Federal Court Orders Discovery Plan in 10 Days Whether Hillary’s Private Server...

BREAKING: Federal Court Orders Discovery Plan in 10 Days Whether Hillary’s Private Server an Intentional Attempt to Evade FOIA

Judicial Watch appeared in a DC federal court last month on a motion to compel more testimony from Hillary Clinton as well as to make public video recordings of depositions of top Clinton aides such as Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.

The court ruled that Hillary Clinton must answer more questions about the setting up of her private server.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said that the court denied their request to unseal the video depositions of Clinton’s aides.

On Thursday, a federal court blasted the DOJ and State Department on Hillary Clinton’s emails and ordered a discovery plan in 10 days as to whether Hillary’s private email system was intentionally set up to evade FOIA requests and lawsuits. (we know the answer)

TOM FITTON: Breaking: Fed court excoriates State and DOJ on Clinton email, orders discovery plan in 10 days as to whether Hillary Clinton email system an intentional attempt to evade FOIA. “One of the gravest modern offenses to gov’t transparency…”

The court ruled that Hillary Clinton must answer more questions about the setting up of her private server.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said that the court denied their request to unseal the video depositions of Clinton’s aides.

Update: More from Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch announced today that, in a ruling excoriating both the U.S. Departments of State and Justice, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth has ordered both agencies to join Judicial Watch in submitting a proposed schedule for discovery into whether Hillary Clinton sought to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a private email system and whether the State Department acted in “bad faith” by failing to disclose knowledge of the email system. The decision comes in a FOIA lawsuit related to the Benghazi terrorist attack.

Specially, Lamberth ruled:

… the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer to plan discovery into (a) whether Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA; (b) whether the State Department’s attempts to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and (c) whether State has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s requests.

Terming Clinton’s use of her private email system, “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency,” Lamberth wrote in his MEMORANDUM OPINION:

… his [President Barack Obama’s] State and Justice Departments fell far short. So far short that the court questions, even now, whether they are acting in good faith. Did Hillary Clinton use her private email as Secretary of State to thwart this lofty goal [Obama announced standard for transparency]? Was the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 an effort to avoid searching – and disclosing the existence of – Clinton’s missing emails? And has State ever adequately searched for records in this case?

At best, State’s attempt to pass-off its deficient search as legally adequate during settlement negotiations was negligence born out of incompetence. At worst, career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.

Turning his attention to the Department of Justice, Lamberth wrote:

The current Justice Department made things worse. When the government last appeared before the Court, counsel claimed, ‘it is not true to say we misled either Judicial Watch or the Court.’ When accused of ‘doublespeak,’ counsel denied vehemently, feigned offense, and averred complete candor. When asked why State masked the inadequacy of its initial search, counsel claimed that the officials who initially responded to Judicial Watch’s request didn’t realize Clinton’s emails were missing, and that it took them two months to ‘figure [] out what was going on’… Counsel’s responses strain credulity. [citations omitted]

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.