BREAKING: Clinton Will Provide Testimony in A Judicial Watch Case!
The hearing on this matter was July 18th Sullivan has issued his ruling!
Judicial Watch got a lot of what they asked for - more than many of us would have guessed:
Judicial Watch: Federal Court Orders Hillary Clinton to Answer Questions under Oath in Email Scandal
The Court is persuaded that Secretary Clinton’s testimony is necessary to enable her to explain on the record the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State Department business.
Clinton's testimony will come from interrogatories (Yes! Under Oath! and YES! If Judicial Watch hurries, this could be completed AHEAD OF THE ELECTION!), Bentel will be deposed in person. I haven't figured out yet what's going on with the request to depose Finney. Finney will NOT be deposed.
Here's the Press Release in it's entirety:
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s decision granting Judicial Watch permission to submit interrogatories to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and to depose the former Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-IRM”) John Bentel:
“We are pleased that this federal court ordered Hillary Clinton to provide written answers under oath to some key questions about her email scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We will move quickly to get these answers. The decision is a reminder that Hillary Clinton is not above the law.”
The court order reads:
[T] the State Department shall release all remaining documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act request by no later than September 30, 2016; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judicial Watch may serve interrogatories on Secretary Clinton by no later than October 14, 2016 … Secretary Clinton’s responses are due by no later than thirty days thereafter … Judicial Watch may depose Mr. Bentel by no later than October 31, 2016.
In his opinion (note: opinion is 28 pages) Judge Sullivan writes:
The Court is persuaded that Secretary Clinton’s testimony is necessary to enable her to explain on the record the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State Department business.
On July 8 Judicial Watch submitted a request for permission to depose Clinton; the Director of Office of Correspondence and Records of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-CRM”) Clarence Finney; and Bentel. The request arises in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit before Judge Sullivan that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton. The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).
###
Text of Judge Sullivan's Order:
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Judicial Watch’s Motion for Permission to Depose Hillary Clinton, Clarence Finney, and John Bentel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the State Department shall release all remaining documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act request by no later than September 30, 2016; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judicial Watch may serve interrogatories on Secretary Clinton by no later than
October 14, 2016; and it isFURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Secretary Clinton’s responses are due
by no later than thirty days thereafter; and it isFURTHER ORDERED that Judicial Watch may not depose Mr. Finney; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Judicial Watch may depose Mr. Bentel by no later than October 31, 2016; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint proposal for further proceedings in this case by no later than November 30, 2016.
SO ORDERED.
Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Court
August 19, 2016
Comments
AWESOME!
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
well
So, she can stall until after the GE. Of course.
Don't believe everything you think.
But they can get them to her earlier
and the comment is that they WILL HURRY!
She will have 30 days to respond from when those questions arrive, if I read correctly. I bet they have questions ready or nearly ready to go. I think they got that covered.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
I would think that JW probably has a pretty good start on them
already.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
How you and I read it is one thing...
How Hillary and her lawyers read it is another! My hypothetical:
JW issues full questions on Sept 1st. They wait patiently until Sept 30th and receive no response. On about Oct 3rd, JW goes to judge and says "WTF?" Oct 5th judge calls Clinton lawyers and asks, "WTF?" Clinton lawyers respond, "We'll get back to you". On Oct 9th, Clinton lawyers respond, "So sorry judge! We thought we had until Nov 13th to respond. We haven't even opened the JW letter yet. We need more time!". Judge asks, "When will you have the answers?" Clinton lawyers respond, "Either Nov, 9th, 2016 or Jan 21, 2017. We're very busy now so we're not sure."
I have little doubt that they will do whatever it takes to delay responding before the November election. Stonewall, stonewall, stonewall!
And of course there is always the objections. Clinton lawyers... "Your honor, we object to questions 1-62, 64, 66, 68-212, 214, 215, 217-327... Furthermore, questions 63, 65, 67, 213, 216 are ambiguous and we don't understand the question."
I so hope I'm wrong!!
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
George W. Bush
I'm sure they will play every trick they think they can get away
with, but since Sullivan has gone THIS far, he could just tell her to plunk her butt down for an oral depo ahead of November.
You really think they want to take THAT risk with this guy?
From my corner of the pasture, looks to me like Sullivan's already communicated that he ain't amused. If I were her attorneys, I would try to stay shy of planting the straw which breaks the camel's back, or whatever.
Then again, I'm not a sociopath, so I can't honestly psyche them out - WHO KNOWS what that team will *think* they can get away with?
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
She'll stall until after January 20
And then it'll be an executive privilege/separation of powers issue.
Dick Nixon in a pantsuit.
Please help support caucus99percent!
How can she do that?
She wasn't President when this shit took place. IANAL, but I don't think "executive privilege" covers Secretary of State.
No wonder you hear the Big Dog's plaintive wail of "We'll Close the Foundation Once She's President, Honest!" ....
Because you're a sexist if you question it.
As well as A BernieBro with White Privilege and a severe case of Hillary Derangement Syndrome.
Did you know your candidate wants to totally surrender to both the communists while being a fascist?
/snark
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
HAA!
In other words, "no", she can't hide behind it, lol!
Boy, you gotta love that. If that makes me sexist? Well, sign me up....
Nahh. Nixon was much less corrupt than HRC. eom
Oh, she'll try
to stall. But she won't succeed.
I'm going to permit myself the luxury of enjoying the hell out of this particular news, if only for one night, lol! It's about time, too.
She'll claim she has a health issue..........
Oh wait, that won't work..........
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Schrodinger's Health Issue!
She both Will Have a health issue and won't have a health issue simultaneously.
And that health issue will both be and NOT be a Conspiracy Theory.
And Bill will simultaneously never have accepted money and will always have accepted money.
This woman is really Schrodinger's Candidate.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Good thinking...
That should work over on the Cackle Channel. They love that stuff.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Reading this comment
made my head hurt, lol! Not that you aren't correct....
(I was gonna say reading it made me twitchy, but I was afraid that would be perceived as being in bad taste...)
Corollary to Schrodinger's Health Issue
If you make observations of Clinton's health, corporate media will work to discredit your observations.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Simple solution to Schrodinger's Health issue
Although it may not be elegant, and I for one do not care, there is a cure for Schrodinger's health issue--bash the box with a sledge hammer--you won't even have to guess the outcome. Meow!
Funny: They're reporting this Over There as a big victory for
Hillary because she doesn't have to answer in a deposition!
Spin, spin, spin.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Very appropriate photo, ec!
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Thank you!
(Yes, Virginia, there was a Hurricane Hilary.)
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Wait, what?
It's a big victory because it's just an interrogatory?
News Flash for them: an interrogatory is about as good as "testimony", insofar as you sure as hell can't lie. Of course, if your goal is to keep her out of situations that might set off some sort of...unsavory medical condition, let's just say....it's probably a yuge win if you can submit it in writing. Which I'm pretty sure an interrogatory can also be submitted in that form. But I can't think of any other kind of "win", here, can you?
You're right, that's why I think it's just spin. They act as if
providing written answers is somehow superior to providing oral answers. They keep saying she should just answer every question, "No". If the judge is decent, I'd almost like to see her do that so he has reason to haul her into court forthwith.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
On what basis are they saying that?
The court order says she has 30 days to provide her answers. She can, just like in court, plead the 5th Amendment, but that's not going to look very good. IANAL, but I've been deposed. It's just like court. With all the same rules. And you're not supposed to perjure yourself, just like in court. I just can't think of what questions they may have that haven't been asked and answered already. Or, maybe they haven't been answered. Regardless, this is good news because the timing, if handled correctly, takes us right up to the election. You know, the one where most of the electorate doesn't trust a word she says.
She does have a vortex-like quality
I think that every time I see a surrogate of hers trying to lend her moral or political credibility.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Black Hole Hillary?
Quicksand Hillary?
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I should read the Federal Rules regarding answers
to interrogs before commenting, but since state rules are more or less based upon Federal Rules, expect objections. Lots of delay opportunities in state interrogatory answers. I think Stevenb is a federal practitioner and can weigh in on this better than I can.
At any rate, questions posed must be artful. It is that job you turn over to that one attorney in the firm who is a master at formulating questions.
I am betting Judicial Watch has just such an attorney who has his interrogatories ready to send out.
That was a damn good ruling. Very even handed. The door is open for the toe in. I hope they kick it wide open.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Hell, I would be happy with blue suede shoes in the door!
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Oh, you better believe it!
Great news!
This time I think Medusa is cornered. Probably the reason for the no video tape deposition is so that her tics, tremors, seizures, speech arrests, blank stares won't be brought into public domain--a small victory for Clinton. But they got her lying ass now:
This means that should she get served with the order on August 21, she MUST respond within 30 days, and no if's and's or but's. Judge Sullivan is evidently disgusted with her lies,deflections and stalls. This is it!
The only thing I can't understand is why the Judge left Clarence "I can't find the documents" Finney out of this. Ben anyway, they got the big fish on the line, which will inexorably reeled in.
From the little bit I read, Clarence Finney is
just a State Dept employee whose job it is to fulfill FOIA requests. He was aware that Clinton's emails were being handled on a private server that he didn't have access to. So I guess the judge didn't think he had first-hand knowledge, making his testimony unimportant. He has that unfortunate name, causing me to see if I could connect him with Karen Finney. No luck. Anyone know?
I wonder how much it will cost her to have a stamp made
that says, "I don't remember."
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
With a second line that reads...
"What difference does it make now?"
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
George W. Bush
And, 'It's MY turn,' and 'It's legal if I do it' n/t
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
There is also a stamp saying "I do not recall"
Amnesia is such an excellent defense. Now they want it in writing!
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Of course, this must have something to do with it..
Clinton told FBI Colin Powell suggested she use private email: NYT
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-fbi-idUSKCN10U0FK...
So, I guess Colon Powell isn't out to the woods yet, eh? Perhaps she can recruit him to do the interrogatories, since it is, after all, his fault. And, by the way, perhaps he knows the difference between email accounts and servers.
Or maybe the Russians did it?
NYT version of the story
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/hillary-clinton-told-fbi-c...
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Fabulous find, MsGrin! Woo-hoo!
This is a lovely end to a long day. That is all.
~OaWN
I can't wait for the pearls of wisdom
to drop from her lips.
Oink, oink.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Well, from her atty's typists' fingers, at any rate...
I presume they can dispense with having her actually answer and just submit the study guide answers they would have prepared for her were she to give oral testimony.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
My litigator husband, who takes lots of depositions
and is involved with similar in writing stuff that Clinton has been ordered to provide says: Depositions are FAR better and folks say all kinds of shit in writing.
Interrogatories are a foot in the door
or if you like, the nose of the camel under the tent (Applicable to her Heinous, since she has so many Saudi buddies). If she fucks up even one answer, Judge Sullivan would be within his purview to yank her lying but, but, but in for a real deposition--cameras and all. Twitch, twitch, pause, cackle, etc.
Let's hope JW gets the questions to her this week
so the clock starts ticking for her reply. They've been chomping at the bit - likely they are good to go.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
He is correct.
If an oral answer to a question is non-responsive, you can get to court rather quickly to have the judge instruct on the parameters of both the question and the response. With interrogs, you will have burned 30 days to begin with, so it is an obstacle to striking quickly.
Also, an oral answer might open the door to line of questioning you never hoped for, and certainly will not get with canned, ultra-prepared written responses.
The key is the artfulness of the questions posed, and whether they lend themselves to Clinton-speak.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Wish I could be a fly on the wall as they work on this
They've gotten THIS far, and that wasn't at all easy, so I imagine they'll get a bit farther along. More power to them: They are what stands between us an an even more fascistic state.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Sure
...but in this case, I presume it will be written by legal committee and not by Herself. So, we'll see. There's a reason they needed so many SuperPACs to pay her campaign expenses.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member