Judicial Watch: Federal Court Allows Discovery to Begin in Clinton Email Case

Judicial Watch ^ | May 4, 2016 | Judicial Watch

[centurion316]

udicial Watch announced today that U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted “discovery” to Judicial Watch into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email system. The order allows Judicial Watch to take testimony of former top Clinton State Department aides Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Bryan Pagliano. The Court also notes that “based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.” The discovery will take place over the next eight weeks.

The discovery arises in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit 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)).

In a Memorandum and Order issued today, Judge Sullivan found that “Judicial Watch raises significant questions in its Motion for Discovery about whether the State Department processed documents in good faith in response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request. Judicial Watch is therefore entitled to limited discovery.” Judge Sullivan also questions, citing Supreme Court precedent, whether the State Department and Mrs. Clinton “purposefully routed…document[s] out of agency possession in order to circumvent a FOIA request.”

[centurion316]

The Mod did not like an earlier post from a different source, here's the original source

[Talisker]

Heloooooo 5th Amendment.

And memory loss.

And dead cats.

[Jimmy Valentine]

And Birnham Wood comes a step closer.

[relictele]

Judicial Watch is the de facto DOJ.

The ‘real’ DOJ are a group of political hitmen that would make Mussolini hang his head in shame.

[NormsRevenge]

Top of the hour news says the usual suspects are being discretely handled and interviewed at an FBI locale in DC and that they are “cooperating”.. Whatever the heck that means ;-)

[PGalt]

Tune in next week for the latest episode of Kabuki Theatre - “Kangaroo Court” (cue the lead in music)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D-LmRNdQiQ

(1/2 of the greatest crime couple in the history of the republic)

[GilGil]

Oh! Boy! They better subpoena Clinton right now because her attorneys will delay,delay,delay her from testifying in any way.

[TigersEye]

Singing like canaries? ;-)

FWIW the above article is about the Judicial Watch FOIA case and not connected to the FBI investigation. Although I presume that the FBI is watching this closely and siphoning off any evidence that comes from it that they don't already have.

[fwdude]

If they move this process sloooooowwwwwwwwwllllyyyyyyy enough, HilLIARy will be finished with two terms before it even makes it to court.

[lapsus calami]

 

 

'Fraid so....

 

 

[CMB_polarization]

“honest mistakes are made daily in the handling of secret information. if no harm was done, the owner of such information is retrained and is considered better for the experience.” -— future statement of the court.

[meatloaf]

It’s a civil case. Fifth amendment doesn’t apply. Not answering questions is contempt of court.

You’re welcome.

[detective]

“It’s a civil case. Fifth amendment doesn’t apply. Not answering questions is contempt of court.”

And lying in response to depositions is perjury.

If Judicial watch plays this smart they can bring down the whole Clinton house of lies. Clinton must testify before the FBI, in this case and hopefully before Congress.

There is also a record of her public statements. Hopefully she will be indicted, convicted and serve a long prison sentence.

[detective]

Judge Sullivan ruled that Clinton may have to testify.

The Court also authorized Judicial Watch to seek the testimony of the following witnesses:

1.Stephen D. Mull (Executive Secretary of the State Department from June 2009 to October 2012 and suggested that Mrs. Clinton be issued a State Department BlackBerry, which would protect her identity and would also be subject to FOIA requests);

2.Lewis A. Lukens (Executive Director of the Executive Secretariat from 2008 to 2011 and emailed with Patrick Kennedy and Cheryl Mills about setting up a computer for Mrs. Clinton to check her clintonemail.com email account);

3.Patrick F. Kennedy (Under Secretary for Management since 2007 and the Secretary of State’s principal advisor on management issues, including technology and information services);

4.30(b)(6) deposition(s) of Defendant regarding the processing of FOIA requests, including Plaintiff’s FOIA request, for emails of Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin both during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State and after;

5.Cheryl D. Mills (Mrs. Clinton’s Chief of Staff throughout her four years as Secretary of State);

6.Huma Abedin (Mrs. Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff and a senior advisor to Mrs. Clinton throughout her four years as Secretary of State and also had an email account on clintonemail.com);

7.Bryan Pagliano (State Department Schedule C employee who has been reported to have serviced and maintained the server that hosted the “clintonemail.com” system during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State);

This is good. Even the corrupt Obama administration will have a tough time.

[Talisker]

It’s a civil case. Fifth amendment doesn’t apply. Not answering questions is contempt of court.

You’re welcome.

You got a cat?

[taildragger]

This is interesting.

About 3 or 4 weeks ago, Judicial Watch was denied Discovery in what I believe was a request for emails that were from State Dept and the FBI said no, on-going investigation were Classified Info is involved.

So this seems like a different request, but someone help me out here...

* Is it?
* Was that "phase" complete, and now they can?
* Is this another facet of this case?
* Or?

FR Legal Eagles, please respond...

[justlurking]

It’s a civil case. Fifth amendment doesn’t apply. Not answering questions is contempt of court.

Yes, but an acceptable answer is "I don't recall". Can the JW attorney can confront them with prior public statements and ask them to confirm or refute them? Or, can he/she confront them with CLINTON'S prior statements?

I think the real questions are:

1. How evasive can they be before the judge clamps down and forces Clinton to testify?
2. Are any of them willing to commit perjury to protect Clinton?

One of the problems is JW is questioning each separately, rather than simultaneously. So, they have the opportunity to rehearse their stories, and coach the others if the questioning goes off-script to be sure they remain consistent.

[justlurking]

I don't think this is about the contents of the emails, per se.

It's about why Clinton set up a separate email server: whether it was to evade the FOIA, and whether the State Dept. was complicit in the evasion.

[veracious]

I’m glad JW and supporters have gotten _anything_ done about actual law in DC! The beast mostly does whatever it wants...

[centurion316]

Since, I’m not a Legal Eagle, I don’t know, but my view from a frequent Holiday Inn Express customer, is that this is now a criminal investigation and the rules have changed since the Clinton assertion that this was just an argument over federal procedures.