Judicial Watch Releases Clinton Email Deposition Testimony of Amb. Stephen Mull

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released the deposition transcript of Ambassador Stephen D. Mull, executive secretary of the State Department from June 2010 to October 2012, who suggested that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton be issued a State Department BlackBerry, which would protect her identity and would also be subject to FOIA requests. The Mull transcript is available here. Amb. Mull now serves as the State Department’s lead coordinator for Iran nuclear implementation.

Amb. Mull’s testimony and other discovery arises in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit 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)). Judge Sullivan ordered that all deposition transcripts be made publicly available.

Here is another transcript up for inspection. It looks like someone at Judicial Watch might be reading our threads because they seem to have their exhibits in order. Or at least they have them all listed at the beginning of the transcript. I have not read it beyond the first page or two, but I wanted to post this thread to allow for discussion.

Related threads:

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

First deposition in email scandal reveals Clinton’s computer illiteracy

Judicial Watch Announces the Schedule for Deposition Testimony in Clinton Email Lawsuit

Clinton IT aide ordered to produce immunity agreement



Transcript of Stephen D. Mull
Date: June 3, 2016
Case: Judicial Watch, Inc. -v- U.S. Department of State (direct .pdf link)

This one is long.

I bet there's a few good points inside.

Full Transcript

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes, and here is an interesting one:

Objection. That's beyond the scope of authorized discovery. And to the extent that we're wading into cyber security issues, that is specifically exempted from the scope of discovery.

Wonder why cyber security would be specifically exempted?

(back to reading...)

a reply to: xuenchen

Another interesting bit that came up a few times:

Q Have you spoken to anyone besides counsel and any law enforcement where there's an active investigation going about Mr. Pagliano?

...

Q Okay. Have you discussed this report with anyone, excluding counsel and any law-enforcement officers that are currently engaging in an active law-enforcement investigation?

From this we might be able to infer that Mr. Mull has been interviewed by law enforcement personnel in regards to this situation.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I believe he has been interviewed by the FBI.

Probably about top secret communications over unsecured devices.

The transcript mentions "blackberrys" quite a few times.