Judicial Watch to start interviewing Hillary Clinton’s aides under oath this month
Yesterday America’s Watchtower wrote about Judicial Watch seeking an “order of discovery” with a request to interview Hillary Clinton and some of her top aides over her email scandal, and this came after a decision in March which granted the conservative watchdog group “legal discovery” in the case.
Judicial Watch is wasting no time as today the group announced it would be interviewing Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills within the next two months.
Here is more:
Every year for more than two decades, the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch has filed scores of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for documents from the federal government, many in pursuit of a favorite target: Bill and Hillary Clinton. Now, with FOIA case No. F-2013-08812, they may finally have hit the political jackpot.
Two close Clinton aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, will testify under oath this month and next Judicial Watch announced today.
Of course the big prize is the former Secretary of State and Judicial Watch is hoping to secure an interview under oath with her as well. And it appears as if it could happen:
The judge in the case said earlier this month he may force Clinton herself to testify after the first round of interviews is completed. That has set up the prospect of the Democratic front-runner for the White House facing off under oath against one of her most dogged pursuers as early as July, just months before the November election.
According to the above-linked article Judicial Watch is limited to only trying to find the answer to the question of why Hillary Clinton set up a personal email server on which to conduct ALL State Department business. Hillary Clinton has claimed she did it for the convenience of only using one device but we know she used several during the course of her tenure at the State Department so that excuse seems suspect at best. The question is; did she set up a personal email server to hide documents from FOIA requests–a reason I find highly plausible.
And this is why the Clinton campaign is actually more worried about this investigation than the FBI’s investigation:
Clinton may have violated civil law if she intentionally thwarted FOIA or the Federal Records Act, which requires public officials to take a number of steps to preserve and make public their work related documents, according to experts and judges handling the matter in the courts. Which means that for many voters it will be Clinton’s trustworthiness that is on trial in the FOIA case.
Being longtime associates of the former Secretary of State, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills are well-aware of what happens to people who have potentially damaging information on the Clinton’s so it is highly unlikely either one of them will risk their lives–they will stick to the story.
However Hillary Clinton’s trustworthy numbers are already falling to a dangerous level and if nothing else just the inquiry into this angle might be enough to give many of her potential voters, especially in an election cycle which is very anti-establishment, second thoughts about voting for her. One can only hope I guess…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium