Hillary Clinton might have to testify in Judicial Watch FOIA Case

Judicial Watch has an ongoing FOIA case and it's possible Hillary may be ordered to testify as others involved have done.

The Judge involved has ordered Hillary and 2 other people to answer the request in court by Tuesday (assuming July 12).

Hillary could be faced with more embarrassing exposures of lies.

She already has had many lies confirmed by several government reports recently.

It's not over till it's over as they say !!

Judge tells Hillary Clinton she has until TUESDAY to explain why she shouldn't have to testify in federal case about Huma Abedin's double-dipping job arrangement

Like a game of whack-a-mole, Hillary Clinton's secret email server scandal continues this week as the former secretary of state has just one more day to explain to a federal court why she shouldn't have to testify under oath about the system.

On Friday, the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch submitted a request for permission to depose Clinton, along with two other current and former government officials, as part of the ongoing Freedom of Information Act lawsuit looking into aide Huma Abedin's special employment arrangement with the State Department.

'As the primary driving force behind and principal user of the clintonemail.com system, however, Secretary Clinton’s testimony is crucial to understanding how and why the system was created and operated,' the brief argued, calling Clinton a 'indispensable witness.'

The court gave Clinton, along with two other officials – Clarence Finney and John Bentel – until Tuesday to respond.

a reply to: xuenchen

This is, of course, intentionally misleading. The "judge" is not compelling Clinton to do anything, because he is the one filing the case in his capacity as a private citizen.. Our friends at Judicial Watch are grandstanding once again.

a reply to: DJW001

www.judicialwatch.org...

U.S. District Court
District of Columbia
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 7/8/2016 at 4:12 PM and filed on 7/8/2016
Case Name:
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Case Number:
1:13
-
cv
-
01363
-
EGS
Filer:
Document Number:
No document attached
Docket Text:
MINUTE ORDER
directing the State Department and Mrs. Clinton's attorney to
respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Permission to Depose Hillary Clinton, Clarence
Finney, and John Bentel no later than Tuesday, July 12 at 12:00 p.m. Plaintiff shall
reply no than Thursday, July
14, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. The Court shall hear oral
argument on the motion at 10:00 a.m. Monday, July 18, 2016. Signed by Judge
Emmet G. Sullivan on July 8, 2016. (lcegs4

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit before U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

so urce

These civil cases could be way more damaging than the criminal investigation and there are over 30 of them. Pleading the 5th and refusing to answer also does nothing since it's not crimes they are going after; it's financial restitution. Going off of what Comey revealed I don't see how the SD and Hillary could win any of them. Saying mistake and careless won't cut it.

a reply to: DJW001

But when she testifies, remember the transcript will be published.

More exposures for voters to consider when they see her name on a ballot in November.

a reply to: LifeMode

It's true that these Judicial Watch lawsuits may reveal some useful information.

But noting that as far as I know they do not seek money from the lawsuits.
They just seek justice for Americans.
They are funded by grants from foundations.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: LifeMode

It's true that these Judicial Watch lawsuits may reveal some useful information.

But noting that as far as I know they do not seek money from the lawsuits.
They just seek justice for Americans.
They are funded by grants from foundations.

Ignoring FOIA involves monetary fines. The Government would have to pay those then seek retribution from those in charge like Hillary. What the Government normally does is stall and wears people out. That's what's cool about Judicial Watch, they have the financial means to just keep going and going...could go on for a decade and it likely will.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: DJW001

But when she testifies, remember the transcript will be published.

More exposures for voters to consider when they see her name on a ballot in November.

The Judge is demanding to know WHY she believes she shouldn't testify UNDER OATH.
What reason could she possibly give?

a reply to: IAMTAT

She could claim it interferes with her careless negligence.

Really does not matter if she testifies or not. JW just wants it for the shaming aspect of it. Hey, look what we did! We got Hillary to testify, under oath and recorded with transcripts. Not even the FBI could do that!

It would be an impressive feat IMO. Still though, her testimony won't help them. When this thing finally hits the wall a judge will see the utter stone walling on the SD and Hillary. SD will likely lose all these cases but they will contest them. Like I said, it could go on for another decade. Hillary will likely be dead by then of natural causes.

a reply to: LifeMode

And WHY didn't the FBI have her give testimony 'Under Oath'?

a reply to: xuenchen

her emails are not what you people should focus on. turn your attention on the clinton foundation. if you want that witch put away for life along with LOTS of other people in government who are criminals focus there

a reply to: xuenchen

But when she testifies, remember the transcript will be published.

You mean if she testifies. Right now, all she has to do is have her legal staff reply that she is too busy to testify in a frivolous case... but go ahead, get all worked up about her being hauled off in chains again.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen

But when she testifies, remember the transcript will be published.

You mean if she testifies. Right now, all she has to do is have her legal staff reply that she is too busy to testify in a frivolous case... but go ahead, get all worked up about her being hauled off in chains again.

Dodging this now will hurt her.
"Why is Crooked Hillary" afraid to testify under oath about Huma?"

a reply to: PaperMetel

Certainly!
That will be coming, but it looks like the Clinton Foundation investigation will likely not be completed in time to save us from her running for president.
We have to work with what have.

a reply to: LifeMode

The FBI investigation of the Hillary/Clinton Foundation is ongoing.

It's possible the FBI gave her a pass on the email because they've got her on something bigger.

Comey's exposures and confirmations of her lies might have been a preliminary "1st" strike.

originally posted by: PaperMetel
a reply to: xuenchen

her emails are not what you people should focus on. turn your attention on the clinton foundation. if you want that witch put away for life along with LOTS of other people in government who are criminals focus there

One step at a time. Huma Abedin seems like a weak link and I suspect she could buckle if enough attention were brought to her in general. You have to focus on the battles you can actually win with people like this. You can't just expose the Clinton's and be done with it. They will fight tooth and nail and literally rewrite the laws to prevent losing credibility or power.

The ultimate prize is to expose the Clinton foundation.
But first the Clinton's need to be exposed for the monsters they really are. Then we can go after the monsters they collude with.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen

But when she testifies, remember the transcript will be published.

You mean if she testifies. Right now, all she has to do is have her legal staff reply that she is too busy to testify in a frivolous case... but go ahead, get all worked up about her being hauled off in chains again.

Dodging this now will hurt her.
"Why is Crooked Hillary" afraid to testify under oath about Huma?"

Or she can just send in a signed deposition. Poof! The whole thing goes away... except in the imagination of her haters.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen

But when she testifies, remember the transcript will be published.

You mean if she testifies. Right now, all she has to do is have her legal staff reply that she is too busy to testify in a frivolous case... but go ahead, get all worked up about her being hauled off in chains again.

Dodging this now will hurt her.
"Why is Crooked Hillary" afraid to testify under oath about Huma?"

Or she can just send in a signed deposition. Poof! The whole thing goes away... except in the imagination of her haters.

Signed deposition ?

That's a stab in the dark.

No such animal in this case.