Hillary Clinton won’t face deposition in Judicial Watch email investigation
Judicial Watch has done some great work investigating Hillary Clinton and her still-lingering email scandal. The watchdog group had already interviewed three of the former Secretary of State’s top aides–Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and the and the man responsible for setting up and maintaining her personal server, Bryan Pagliano–and had its eyes set on a deposition of Hillary Clinton herself.
However that deposition is not to be because a Federal Judge has ruled Hillary Clinton does not have to testify in person to Judicial Watch, here is more:
A federal judge has rejected a request to force Hillary Clinton to submit to a sworn deposition in a suit related to her private email server, ruling instead that she must respond in writing to questions about the issue.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan said the conservative group Judicial Watch had not demonstrated that an in-person deposition of Clinton was necessary to attempt to clarify whether the former secretary of state set up the system in order to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act.
Here is part of the ruling:
“Judicial Watch’s argument that a deposition is preferable in this case because of the ability to ask follow-up questions is not persuasive,” Sullivan wrote in his opinion. “Given the extensive public record related to the clintonemail.com system, a record which Judicial Watch has acknowledged, Judicial Watch will be able to anticipate many follow-up questions. For those follow-up questions that Judicial Watch is unable to anticipate, it can move this Court for permission to serve additional interrogatories.”
Judicial Watch had wanted an in-person deposition so it could ask follow-up questions but the judge ruled Judicial Watch should be able to figure out what follow-up questions should be asked and put them in writing at the same time. Of course having all the initial and follow-up questions in front of you and filling them out in your leisure when you know what questions are coming next is not nearly as nerve-wracking or as pressure-filled as it would be if you were testifying in person and required to give answers to follow-up questions on the spot.
It is interesting to note this is the same judge who ordered Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Bryan Pagliano to testify under oath to Judicial Watch; it is almost as if he was allowing a show to be put on so it would look like he was being impartial but stopped just short of the point where is life might be in danger–if you know what I mean…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium