It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Judicial Watch Releases Former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills Deposition Testimony

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 31 2016 @ 02:51 PM

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released the deposition transcript of Cheryl D. Mills, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff throughout her four years as secretary of state. Though instructed by her attorney not to answer several questions, the transcript is available here. Mills was deposed last week as part of the discovery granted to Judicial Watch by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in response to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unsecured, non-government email system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)). Last week, Judge Sullivan ordered that all deposition transcripts be made publicly available.

I have not yet had a chance to read through the transcript, but I wanted to get this thread posted so others can peruse the document and see what the relevant facts are. It is always good to have multiple sets of eyes go over any and all information presented as some might catch what others miss.

Article Source

Link to deposition download page

Now to read the transcript...

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 03:05 PM
reading the documents.

But I noticed this right away:

Q Sure. As you know, you've been sworn in.
You understand that the deposition is taken under

Is -- are there any reasons why you would
not be able to answer truthfully here today?

A Not that I know of.

I would have liked to see her body language and facial expression on that answer.

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 03:06 PM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Stll reading, but one point that has been made twice now up to the point I have reached is this:

She wasn't acting as a lawyer at the State Department.

and a bit later on:

She did not act as a lawyer for the Secretary in the State Department.

Both quotes above are from Mill's attorney objecting to a line of questioning.

If we recall, Mills said that a portion of the FBI's questions of her were 'off limits' as 'an example of attorney client privilege.'

The above quotes would indicate that to be a LIE.

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 03:09 PM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical


No "privilege" when you are not acting as an attorney !!!!

Good catch.

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 03:13 PM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
I just blazed through it.
Either my eyes are bad, or Ms Mills said next to NOTHING.
98% of what I read was JW lawyer asking questions and the other lawyers making objections to the questions.

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 03:15 PM
a reply to: butcherguy

Which may actually be why they did not want it released, it just shows more stonewalling and no cooperation.

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 03:20 PM
a reply to: butcherguy


The "objections" and those unanswered questions are the real story.

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 03:39 PM
a reply to: butcherguy

And the JW attorney chastising Mills' attorneys for speaking objections in an attempt to coach the witness.

Still reading through.

Just getting to the point where Mills is saying that HIllary hired her as one of her personal attorneys after being employed at the State Department. She's making the case that this is what allows her to use the "privilege" protections.

Diving back in...
edit on 31-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 03:44 PM
We know from past info that Mills was "hired" by Hillary to go through and determine what emails were supposedly personal prior to releasing any.

Wonder if they touched on THAT in this deposition?

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 03:51 PM
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I read 38 out of 106 pages so far and it seems so.

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 03:59 PM
Thanks Jaded.

Digging in, will post anything noteworthy I find if it hasn't been caught yet.

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 04:25 PM
A Fox story is saying many questions about Bryan Pagliano were "objected".

Lawyers for senior Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, during a nearly five-hour deposition last week in Washington, repeatedly objected to questions about IT specialist Bryan Pagliano’s role in setting up the former secretary of state’s private server.

According to a transcript of the deposition with watchdog group Judicial Watch released on Tuesday, Mills attorney Beth Wilkinson – as well as Obama administration lawyers – objected to the line of questioning about Pagliano, who has emerged as a central figure in the FBI's ongoing criminal probe of Clinton's email practices.

“I'm going to instruct her not to answer. It's a legal question,” Wilkinson responded, when asked by Judicial Watch whether Pagliano was an “agent of the Clintons” when the server was set up.

Lawyers for Clinton aide block questioning on IT specialist who set up server

eventually these people will be caught in some big lies

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 04:28 PM
Also from the Fox article above:

Mills also testified under oath that the server existed before Clinton became secretary of state in 2009.

“President Clinton had established a server for the purposes of his own staff office, and … her email was subsequently put on that,” Mills said, adding that she learned about the server’s origin after the fact.

Now at least that is OFFICIAL" and opens a few new doors !!

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 04:56 PM
Wouldn't it be easier to just put Hillary on the Maury Povich show. I can see it now... "and the lie detector test says, Hillary that was a lie!'

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 05:10 PM
Ok, after reading through the transcript I can say that they are very touchy about anything Pagliano & Benghazi related. Any time they got near one of those two topics, objections came fast and from multiple lawyers on Mills' side.

One other bit jumped out at me from fairly early on which I would like to address:

Q Okay. Do you recall what the conversations were?

A No. I'm sorry. I mean, it's just harder for me to -- to actually remember conversations at the time. Probably just weren't significant in my mind.

This is in reference to their team transitioning into the office of the Secretary and setting up communication devices, emails, etc. Why would this not be a significant topic of discussion?

Maybe I'm making too big a deal about this, but I would think that being able to communicate securely would be a high-priority topic when taking on the tasks of the office of the Secretary of State.


And in looking at xuen's post about the Fox News article, it seems like we aren't the only ones to have noticed them stepping on eggshells when the Pagliano topic was broached.

I've said many times that he is key in all of this and the more stuff like this I see, the more convinced I am of that.
edit on 31-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: misplaced apostophe

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 05:18 PM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I can add this story from a few months ago.

Oh Cheryl Cheryl !!!

How soon you forget things eh.....

Clinton Chief Of Staff Lost Her Personal Blackberry, Which Contained Classified Emails

While working as Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, Cheryl Mills lost her personal Blackberry, on which she sent emails that the State Department has determined contain classified information.

Records obtained by The Daily Caller through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit show Mills revealed that she lost her Blackberry in a March 20, 2010 email she sent to Bryan Pagliano, the State Department IT staffer who managed Clinton’s private email server.

Records obtained by The Daily Caller through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit show Mills revealed that she lost her Blackberry in a March 20, 2010 email she sent to Bryan Pagliano, the State Department IT staffer who managed Clinton’s private email server.

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 05:24 PM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Posted on 12 Jan 2016.....almost 6 months ago now:

How did the FBI get on a second track of “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business during the investigation into the email server?

Some people will assume that possibly the FBI has recovered information that was thought to be deleted from that server that led them down this new path... I doubt it is anything like that.

Bryan Pagliano is the most likely reason for the additional track.

Bryan Pagliano was paid by the Clinton Foundation for "computer services" to set up and run the home brew email server.

Bryan Pagliano was hired by the State Department in May 2009.

He is most likely to be the cornerstone in what has the POTENTIAL to become one of the largest scandals in a couple of decades. There are many many questions he needs to answer, and while he has every right to plead the 5th which he has already stated he would do during any senate investigations, I doubt if that will work very well when facing a real prison sentence.

The investigation has been going on for some time now, and recommendations for criminal prosecution by the FBI will most likely be forth coming in the next 30-60 days. This investigation is now at the point where they have gathered their evidence, decided who to charge and with what to charge them. Most importantly, it is at that critical stage where the deals are done.... where immunity from prosecution can be granted, or the promise of a lighter sentence in return for testifying.

I believe that Bryan Pagliano is one of those people that the FBI very much wants to get on a witness stand during any criminal proceedings against his boss. Why? Because he alone can answer the following questions:

1. When you were contracted by the Clinton Foundation to setup the private email server, were you given any specific instructions on how that server was to be set; were emails set to be automatically deleted after a certain time frame, 30, 60, 90 days etc. Who gave you these guidelines?

2. Why was the server registered under a false name?

3. Were you instructed to use a false name, if so, by whom?

4. What software was the server running?

5. What email software was used on that server?

6. Was all software current on security patches?

7. What security measures were taken to protect the server from outside intrusion?

8. Were you promised employment at the state department while contracting with the Clinton Foundation? If so, by whom?

9. As administrator of the server, did you set up a remote login so that you could access the server without physically being there?

10. Did you ever work on the server after you became a State Department employee?

11. Did you ever remotely access the server from your office in the State Department?

The list goes on and on and on.....

Many people believe that there are a large number of people who happen to turn up dead when involved in scandals with the Clinton's, if that is true (and I am not saying it is) then when indictments are returned, one would have to assume that Bryan Pagliano is a walking dead man.... question is will it be an "accident" or "suicide"??

I have only started following this once it was revealed that there was a possibility that there were problems with classified material being on the server, and that is because of my career, 18 years with the United States Army Information Systems Command and the last 7 with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The rabbit hole runs very very deep in this matter and I for one would like for once to see the bottom of it.

No more point in talking this until the press conference by the FBI after they conclude their investigation.

Many people, especially die hard Hillary supporters have the fantasy that the press conference will go like this:

"Good Morning, Ladies and Gentlemen... After hundreds of hours of investigation by a dedicated team of FBI agents and interviews of dozens of witnesses, The FBI has found no evidence what so ever of any wrong doing. Thank you and have a nice day"

I, on the other hand, expect that press conference to much much different from the above scenario.

Let's talk when the investigation is complete.


Pretty much spot on other than I thought that the investigation would have been completed by now.

edit on R302016-05-31T17:30:37-05:00k305Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 06:01 PM
I've read through most of it and what stands-out the most to me is that JW's lawyers were not on-the-ball as much as they should have been.

Not much was learned from this.

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 06:37 PM
a reply to: introvert

I agree with you nearly fully in this post, especially regards JWs unpreparedness. Their exhibits weren't in order or properly labeled ahead of time, there weren't enough copies of everything for all present, and it seemed as if their whole presentation had a 'thrown together at the last minute' feel to it.

That being said, I only partially agree on the 'not much was learned from this.'

We learned about their reluctance to discuss certain topics.

We learned that Mills was NOT acting as attorney at the State Department during her employment there and it was only after Hillary's tenure at State that she became employed by Hillary personally and that is the capacity she acted in when determining what questions the FBI could not ask (in conjunction with the DoJ?!?) regarding their criminal investigation as "an example of attorney client privilege," which, to me, stinks to high heaven of coverup.

Take a look at exhibit 10, It is partially redacted due to exemption B 7(E), which states:

(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

FOIA Update: The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. sect. 552, As Amended By Public Law No. 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048

That tells us that there are some very specific conversations, and people, the FBI is looking at in regards to their criminal investigations.

All the above might not be much to you, but it does clarify many things which had been a bit nebulous for me.


a reply to: RickinVa

You are 100% correct on that; you even named Pagliano early on in this as someone to watch.

Everything that's been learned about him has since borne you out as right on the money.

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 07:14 PM
It looks like Mills does play a critical role in this, and she said a great deal while she was not saying anything.

She was apparently one of those responsible for fulfilling the FOIA requests.
Around page 215 and for many pages after that, she is asked specifically why she did not include Clinton's emails in FOIA requests. Her excuses are lame, that she did not think of it.

She knows the laws well. She even had disclaimers on her email account that all emails were public record. And yet she just "forgot" that the emails of the Secretary of State were on a different system when the FOIA requests were filed?

I think Mills is going to be sharing a cell with Hillary.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in