Interviews in Civil Suit Over Hillary Clinton Email Server to Begin This Week
Source: WSJ
WASHINGTONInterviews in a civil lawsuit with current and former State Department officials concerning former Secretary of State Hillary Clintons use of a private email server will begin this week.
Lewis Lukens, a former deputy assistant secretary of state, will be interviewed under oath in the first deposition taken as part of a lawsuit by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch over access to Mrs. Clintons records during her time in office.
The civil lawsuit, which targets the State Department, doesnt name Mrs. Clinton as a defendant, but it has the potential to complicate her presidential bid. Mrs. Clinton is seeking to clinch the Democratic nomination against rival Bernie Sanders and turn her attention to a likely general-election contest against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.
The depositions, which will explore why Mrs. Clinton set up a private email server for her government work, will become part of the public record. Judge Emmet Sullivan, a Democratic appointee, granted Judicial Watch the right to conduct discovery, allowing the group to seek information from State Department officialsa rare order in a case concerning the Freedom of Information Act.
Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/interviews-in-civil-suit-over-hillary-clinton-email-server-to-begin-this-week-1463506592?mod=rss_US_News
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Or is merely talking about the news that Hillary's top aides and possibly Clinton, have to give sworn testimony doing that?
Javaman
(62,510 posts)JudyM
(29,225 posts)Jarqui
(10,122 posts)have decided to hear this testimony because the case and evidence justified it.
Where there is evidence of government wrongdoing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases, Judge Lambert
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000153-c30e-d9f0-a173-f7efb4660000
Court Order published by Politico
Judge Sullivan effectively agreed with him in a different FOIA case per CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-state-department/
Sullivan acknowledged that it is unusual to grant discovery in a Freedom of Information case but he said discovery should be permitted, "when a plaintiff raises a sufficient question as to the agency's good faith in processing documents in response to a FOIA request."
To me, there's a lot more going on here. Can't brush this off as a mere right wing witch hunt. These are courts of law. Evidence has to be provided to support these judges making these rulings. And it's not just one judge. It's two arriving at a similar place. (and about 36 other cases progressing against them)
This is not merely a witch hunt or some media hit piece. These are court cases where Hillary and the State department may be on the wrong side of the law. If the courts find against them, there's more there than merely a right wing witch hunt.
JudyM
(29,225 posts)However this turns out, it is better to get it finished sooner rather than later.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Which side are you on?
JudyM
(29,225 posts)Whether she was grossly inept at managing basic security or she intentionally tried to hide public documents, are matters the voters just might find important to a candidate for the highest office in the land.
Cary
(11,746 posts)JudyM
(29,225 posts)So perhaps you know nothing about me?
Cary
(11,746 posts)Winners write the history. In my version, by my definition, radicals are more radical not more liberal. I also subscribe to the horseshoe theory.
JudyM
(29,225 posts)What exactly did I say about you?
Since my comments were general I now do know something about you. Your reading skills leave much to be desired.
Jarqui
(10,122 posts)Even if they beat these two court cases .... there are at least 36 more in progress. And a bunch are not frivolous - they're turning up juicy stuff.
I feel the same way on the Clinton Foundation: even if she's innocent (and it doesn't look very good for her), there's no way to clear it up before the election. So the GOP can swiftboat her and they will. And there's not much she can do about it. They're going to grind her down.
I've felt this for some time. It's part of the reason I supported Bernie.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooops!
JudyM
(29,225 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled on March 29 that where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.
And so the process of discovery continues.
5/16/2016
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 Watchs discovery plan also seeks the testimony of Cheryl Mills, Clintons 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.
Todays filing comes in a July 2014 Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit seeking records and communications in the Secretarys 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)).
Clintons proposed testimony would cover the search in response to Judicial Watchs FOIA request and, according to the filing:
searches of the Office of the Secretary for emails relating to the September 12, 2012 Benghazi attack and its aftermath, including searches for the Accountability Review Board, congressional inquiries, other FOIA requests, and the preparation of Secretary Clintons testimony before Congress on January 23, 2013;
the State Departments policies, practices, procedures and/or actions (or lack thereof) to secure, inventory, and/or account for all records, including emails, of Secretary Clinton, prior to termination of employment with the State Department; and
the use of non-state.gov email account(s) to conduct official State Department business by Secretary Clinton and other officials and staff in the Office of the Secretary;
Judicial Watchs other proposed witnesses include:
Cheryl Mills
Jacob Sullivan
Lauren Jiloty, former special assistant to Clinton
Monica Hanley, former Clinton aide
Clarence Finney, State Department records management official
30(b)(6) witness(es) (designated State Department witness(es) who testify on behalf of the agency)
Judicial Watch also seeks documents about the State Departments Benghazi document responses and the handling of non-State.gov emails of Clinton and other top State officials, in particular:
All documents that concern or relate to the processing of any and all searches of the Office of the Secretary for emails relating to the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack and its aftermath, including but not limited to:
searches for records for the Accountability Review Board;
searches in response to congressional inquiries (including requests from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform dated September 20, 2012, October 2, 2012, October 29, 2012, and November 1, 2012);
searches in preparation of Secretary Clintons testimony before Congress on January 23, 2013; and
searches in response to FOIA requests, including but not limited to the FOIA request submitted by Plaintiff in this case.
Such documents would include the tasking, tracking and reporting records for such searches. Forms DS-1748 and any search slips, search tasker, search details, shall also be considered responsive.
All communications that concern or relate to the processing of all searches referenced in Document Request No. 1 above, including directions or guidance about how and where to conduct the searches, whether and how to search Secretary Clintons email, and issues, problems, or questions concerning the searches and/or search results.
All records that concern or relate to the State Departments policies, practices, procedures and/or actions (or lack thereof) to secure, inventory, and/or account for all records, including emails, of Secretary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Jacob Sullivan prior to their termination of employment with the State Department.
JudyM
(29,225 posts)We shall find out soon enough... Hopefully!
Good post, thanks, grasswire!
George II
(67,782 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)I hope you aren't suggesting I'm a member of that group. Your comment is tacky. Have a nice day.
Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #9)
bluecoat_fan This message was self-deleted by its author.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Following the Watergate scandal, President Gerald R. Ford wanted to sign FOIA-strengthening amendments in the Privacy Act of 1974, but concern (by his chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld and deputy Dick Cheney) about leaks and legal arguments that the bill was unconstitutional (by government lawyer Antonin Scalia, among others) persuaded Ford to veto the bill, according to documents declassified in 2004.[12] However, Congress voted to override Ford's veto, giving the United States the core Freedom of Information Act still in effect today, with judicial review of executive secrecy claims.[13][14]
Executive Order 13233, drafted by Alberto R. Gonzales and issued by President George W. Bush on November 1, 2001, restricted access to the records of former presidents.
This order was revoked on January 21, 2009, as part of President Barack Obama's Executive Order 13489.[21] Public access to presidential records was restored to the original extent of five years (12 for some records) outlined in the Presidential Records Act.[22]
It exists for a reason, and most of us defend it on principle. If it's inconvenient at times, that's just a price we need to be willing to pay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29#2001_Executive_Order_limiting_the_FOIA
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)trudyco
(1,258 posts)Like if it is found that she lied or tampered with evidence or hindered the investigation?
I remember when Bill lied about Monica that changed what was a civil case to a potential felony? But that was because he was under oath, right?
Would Hillary be under oath now?