Federal Court Orders Discovery on Clinton Email, Benghazi Scandal

[TigerGrowls]

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...spond-to-judicial-watch-questions-under-oath/

Good article. Tom Finton is a stud for truth and justice!

Federal Court Orders Discovery on Clinton Email, Benghazi Scandal: Top Obama-Clinton Officials, Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes to Respond to Judicial Watch Questions Under Oath
JANUARY 15, 2019

Seven Other Top State Department/Clinton Aides Must also Respond to Judicial Watch Queries

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced today that United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that discovery can begin in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides will now be deposed under oath. Senior officials — including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap — will now have to answer Judicial Watch’s written questions under oath. The court rejected the DOJ and State Department’s objections to Judicial Watch’s court-ordered discovery plan. (The court, in ordering a discovery plan last month, ruledthat the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”)

Judicial Watch’s discovery will seek answers to:

• Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system;
• whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and
• whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

Discovery is scheduled to be completed within 120 days. The court will hold a post-discovery hearing to determine if Judicial Watch may also depose additional witnesses, including Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills.

Judge Lamberth ordered written responses under oath to Judicial Watch’s questions from Obama administration senior officials Rice, Rhodes and Sullivan, and former FBI official Priestap. Rice and Rhodes will answer interrogatories under oath on the Benghazi scandal. Rejecting the State and Justice Department objections to discovery on the infamous Benghazi talking points, Judge Lamberth reiterated:

Yet Rice’s talking points and State’s understanding of the attack play an unavoidably central role in this case: information about the points’ development and content, as well as their discussion and dissemination before and after Rice’s appearances could reveal unsearched, relevant records; State’s role in the points’ content and development could shed light on Clinton’s motives for shielding her emails from FOIA requesters or on State’s reluctance to search her emails.

Judicial Watch also may serve interrogatories on Monica Hanley, a former staff member in the State Department’s Office of the Secretary, and on Lauren Jiloty, Clinton’s former special assistant.

According to Lamberth’s order, regarding whether Clinton’s private email use while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA, Judicial Watch may depose:

1. Eric Boswell, the former Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security.… Boswell’s March 2009 memo to Mills … discusses security risks Clinton’s Blackberry use posed more generally. And Boswell personally discussed the memo with Clinton. So, he plainly has relevant information about that conversation and about his general knowledge of Clinton’s email use. Judicial Watch may depose Boswell.
2. Justin Cooper. the Clinton Foundation employee who created the clintonemail.com server. In its proposal, Judicial Watch noted Cooper’s prior congressional testimony “appears to contradict portions of the testimony provided by Huma Abedin in the case before Judge Sullivan.” … Cooper repeatedly told Congress that Abedin helped set-up the Clintons’ private server, e.g., Examining Preservation of State Department Federal Records: [before a Congressional hearing] Abedin testified under oath she did not know about the server until six years later.… Judicial Watch may depose Cooper.
3. Clarence Finney, the former deputy director of State’s Executive Secretariat staff…. [T]his case’s questions hinge on what specific State employees knew and when they knew it. As the principal advisor and records management expert responsible for controlling Clinton’s official correspondence and records, Finney’s knowledge is particularly relevant. And especially given the concerns about government misconduct that prompted this discovery, Judicial Watch’s ability to take his direct testimony and ask follow-up questions is critical.

***

Judicial Watch seeks to go beyond cursory, second-hand testimony and directly ask Finney what he knew about Clinton’s email use. This includes asking about emails suggesting he knew about her private email use in 2014, and emails he received concerning a December 2012 FOIA request from Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington (CREW) regarding senior officials’ personal email use-topics State’s 30(b)(6) deposition in Judge Sullivan’s case never addressed. Judicial Watch may depose Finney.

4. Heather Samuelson. the former State Department senior advisor who helped facilitate State’s receipt of Hillary Clinton’s emails.… [T]his case turns on what specific government employees knew and when they knew it. Judicial Watch must be able to take their direct testimony and ask them follow-up questions. Judicial Watch may depose Samuelson.

5. Jacob Sullivan. Secretary Clinton’s former senior advisor and deputy Chief of Staff. The government does not oppose Sullivan’s deposition.

Regarding whether the State Department’s settlement attempts that began in late 2014 amounted to “bad faith,” Judicial Watch was granted depositions from the State Department under Rule 30(b)(6); Finney; John Hackett, the former deputy director of State’s Office of Information Programs & Services; Gene Smilansky, an attorney-advisor within State’s Office of the Legal Advisor; Samuelson; and others.

Judicial Watch was also granted interrogatories on whether the State Department adequately searched for responsive records, as well as several document requests.

“In a major victory for accountability, Judge Lamberth today authorized Judicial Watch to take discovery on whether the Clinton email system evaded FOIA and whether the Benghazi scandal was one reason for keeping Mrs. Clinton’s email secret,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Today, Judicial Watch issued document requests and other discovery to the State Department about the Clinton email scandal. Next up, we will begin questioning key witnesses under oath.”

The court-ordered discovery is the latest development in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:

• Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
• Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.

The Judicial Watch discovery plan was in response to a December 6, 2018, ruling by Judge Lamberth.

Incredibly, Justice Department attorneys admit in a filing opposing Judicial Watch’s limited discovery that “Counsel for State contacted the counsel of some third parties that Plaintiff originally included in its draft discovery proposal to obtain their client’s position on being deposed.” This collusion occurred despite criticism from the Court that the DOJ engaged in “chicanery” to cover up misconduct and that career employees in the State and Justice Departments may have “colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.”

Judicial Watch countered that “[t]he government’s proposal, which is really nothing more than an opposition to [Judicial Watch’s] plan, demonstrates that it continues to reject any impropriety on its part and that it seeks to block any meaningful inquiry into its ‘outrageous misconduct.’”

This Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

 

[nytigerfan]

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...spond-to-judicial-watch-questions-under-oath/

Good article. Tom Finton is a stud for truth and justice!

Federal Court Orders Discovery on Clinton Email, Benghazi Scandal: Top Obama-Clinton Officials, Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes to Respond to Judicial Watch Questions Under Oath
JANUARY 15, 2019

Seven Other Top State Department/Clinton Aides Must also Respond to Judicial Watch Queries

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced today that United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that discovery can begin in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides will now be deposed under oath. Senior officials — including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap — will now have to answer Judicial Watch’s written questions under oath. The court rejected the DOJ and State Department’s objections to Judicial Watch’s court-ordered discovery plan. (The court, in ordering a discovery plan last month, ruledthat the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”)

Judicial Watch’s discovery will seek answers to:

• Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system;
• whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and
• whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

Discovery is scheduled to be completed within 120 days. The court will hold a post-discovery hearing to determine if Judicial Watch may also depose additional witnesses, including Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills.

Judge Lamberth ordered written responses under oath to Judicial Watch’s questions from Obama administration senior officials Rice, Rhodes and Sullivan, and former FBI official Priestap. Rice and Rhodes will answer interrogatories under oath on the Benghazi scandal. Rejecting the State and Justice Department objections to discovery on the infamous Benghazi talking points, Judge Lamberth reiterated:

Yet Rice’s talking points and State’s understanding of the attack play an unavoidably central role in this case: information about the points’ development and content, as well as their discussion and dissemination before and after Rice’s appearances could reveal unsearched, relevant records; State’s role in the points’ content and development could shed light on Clinton’s motives for shielding her emails from FOIA requesters or on State’s reluctance to search her emails.

Judicial Watch also may serve interrogatories on Monica Hanley, a former staff member in the State Department’s Office of the Secretary, and on Lauren Jiloty, Clinton’s former special assistant.

According to Lamberth’s order, regarding whether Clinton’s private email use while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA, Judicial Watch may depose:

1. Eric Boswell, the former Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security.… Boswell’s March 2009 memo to Mills … discusses security risks Clinton’s Blackberry use posed more generally. And Boswell personally discussed the memo with Clinton. So, he plainly has relevant information about that conversation and about his general knowledge of Clinton’s email use. Judicial Watch may depose Boswell.
2. Justin Cooper. the Clinton Foundation employee who created the clintonemail.com server. In its proposal, Judicial Watch noted Cooper’s prior congressional testimony “appears to contradict portions of the testimony provided by Huma Abedin in the case before Judge Sullivan.” … Cooper repeatedly told Congress that Abedin helped set-up the Clintons’ private server, e.g., Examining Preservation of State Department Federal Records: [before a Congressional hearing] Abedin testified under oath she did not know about the server until six years later.… Judicial Watch may depose Cooper.
3. Clarence Finney, the former deputy director of State’s Executive Secretariat staff…. [T]his case’s questions hinge on what specific State employees knew and when they knew it. As the principal advisor and records management expert responsible for controlling Clinton’s official correspondence and records, Finney’s knowledge is particularly relevant. And especially given the concerns about government misconduct that prompted this discovery, Judicial Watch’s ability to take his direct testimony and ask follow-up questions is critical.

***

Judicial Watch seeks to go beyond cursory, second-hand testimony and directly ask Finney what he knew about Clinton’s email use. This includes asking about emails suggesting he knew about her private email use in 2014, and emails he received concerning a December 2012 FOIA request from Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington (CREW) regarding senior officials’ personal email use-topics State’s 30(b)(6) deposition in Judge Sullivan’s case never addressed. Judicial Watch may depose Finney.

4. Heather Samuelson. the former State Department senior advisor who helped facilitate State’s receipt of Hillary Clinton’s emails.… [T]his case turns on what specific government employees knew and when they knew it. Judicial Watch must be able to take their direct testimony and ask them follow-up questions. Judicial Watch may depose Samuelson.

5. Jacob Sullivan. Secretary Clinton’s former senior advisor and deputy Chief of Staff. The government does not oppose Sullivan’s deposition.

Regarding whether the State Department’s settlement attempts that began in late 2014 amounted to “bad faith,” Judicial Watch was granted depositions from the State Department under Rule 30(b)(6); Finney; John Hackett, the former deputy director of State’s Office of Information Programs & Services; Gene Smilansky, an attorney-advisor within State’s Office of the Legal Advisor; Samuelson; and others.

Judicial Watch was also granted interrogatories on whether the State Department adequately searched for responsive records, as well as several document requests.

“In a major victory for accountability, Judge Lamberth today authorized Judicial Watch to take discovery on whether the Clinton email system evaded FOIA and whether the Benghazi scandal was one reason for keeping Mrs. Clinton’s email secret,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Today, Judicial Watch issued document requests and other discovery to the State Department about the Clinton email scandal. Next up, we will begin questioning key witnesses under oath.”

The court-ordered discovery is the latest development in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:

• Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
• Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.

The Judicial Watch discovery plan was in response to a December 6, 2018, ruling by Judge Lamberth.

Incredibly, Justice Department attorneys admit in a filing opposing Judicial Watch’s limited discovery that “Counsel for State contacted the counsel of some third parties that Plaintiff originally included in its draft discovery proposal to obtain their client’s position on being deposed.” This collusion occurred despite criticism from the Court that the DOJ engaged in “chicanery” to cover up misconduct and that career employees in the State and Justice Departments may have “colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.”

Judicial Watch countered that “[t]he government’s proposal, which is really nothing more than an opposition to [Judicial Watch’s] plan, demonstrates that it continues to reject any impropriety on its part and that it seeks to block any meaningful inquiry into its ‘outrageous misconduct.’”

This Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

Cool, I say lock them up and throw them in a jail cell right next to trump.

 

[clemben]

So just so you can put this in context--this all started bc Judicial Watch wanted Rice's emails about Rice's decision to call Bengahzi a protest that turned violent versus a terrorist attack. Like that is it...

Seriously--that was the scandal for conservatives. Screaming--you are corrupt because you didn't label this terrorism.

The 'scandal' is about nothing more than talking points used by the govt in the wake of the attack. (and then you come to find out Clinton is using a private server and the explosion happens for conservatives)

But you conservative Trumpians are completely numb to daily lies and an unfolding of an actual conspiracy that is trying to be covered up in broad daylight.

Any reaction to the Buzzfeed article? Don't care about a sitting president directing Cohen to lie, obstructing justice and committing a felony?? Nothing??

 

[TigerGrowls]

So just so you can put this in context--this all started bc Judicial Watch wanted Rice's emails about Rice's decision to call Bengahzi a protest that turned violent versus a terrorist attack. Like that is it...

Seriously--that was the scandal for conservatives. Screaming--you are corrupt because you didn't label this terrorism.

The 'scandal' is about nothing more than talking points used by the govt in the wake of the attack. (and then you come to find out Clinton is using a private server and the explosion happens for conservatives)

But you conservative Trumpians are completely numb to daily lies and an unfolding of an actual conspiracy that is trying to be covered up in broad daylight.

Any reaction to the Buzzfeed article? Don't care about a sitting president directing Cohen to lie, obstructing justice and committing a felony?? Nothing??

Benghazi is about a hell of a lot more than what you say, but let it unfold. I trust in God that the truth will come out for all to see. Whats going on now is related to what happened then I truly believe.

What Buzzfeed article are you referring to? Related to Cohen,,,I havent heard one thing related to him that would pull me off my support for President Trump.

 

[Rychek4]

Benghazi is about a hell of a lot more than what you say, but let it unfold.

The Benghazi investigation went on longer than the current Mueller investigation and brought no charges. Zero.

The Mueller probe has 33 people charged with a crime and 3 companies.

The truth doesn't always make us feel good. The truth sucks sometimes. You gotta get out of your confirmation bias bubble.

 

[TigerGrowls]

The Benghazi investigation went on longer than the current Mueller investigation and brought no charges. Zero.

The Mueller probe has 33 people charged with a crime and 3 companies.

The truth doesn't always make us feel good. The truth sucks sometimes. You gotta get out of your confirmation bias bubble.

Holder and the Obama deep state apparatus covered up and/or obfuscated Benghazi story. The Mueller probe is just a joke and you know it even if you will not admit. When you are alone in your private thoughts, you know its a joke. Its all connected though and I am putting my money on the good guys.

 

[hopefultiger13]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA

I know this MAY come as a shock to some on here but here's the deal on the source from mediabiasfactcheck.com

• Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories and a very poor fact check record.

Detailed Report

Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Some Fake News

I actually have NO PROBLEM with investigating anyone if there's evidence to do so and locking them up if they are guilty. Who ever that might be. Perhaps there's more evidence here than the Republicans were able to find in the what 4 or 5 years of investigations that yielded zero charges against anyone.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Holder and the Obama deep state apparatus covered up and/or obfuscated Benghazi story. The Mueller probe is just a joke and you know it even if you will not admit. When you are alone in your private thoughts, you know its a joke. Its all connected though and I am putting my money on the good guys.

Are you freaking kidding me? The Mueller probe has convicted several people very close to the President for lying their asses off to protect him. Trump and company have systematically lied their asses off EVERY step of the way during the whole investigation. Look, I have no problem with locking Hillary up if she broke the law. I think Bill Clinton should have been removed from office for lying to the American People and feel the same about Trump.

 

[orangelvis]

The Benghazi investigation went on longer than the current Mueller investigation and brought no charges. Zero.

The Mueller probe has 33 people charged with a crime and 3 companies.

The truth doesn't always make us feel good. The truth sucks sometimes. You gotta get out of your confirmation bias bubble.

You know that the Benghazi investigation was a Congressional investigation and Congress has no power to indict. The failure was in the Obama Justice Dept. and you know it.
Mueller hasn't charged anyone with anything close to conspiracy or any other charge involving American/Russian collusion/conspiracy and you know that also. If he would only look at the other campaign of 2016, there is an ever growing avalanche of sworn testimony regarding foreign influence; including Russians. McCabe is under criminal investigation and recently, James Baker, the General Counsel for the FBI is also under criminal investigation. Bruce Ohr's testimony has put many others in legal jeopardy as well and the announcements of their criminality will come out soon. Mark the tape.

 

[hopefultiger13]

You know that the Benghazi investigation was a Congressional investigation and Congress has no power to indict. The failure was in the Obama Justice Dept. and you know it.
Mueller hasn't charged anyone with anything close to conspiracy or any other charge involving American/Russian collusion/conspiracy and you know that also. If he would only look at the other campaign of 2016, there is an ever growing avalanche of sworn testimony regarding foreign influence; including Russians. McCabe is under criminal investigation and recently, James Baker, the General Counsel for the FBI is also under criminal investigation. Bruce Ohr's testimony has put many others in legal jeopardy as well and the announcements of their criminality will come out soon. Mark the tape.

That's not what the Inspector General's report (that you said was going to show us all) concluded.

 

[Rychek4]

The Mueller probe is just a joke and you know it even if you will not admit. When you are alone in your private thoughts, you know its a joke.

Wow.

 

[Rychek4]

Mueller hasn't charged anyone with anything close to conspiracy

Rick Gates plead guilty a conspiracy charge. Do you do any research or do you just start typing?

 

[orangelvis]

That's not what the Inspector General's report (that you said was going to show us all) concluded.

Now, now. You know that the first IG report was a redacted version shown to the public. What exactly are you saying the report concluded?

 

[orangelvis]

Rick Gates plead guilty a conspiracy charge. Do you do any research or do you just start typing?

Conspiracy to what? Do you inject things by implication?

 

[Rychek4]

Conspiracy to what? Do you inject things by implication?

As part of Gates’s plea, he admitted conspiring to defraud the United States regarding the millions of dollars he and Manafort earned while working for a political party in Ukraine.

 

[firegiver]

Facts still matter. Tom Fitton is a conspiracy and political hack on the level of Alex Jones. He invents more news than he reports.

 

[nytigerfan]

Facts still matter. Tom Fitton is a conspiracy and political hack on the level of Alex Jones. He invents more news than he reports.

I actually disagree. Facts don't matter to Trump supporters. Trump and his allies know that this is a PR war. No matter how guilty he is of crimes, he cannot be indicted. So if he can maintain enough support from his followers, he will avoid impeachment by the senate (he will definitely be impeached in the house). Republican senators will not vote against them for fear of pissing off trump's crazy base. As long as enough diehard trumpsters believe all of the "deep state cabal" nonsense, and enough marginal republican trump supporters believe he was treated unfairly, he will get a pass.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Now, now. You know that the first IG report was a redacted version shown to the public. What exactly are you saying the report concluded?

Interesting.. You were the one saying that it was going to blow the deep state out of the water...

There's lots of conclusions made in the executive summary, but here's the part about the deep state that you believe in based on the FBI text messages:

"But our review did not find
evidence to connect the political views expressed in
these messages to the specific investigative decisions
that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic
approach described above, we found that these specific
decisions were the result of discretionary judgments
made during the course of an investigation by the
Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these
judgment calls were not unreasonable."

 

[hopefultiger13]

I actually disagree. Facts don't matter to Trump supporters. Trump and his allies know that this is a PR war. No matter how guilty he is of crimes, he cannot be indicted. So if he can maintain enough support from his followers, he will avoid impeachment by the senate (he will definitely be impeached in the house). Republican senators will not vote against them for fear of pissing off trump's crazy base. As long as enough diehard trumpsters believe all of the "deep state cabal" nonsense, and enough marginal republican trump supporters believe he was treated unfairly, he will get a pass.

THIS. Trumpians believe in Trump. Period. Facts don't sway them, lies don't sway them. This belief comes from the same place that your belief in a religion comes from. Trump could take a piss down their backs and they would be singing about spring showers. Hell you could wrap towels around their heads and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and ISIS. "There is no leader but Trump and Sean Hannity is his profit!!"

 

[orangelvis]

As part of Gates’s plea, he admitted conspiring to defraud the United States regarding the millions of dollars he and Manafort earned while working for a political party in Ukraine.

So, what does that have to do with Trump and the 2016 election? Should not the other players be indicted as well, or do they get a pass because they are dems.

 

[orangelvis]

Interesting.. You were the one saying that it was going to blow the deep state out of the water...

There's lots of conclusions made in the executive summary, but here's the part about the deep state that you believe in based on the FBI text messages:

"But our review did not find
evidence to connect the political views expressed in
these messages to the specific investigative decisions
that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic
approach described above, we found that these specific
decisions were the result of discretionary judgments
made during the course of an investigation by the
Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these
judgment calls were not unreasonable."

You do know that John Huber was appointed by Sessions to take IG investigative facts and convene Grand Juries in any state he deems appropriate. The IG has no power to prosecute. Making a conclusion about someone's bias has nothing to do with process. You also know that the IG has continued his investigation since the first report to include the FISA process and foreign assets used to set up Trump campaign operatives. Again, all of which is being funneled to a real DOJ prosecutor. It's coming.

As far the Strzok/Page scenario regarding the first IG report. The investigation in the first report stopped short of Strzok and Page becoming part of Mueller's team, only to be let go by Mueller when the texts became public and Mueller scrubbing their phones of 3 months of content. Nothing to see here, right?

 

[Rychek4]

Mueller hasn't charged anyone with anything close to conspiracy

As part of Gates’s plea, he admitted conspiring to defraud the United States regarding the millions of dollars he and Manafort earned while working for a political party in Ukraine.

So, what does that have to do with Trump and the 2016 election? Should not the other players be indicted as well, or do they get a pass because they are dems.

My original point was that you were lying and I think I made that point.

 

[VeniceTiger]

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...spond-to-judicial-watch-questions-under-oath/

Good article. Tom Finton is a stud for truth and justice!

Federal Court Orders Discovery on Clinton Email, Benghazi Scandal: Top Obama-Clinton Officials, Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes to Respond to Judicial Watch Questions Under Oath
JANUARY 15, 2019

Seven Other Top State Department/Clinton Aides Must also Respond to Judicial Watch Queries

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced today that United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that discovery can begin in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides will now be deposed under oath. Senior officials — including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap — will now have to answer Judicial Watch’s written questions under oath. The court rejected the DOJ and State Department’s objections to Judicial Watch’s court-ordered discovery plan. (The court, in ordering a discovery plan last month, ruledthat the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”)

Judicial Watch’s discovery will seek answers to:

• Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system;
• whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and
• whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

Discovery is scheduled to be completed within 120 days. The court will hold a post-discovery hearing to determine if Judicial Watch may also depose additional witnesses, including Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills.

Judge Lamberth ordered written responses under oath to Judicial Watch’s questions from Obama administration senior officials Rice, Rhodes and Sullivan, and former FBI official Priestap. Rice and Rhodes will answer interrogatories under oath on the Benghazi scandal. Rejecting the State and Justice Department objections to discovery on the infamous Benghazi talking points, Judge Lamberth reiterated:

Yet Rice’s talking points and State’s understanding of the attack play an unavoidably central role in this case: information about the points’ development and content, as well as their discussion and dissemination before and after Rice’s appearances could reveal unsearched, relevant records; State’s role in the points’ content and development could shed light on Clinton’s motives for shielding her emails from FOIA requesters or on State’s reluctance to search her emails.

Judicial Watch also may serve interrogatories on Monica Hanley, a former staff member in the State Department’s Office of the Secretary, and on Lauren Jiloty, Clinton’s former special assistant.

According to Lamberth’s order, regarding whether Clinton’s private email use while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA, Judicial Watch may depose:

1. Eric Boswell, the former Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security.… Boswell’s March 2009 memo to Mills … discusses security risks Clinton’s Blackberry use posed more generally. And Boswell personally discussed the memo with Clinton. So, he plainly has relevant information about that conversation and about his general knowledge of Clinton’s email use. Judicial Watch may depose Boswell.
2. Justin Cooper. the Clinton Foundation employee who created the clintonemail.com server. In its proposal, Judicial Watch noted Cooper’s prior congressional testimony “appears to contradict portions of the testimony provided by Huma Abedin in the case before Judge Sullivan.” … Cooper repeatedly told Congress that Abedin helped set-up the Clintons’ private server, e.g., Examining Preservation of State Department Federal Records: [before a Congressional hearing] Abedin testified under oath she did not know about the server until six years later.… Judicial Watch may depose Cooper.
3. Clarence Finney, the former deputy director of State’s Executive Secretariat staff…. [T]his case’s questions hinge on what specific State employees knew and when they knew it. As the principal advisor and records management expert responsible for controlling Clinton’s official correspondence and records, Finney’s knowledge is particularly relevant. And especially given the concerns about government misconduct that prompted this discovery, Judicial Watch’s ability to take his direct testimony and ask follow-up questions is critical.

***

Judicial Watch seeks to go beyond cursory, second-hand testimony and directly ask Finney what he knew about Clinton’s email use. This includes asking about emails suggesting he knew about her private email use in 2014, and emails he received concerning a December 2012 FOIA request from Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington (CREW) regarding senior officials’ personal email use-topics State’s 30(b)(6) deposition in Judge Sullivan’s case never addressed. Judicial Watch may depose Finney.

4. Heather Samuelson. the former State Department senior advisor who helped facilitate State’s receipt of Hillary Clinton’s emails.… [T]his case turns on what specific government employees knew and when they knew it. Judicial Watch must be able to take their direct testimony and ask them follow-up questions. Judicial Watch may depose Samuelson.

5. Jacob Sullivan. Secretary Clinton’s former senior advisor and deputy Chief of Staff. The government does not oppose Sullivan’s deposition.

Regarding whether the State Department’s settlement attempts that began in late 2014 amounted to “bad faith,” Judicial Watch was granted depositions from the State Department under Rule 30(b)(6); Finney; John Hackett, the former deputy director of State’s Office of Information Programs & Services; Gene Smilansky, an attorney-advisor within State’s Office of the Legal Advisor; Samuelson; and others.

Judicial Watch was also granted interrogatories on whether the State Department adequately searched for responsive records, as well as several document requests.

“In a major victory for accountability, Judge Lamberth today authorized Judicial Watch to take discovery on whether the Clinton email system evaded FOIA and whether the Benghazi scandal was one reason for keeping Mrs. Clinton’s email secret,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Today, Judicial Watch issued document requests and other discovery to the State Department about the Clinton email scandal. Next up, we will begin questioning key witnesses under oath.”

The court-ordered discovery is the latest development in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:

• Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
• Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.

The Judicial Watch discovery plan was in response to a December 6, 2018, ruling by Judge Lamberth.

Incredibly, Justice Department attorneys admit in a filing opposing Judicial Watch’s limited discovery that “Counsel for State contacted the counsel of some third parties that Plaintiff originally included in its draft discovery proposal to obtain their client’s position on being deposed.” This collusion occurred despite criticism from the Court that the DOJ engaged in “chicanery” to cover up misconduct and that career employees in the State and Justice Departments may have “colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.”

Judicial Watch countered that “[t]he government’s proposal, which is really nothing more than an opposition to [Judicial Watch’s] plan, demonstrates that it continues to reject any impropriety on its part and that it seeks to block any meaningful inquiry into its ‘outrageous misconduct.’”

This Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

What a massive waste of tax dollars.

 

[VeniceTiger]

Are you freaking kidding me? The Mueller probe has convicted several people very close to the President for lying their asses off to protect him. Trump and company have systematically lied their asses off EVERY step of the way during the whole investigation. Look, I have no problem with locking Hillary up if she broke the law. I think Bill Clinton should have been removed from office for lying to the American People and feel the same about Trump.

You can’t be objective with conservatives who only know how to play team sports. They are just manipulated by right wing media like Rush and Faux News.

 

[clemben]

Benghazi is about a hell of a lot more than what you say, but let it unfold. I trust in God that the truth will come out for all to see. Whats going on now is related to what happened then I truly believe.

What Buzzfeed article are you referring to? Related to Cohen,,,I havent heard one thing related to him that would pull me off my support for President Trump.

OK--but lets get this down in writing--IF the president directed Cohen to lie to Congress he should be impeached, right? You would lose support, right?

IF this happened it would be committing 3 crimes--1. subornation of perjury, 2. obstruction of justice--bc the lie was designed to inhibit the investigation into Trump Russia hotel 3. conspiracy to commit perjury and obstruction.

(PS this is an actual conspiracy and this also doesn't come from just Cohen's statements but documentation according to these Pulitzer prize winning journalists)

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

As part of Gates’s plea, he admitted conspiring to defraud the United States regarding the millions of dollars he and Manafort earned while working for a political party in Ukraine.

And that conspiracy had ZERO to do with the Trump campaign

Now on the other hand all the hard evidence I have seen shows a lot of wrongdoing by the Clintons and several other people

BUT the corrupt criminal upper levels of the FBI and DOJ shielded the guilty

I no longer worry about foreign enemies to freedom

Bad criminals have infiltrated our government and are hoodwinking millions of Americans who fail to think for themselves and line up at the foodies trough

I am praying America gets more champions of integrity honesty and truth in government

If not God help us all

 

[firegiver]

And that conspiracy had ZERO to do with the Trump campaign

Now on the other hand all the hard evidence I have seen shows a lot of wrongdoing by the Clintons and several other people

BUT the corrupt criminal upper levels of the FBI and DOJ shielded the guilty

I no longer worry about foreign enemies to freedom

Bad criminals have infiltrated our government and are hoodwinking millions of Americans who fail to think for themselves and line up at the foodies trough

I am praying America gets more champions of integrity honesty and truth in government

If not God help us all

hard evidence huh? lets see that link to breitbart

 

[clemben]

And that conspiracy had ZERO to do with the Trump campaign

Now on the other hand all the hard evidence I have seen shows a lot of wrongdoing by the Clintons and several other people

BUT the corrupt criminal upper levels of the FBI and DOJ shielded the guilty

I no longer worry about foreign enemies to freedom

Bad criminals have infiltrated our government and are hoodwinking millions of Americans who fail to think for themselves and line up at the foodies trough

I am praying America gets more champions of integrity honesty and truth in government

If not God help us all

Oh please--spell out all of the hard evidence. All of it (make sure it is hard).

And I will show you how it has been debunked.

Then show me all of the hard evidence that there is not a conspiracy with regards to Trump Tower Moscow, the Trump tower meeting, and Trump directing Cohen to lie to Congress. (in addition to a myriad of other wrong doings and shady schemes and lies)

 

[Rychek4]

And that conspiracy had ZERO to do with the Trump campaign

Did it? I don't know.

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

Oh please--spell out all of the hard evidence. All of it (make sure it is hard).

And I will show you how it has been debunked.

Then show me all of the hard evidence that there is not a conspiracy with regards to Trump Tower Moscow, the Trump tower meeting, and Trump directing Cohen to lie to Congress. (in addition to a myriad of other wrong doings and shady schemes and lies)

I am going to bed tonight thanking the Lord I am NOT U

You missed your age

You need to have lived during the Spanish Inqusition

I ask to show evidence and you start a spin

But I really don’t want to start the typical Trump derangement mob screaming from someone as I am better than that as I believe in the rule of law and innocent until proven guilty

I am appalled at people such as yourself who scream about Trump and Russia

WHEN a significant portion of Washington both Dems and Repubs are snuggling with China and even Russia but simply are overlooked

If you knew how much money was flowing into Washington from foreigners buying our people if you are a true American you would be alarmed as I am

It’s so disappointing to see someone scream about Trump and ignore the bigger picture

 

[firegiver]

I am going to bed tonight thanking the Lord I am NOT U

You missed your age

You need to have lived during the Spanish Inqusition

I ask to show evidence and you start a spin

But I really don’t want to start the typical Trump derangement mob screaming from someone as I am better than that as I believe in the rule of law and innocent until proven guilty

I am appalled at people such as yourself who scream about Trump and Russia

WHEN a significant portion of Washington both Dems and Repubs are snuggling with China and even Russia but simply are overlooked

If you knew how much money was flowing into Washington from foreigners buying our people if you are a true American you would be alarmed as I am

It’s so disappointing to see someone scream about Trump and ignore the bigger picture

Wut.


https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-...against-russian-oligarch-20190117-p50ruw.html

 

[clemben]

I am going to bed tonight thanking the Lord I am NOT U

You missed your age

You need to have lived during the Spanish Inqusition

I ask to show evidence and you start a spin

But I really don’t want to start the typical Trump derangement mob screaming from someone as I am better than that as I believe in the rule of law and innocent until proven guilty

I am appalled at people such as yourself who scream about Trump and Russia

WHEN a significant portion of Washington both Dems and Repubs are snuggling with China and even Russia but simply are overlooked

If you knew how much money was flowing into Washington from foreigners buying our people if you are a true American you would be alarmed as I am

It’s so disappointing to see someone scream about Trump and ignore the bigger picture

Great. I asked you something very specific--you said there was hard evidence that you had seen that connects Clinton to wrongdoing--and I asked you to please present it.

What I got in return was a rant. Have you seen hard evidence or not? Did you just make that up?

Why are you appalled about people who scream about Trump and Russia? Do you just not care that a president said he had zero business dealings with Russia, but was secretly negotiating those dealings while running for office, while continuing to lie about it and then directed his personal attorney to lie about it to Congress to cover that up?

If you don't care--fine, but you shouldn't question why others would care deeply about the integrity and morality of the office and this country.

I'm not ok with any foreign money flowing in and corporations running this country. One of the inevitabilities of free market capitalism without govt regulation. But why would holding a president accountable for potential, multiple felonies be wrong or appalling?

Spanish Inquisition? Nope--just being a patriot. (I also hope, with that comment, you weren't in favor of things like the Birther movement, Benghazi, or an entire host of Obama 'scandals' that never existed)

***Update: Fascinating that Mueller (the office of special counsel) is refuting some of the Buzzfeed reporting (they don't give specifics on what is wrong). This will be very interesting bc these two are both pulitzer prize winning journalists. It could be parsing semantics with SDNY instead of the special counsel, but got to wait and see what the special counsel findings are...also interesting that Cohen didn't confirm or deny...

 

[TigerGrowls]

OK--but lets get this down in writing--IF the president directed Cohen to lie to Congress he should be impeached, right? You would lose support, right?

IF this happened it would be committing 3 crimes--1. subornation of perjury, 2. obstruction of justice--bc the lie was designed to inhibit the investigation into Trump Russia hotel 3. conspiracy to commit perjury and obstruction.

(PS this is an actual conspiracy and this also doesn't come from just Cohen's statements but documentation according to these Pulitzer prize winning journalists)

And....................ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST! Heavy base in the background! Does this mean Buzzfeed is actually trolling the NeverTrumpers?

 

[hopefultiger13]

OK--but lets get this down in writing--IF the president directed Cohen to lie to Congress he should be impeached, right? You would lose support, right?

IF this happened it would be committing 3 crimes--1. subornation of perjury, 2. obstruction of justice--bc the lie was designed to inhibit the investigation into Trump Russia hotel 3. conspiracy to commit perjury and obstruction.

(PS this is an actual conspiracy and this also doesn't come from just Cohen's statements but documentation according to these Pulitzer prize winning journalists)

Dude, he will never answer that question directly, nor will most of the Trumpians. I can't even get him to admit that Trump lied about Trump personally having contact with Russia before the election. The bottom line is that Trumpians aren't going to abandon him no matter what.

Look brother...Trump makes it a habit to discredit other powerful people, reporting agencies, and press whenever he can. Hell, he admitted that he accused the press of lying all the time just so that people will doubt them when they report something bad about him. He said that out loud in an interview. His constant attacks on the DoJ, Mueller, and the FBI aren't accidental my friend... Trump has known what was coming down the pipes for a while, and and for damn near two years he's been bashing them every chance he gets. So when/if the investigation comes back with enough to get him indited/impeached, the Trumpians will all scream it's the Deep State.

They will never admit any of Trump's crimes (if he committed any).