It ain't over yet, but the delayed timing may just ensure the election D. Trump. Judicial Watch (JW) is still hot on the trail of notorious rule-breaker Medusa. Included here is a summary of why JW wantsHillary's deposition under oath

I will quote from some of the key arguments in favor of taking her Heinous's deposition from the 90+ page motion to dismiss / proceed summary before Judge Emmet Sullivan. Judge Sullivan so far has appeared unimpressed by Hellery's stature but more by her pattern of evasions. He does not call this wrong-doing--yet.

By Judge Sullivan:

But we are here this morning on Judicial Watch's motion for additional discovery. It's ECF Number 97. On February the 23rd, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for discovery under Rule 56(d). The Court was persuaded by the plaintiff that questions surrounding the creation, purpose and use of the clintonemail.com server should be explored through limited discovery before the Court could decide, as a matter of law, the ultimate issue, whether the government has conducted an adequate search in response to Judicial Watch's FOIA request.

The "critical issue":

The critical question explored during discovery was whether or not Mrs. Clinton or the State Department sought to deliberately thwart FOIA through the creation and use ofMrs. Clinton's private server. The full procedural history of the case is set forth in the Court's memorandum and order granting limited discovery, and that's not an issue before the Court today.

Brief summary of FOIA law suit history by the Judge:

During the following eight weeks, from early May of thisyear to early June, six individuals were deposed, and the State Department answered interrogatories and voluntarily produced documents. Among those deposed was Ms. Karin Lang, director of the executive secretary staff at the department, who testified on behalf of the State Department as a 30(b)(6) deponent. The other officials deposed include Stephen D. Mull, the executive secretary of the State Department from June 2009 to October 2012; Lewis A. Lukens, the executive director of the Executive Secretariat from 2008 to 2011; Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary of Management since 2007, and the Secretary of State's principal advisor on management issues, including technology and information services; Cheryl D. Mills, Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff throughout her four years as Secretary of State; Huma Abedin, Mrs. Clinton's deputy chief of staff and a senior advisor to Mrs. Clinton throughout her four years as Secretary of State, and who also had an e-mail account on clintonemail.com; and Bryan Pagliano, the State Department's Schedule C employee who has been reported to have serviced and maintained the server that hosted the, quote, clintonemail.com, end quote, system during Mrs. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. Mr. Pagliano's testimony was extremely limited since he did -- and he certainly had the right to do that -- invoke the Fifth Amendment.

Summary of the Judge's interpretation of the meaning of further FOIA-related testimony:

Now, the plaintiff seeks permission to take three additional depositions including that of Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Clarence Finney and Mr. John Bentel, and I'll separate out the individuals.

Judge Sullivan continues about import of this matter:

The Court takes extremely seriously the public's right to know about the details of why Mrs. Clinton used a private server for official government business. Indeed, FOIA was designed by Congress to, "pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny."

Legal precedent for this FOIA proceeding in general:

As set forth by the Supreme Court, FOIA serves as, "The citizen's right to be informed about what the government is up to," citing the Supreme Court authority in U.S. Department of Justice versus Reporters Community For Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749.

Judge cites FBI director Comey:

I agree with the FBI director, Director Comey, that the American people deserve as many details as possible in the case of intense public interest...I totally concur with him on that point.

Why the emphasis on this matter:

The resolution of this case, in a fair and appropriate manner, is critical to the principles of transparency in government that FOIA espouses.

I will now only present the JW side of the argument because you all know good-and-well what Medusa's Side will argue--and reading their trash would either bring tears of despair--or possibly--of laughter:

Judicial Watch argues that deposing Mrs. Clinton is necessary to explore the following issues:
1, the purpose for the clintonemail.com system;
2, why the system was used even though at times it interfered with her job;
3, Mrs. Clinton's claim over the records on the clintonemail.com system;
4, Mrs. Clinton's inventorying of records upon the completion of her tenure as secretary;
5, why clintonemail.com was not archival;
6, details about Mr. Pagliano's role in creating and operating clintonemail.com.

Yeah, Hillary is a big-wig, but"

Judicial Watch recognizes the significance of asking a former agency head and presumptive nominee for president to sit for a deposition, so I don't think there's any disagreement there. But Judicial Watch argues that based on the record developed thus far, her testimony is crucial to understanding how and why the system was created and operated.

I end this brief essay with the comment that I have not perused the remaining 80+ pages of legalese. The purpose of this essay is to tell you that this Emailgate scandal is far from over. Viewing the speed at which Judge Sullivan has moved things along, those remaining depositions will come prior to November. JW has vowed to make all depositions publicly available. JW will also be forwarding the depositions to the FBI/DOJ for whatever minuscule good that will provide.

So, until there are more meaty depositions, I bid you all sweet dreams, filled with sugarKaine fairies and politicians with snakes for hair.