Judicial Watch Asks Federal Court for Additional Discovery: Seeks Testimony of Hillary Clinton

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it submitted a request for permission to depose former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; the Director of Office of Correspondence and Records of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-CRM”) Clarence Finney; and the former Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-IRM”) John Bentel. Today’s request arises in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit before U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton. The lawsuit 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 granted discovery on the clintonemail.com system and Judicial Watch deposed seven former Clinton top aides and current State Department officials, including top Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin . Judicial Watch also deposed IT official Brian Pagliano, who asserted his Fifth Amendment right not to testify during the Judicial Watch deposition . In granting Judicial Watch discovery, the court ruled that Judicial Watch may seek permission for Hillary Clinton’s testimony, if necessary. Today’s brief argues that the Clinton testimony is necessary:

The brief notes, “Although significant progress has been made in uncovering evidence concerning the creation and use of the clintonemail.com system and the State Department’s approach and practice for processing FOIA requests potentially implicating Secretary Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s emails, important questions remain.” Judicial Watch’s brief also points to this week’s findings announced by FBI Director James Comey as providing additional reasons for Clinton’s testimony:

Judicial Watch alerted the State Department and Justice Department last week that it would seek this additional testimony from Clinton and others. Justice Department lawyers informed Judicial Watch attorneys that the State Department opposes the request.

Judicial Watch seeks the testimony of Finney because, as chief FOIA officer for the Secretary’s office, he “had day-to-day responsibility for records management and research, including conducting and coordinating searches in response to FOIA requests, during Secretary Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s tenure.”

Judicial Watch seeks the deposition of Bentel for several reasons. When asked by his staff about Clinton’s use of a non-state.gov email account to conduct government business, “Mr. Bentel instructed them not to discuss the issue. As a result, obtaining Mr. Bentel’s testimony is essential to determine what he knew, when he knew it, and why he did not share the information with the appropriate State Department employees responsible for responding to FOIA requests.”

“Hillary Clinton can answer questions about her email practices that no other witness can,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. “Her testimony will help the court determine if, how, and why FOIA was thwarted by the Clinton email system.”

Judicial Watch has a separate request for Clinton’s testimony pending before U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, who ruled on March 29 that “where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.”

CIRCA 2015 NYP-— The job of Clinton damage control through a parade of scandals has fallen to her top aide (and perennial govt parasite) Cheryl Mills. Mills’ lack of cooperation is legendary. In fact, she’s been officially accused of both perjury and obstruction of justice.

Sworn affidavits, depositions and court rulings, as well as congressional reports and testimony, paint a picture of, to put it charitably, a brazenly dishonest cover-up specialist.

Among Mills shenanigans:

<><> •As White House deputy counsel, Mills ordered Commerce Department officials to “withhold” from investigators emails and other documents detailing then-President Clinton’s and First Lady Hillary Clinton’s allegedly illegal selling of seats on foreign trade junkets for campaign cash, according to sworn statements by Commerce’s former FOIA chief.

“Ms. Mills, in her position as deputy counsel to the president, advised Commerce officials to withhold certain documents,” testified Sonya Stewart Gilliam in a July 2000 sworn affidavit taken by Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group in Washington. “

The Commerce Department’s collaboration with White House Deputy Counsel Mills on these matters was, in my experience, highly irregular and at variance with normal procedures.

<><> •At the same time, a federal judge ruled that Mills “failed miserably” to take proper steps to search for and recover 1.8 million Executive Office of the President and Office of the First Lady emails under subpoena in the Monica Lewinsky and Filegate scandal investigations, after computer contractors discovered them mysteriously missing from the automated White House archiving system. Mills, who was in charge of finding the lost email, conveniently made “the most critical error” in recovering them.

<><> US District Judge Royce Lamberth concluded in a 63-page opinion, adding that he found Mills actions “loathsome.”

In fact, Judicial Watch accused Mills of orchestrating a “cover-up” in what became known as “Email-gate.” Her court testimony in the case, during which she repeatedly answered “I don’t have a recollection,” sounds like an interview with an amnesia patient. (In the end, the emails were never recovered).

<><> •In another scandal, Mills “concealed” so many subpoenaed emails and other documents detailing allegedly illegal fundraising activity between the White House and the Democratic National Committee — specifically, Hillary’s illegal integration of White House and DNC computer databases — that staff lawyers for the House Government Oversight Committee in 1998 sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department demanding federal prosecutors charge Mills with obstruction of justice and perjury.

“Ms. Mills knowingly and willfully obstructed the investigative authority of this committee by withholding
documents,” the panel concluded in a 647-page investigative report. “Moreover, when this obstruction was brought to light in a hearing before the committee, Ms. Mills lied under oath about the documents and the circumstances surrounding their nonproduction.”

<><> •In October 2012, Mills sorted through key Benghazi documents and decided which ones to withhold from an independent review board. She also leaned on witnessses. Deputy ambassador to Libya Gregory Hicks testified before Congress in 2013 that Mills told him in an angry phone call to stop cooperating with investigators.

<><> •On behalf of the Clintons, Mills negotiated the weak conflict-of-interest rules for disclosing foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation with the Obama administration. She also reportedly helped broker international payments to the group. In short, Mills “is in the middle of it,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

EXCERPT-—http://nypost.com/2015/05/17/hillary-clintons-consigliere-covers-up-for-her-scandals/

It’s going to be tough getting a transcript of the testimony, Clintoon demanded that nothing could be recorded or put down on paper. She’s got a political career and a “historical” female ‘RAT moment she has to worry about.

Here’s her testimony

Tell your boss that I have enough on Obama to sink him and the Dem part for the next century.

If you need to check on it just ask Loretta to show you the samples my husband gave to her on the plane.

Get this over with so i can move on to become Ruler of the World, and accumulate more cash for life afterwards.

Also, I’ve taken each of your names, know where you live, and your family situation

Capisce .............

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.