Tags: Benghazi Scandal | Hillary Clinton | email | emails | guidance | search | searches

Judicial Watch Seeks Hillary Clinton Testimony

Image: Judicial Watch Seeks Hillary Clinton Testimony
(AP) 

By
Tuesday, 24 May 2016 03:21 PM Current | Bio | Archive

 The question of whether Hillary Clinton can be questioned under oath by Judicial Watch attorneys now is squarely before a federal court judge.

We also announced last week that we have filed a proposed order for discovery with a federal court that seeks the testimony of Hillary Clinton, herself, about her use of non-state.gov email account(s) for official State Department business.

This additional discovery comes in a July 2014 Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit seeking records and communications in the Secretary’s 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).

Clinton’s proposed testimony would cover the State Department’s search of documents in response to Judicial Watch’s 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 Clinton’s testimony before Congress on Jan. 23, 2013.
  • The State Department’s 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 [her] termination of employment with the State Department.
  • 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 Watch also seeks documents about the State Department’s 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 Sept. 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 Clinton’s testimony before Congress on January 23, 2013.
  • 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 Clinton’s email, and issues, problems, or questions concerning the searches and/or search results.

All records that concern or relate to the State Department’s 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.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth is also concerned about potential government misconduct. Judge 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.”

(In the lawsuit that has discovery already underway, Judge Emmett Sullivan noted in his May 4, 2016, order that “based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.”)

In response to our request for her testimony, the Clinton campaign attacked Judicial Watch with an over-the-top, false statement. We won’t be deterred, nor do I expect that the courts will be either.

Mrs. Clinton’s testimony will help the courts determine whether her email practices thwarted the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act.

In the meantime, you might enjoy watching this C-Span coverage of our Clinton email investigations.

Tom Fitton is the president of Judicial Watch. He is a nationally recognized expert on government corruption. A former talk radio and television host and analyst, Tom is well known across the country as a national spokesperson for the conservative cause. He has been quoted in Time, Vanity Fair, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and most every other major newspaper in the country. For more of his reports, Go Here Now.





 

© 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 
1Like our page
2Share
TomFitton
In response to our request for her testimony, the Clinton campaign attacked Judicial Watch with an over-the-top, false statement. We won’t be deterred, nor do I expect that the courts will be either.
email, emails, guidance, search, searches
726
2016-21-24
Tuesday, 24 May 2016 03:21 PM
Newsmax Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved