job title she was in, the government has to come in to defend her actions and explain her egregious conduct. (Excuse my barfing”) It is so outrageous that both the DOJ and Dep of State could be called in to defend her conduct. And of course they have to do it at our taxpayers’ expense, too. A double.
But that is the way this whole thing goes and Hillary knows it. She sewed the seeds of it into the State Dep. She knew and planned this. You have to wonder if this makes State accomplices to her crimes? And if Barry Soetoro is also liable for having allowed it?
Then the last salient point: why do we continually always find about this mostly through Judicial Watch when we had active Congressional investigations, and presumably DOJ investigations as well? Yet here they are in battle for answers some 5-1/2 years later.
No wonder Hillary’s new theme is “Onward Together.” She commits the offenses then drags everyone along, forced to defend her every step of the way. “Togetherness” that way has always been one of endearing benefit to the Clintons.