Judicial Watch seeks an interview with Hillary Clinton over her email scandal
Judicial Watch has announced that it is seeking an order of discovery with a request to interview Hillary Clinton and some of her top aides over her email scandal. Here is more:
Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a proposed order for discovery with a federal court that seeks the testimony of Hillary Clinton about her use of non-state.gov email account(s) for official State Department business. Judicial Watch’s discovery plan also seeks the testimony of Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff; and Jacob “Jake” Sullivan, former senior advisor and deputy chief of staff, as well as other current and former State Department officials. Judicial Watch proposes the testimony take place over 12 weeks.
Today’s filing comes in a July 2014 Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit seeking records and communications in the Secretary’s Office related to the since discredited talking points used by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to describe the nature of the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)).
Clinton’s proposed testimony would cover the search in response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request
Supporters of Hillary Clinton might be wondering what legal standing Judicial Watch has in issuing this request.
Back at the end of March a Federal judge granted Judicial Watch “legal discovery” in the Hillary Clinton email scandal, here is more:
Judicial Watch has been seeking legal discovery in the case of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal because the group felt that the former Secretary of State has not fully complied with it FOIA request. According to this story a Federal judge has ruled in favor of Judicial Watch, which means the group may be allowed issue depositions to some of Hillary Clinton’s top aides.
U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth entered an order Tuesday agreeing that Judicial Watch can pursue legal discovery — which often includes depositions of relevant individuals — as the group pursues legal claims that State did not respond completely to a FOIA request filed in May 2014 seeking records about talking points then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice used for TV appearances discussing the deadly attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi in September 2012.
And this was the second Federal judge to side with Judicial Watch on “legal discovery.”
The Congress has just been going through the motions in its investigation into the email scandal using the Hegelian Dialectic to make it appear as if they are trying to get to the truth while using the issue for political reasons. The Congress is not interested in the truth and I trust Judicial Watch to conduct a more sincere investigation. This could be about to get real interesting if Judicial Watch is granted its request…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium