{"id":39011,"date":"2020-06-02T09:37:37","date_gmt":"2020-06-02T13:37:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/?p=39011"},"modified":"2020-06-02T09:37:37","modified_gmt":"2020-06-02T13:37:37","slug":"this-could-get-interesting-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/?p=39011","title":{"rendered":"This Could Get Interesting"},"content":{"rendered":"

The following Press Release was posted by Judicial Watch<\/a> yesterday:<\/p>\n

Judicial Watch: Appellate Court Hearing on Clinton Email Testimony Tuesday \u2013 Hillary Clinton Seeks to Block Court Order Requiring Her to Testify<\/h1>\n

(Washington, DC)\u00a0Judicial Watch today announced that a hearing will be\u00a0held<\/a>\u00a0on Tuesday, June 2, by\u00a0teleconference, in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton\u2019s efforts to avoid testifying, under oath, about her emails. Clinton\u2019s former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, also seeks to avoid giving testimony.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The appellate court is considering Clinton and Mills\u2019 extraordinary\u00a0request<\/a>, known as a \u201cpetition for writ of mandamus,\u201d to overturn an\u00a0orde<\/a>r<\/u>\u00a0issued by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth requiring them to testify.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Clinton argues she shouldn\u2019t have to testify because she is a former, high level government official and that the case is moot because the FBI already tried to recover her emails from various sources when it investigated allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on the personal e-mail server she used at State. Judicial Watch\u00a0argues<\/a>\u00a0neither Clinton nor Mills have demonstrated that they should not have to follow ordinary appellate rules to challenge the District Court\u2019s order and that the case is not moot. Judicial Watch argues that the FBI\u2019s effort was not exhaustive, as demonstrated by the discovery of some 30 additional Clinton emails late last year, among other developments, and that other emails may be recovered if State is required to look for them.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The hearing is in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Tuesday, June 2, 2020<\/strong><\/p>\n

Time:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a09:30 am ET<\/strong><\/p>\n

Location:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Telephonic, oral argument can be heard on the court\u2019s\u00a0website<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

This hearing comes in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)\u00a0lawsuit<\/a>\u00a0that seeks records concerning \u201ctalking points or updates on the Benghazi attack\u201d (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(No. 1:14-cv-01242)). In 2014, Judicial Watch uncovered \u201ctalking points\u201d\u00a0created by<\/a>\u00a0the Obama White House showing that statements about the attack made on the eve of the 2012 elections by then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice were misleading, if not false. This FOIA lawsuit\u00a0led directly<\/a>\u00a0to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

On March 2, 2020, Judge Lamberth\u00a0granted<\/a>\u00a0Judicial Watch discovery that includes taking testimony from Clinton and Mills, under oath, regarding Clinton\u2019s emails and the existence of records about the Benghazi attack. In April, Judicial Watch and the State Department, which is represented by Justice Department lawyers,\u00a0filed responses<\/a>\u00a0opposing Clinton\u2019s and Mills\u2019\u00a0request<\/a>\u00a0to overturn the order requiring their testimony. The lower court found that Clinton\u2019s testimony was necessary:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff\u2019s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton\u2019s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch \u2013 it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In December 2018, Judge Lamberth\u00a0ordered discovery<\/a>\u00a0into whether Clinton\u2019s use of a private email server was intended to avoid FOIA; whether the State Department\u2019s intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch\u2019s request. The lower court also authorized discovery into whether the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up of Clinton\u2019s email. It\u00a0ruled<\/a>\u00a0that the Clinton email system was \u201cone of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The following Press Release was posted by Judicial Watch yesterday: Judicial Watch: Appellate Court Hearing on Clinton Email Testimony Tuesday \u2013 Hillary Clinton Seeks to Block Court Order Requiring Her to Testify (Washington, DC)\u00a0Judicial Watch today announced that a hearing … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[886,6971,1457,2640,2207,5339],"class_list":["post-39011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-freedom-of-information-act","tag-freedom-of-information-act-foia","tag-hillary-clinton","tag-judicial-watch","tag-judicialwatch","tag-testimony"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39011","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=39011"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39011\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39012,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39011\/revisions\/39012"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=39011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=39011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=39011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}