State, Justice Departments: Reject Clinton Effort to Avoid Testimony

State, Justice Departments: Reject Clinton Effort to Avoid Testimony Hillary Clinton (Getty Images)

By Tom Fitton

Monday, 13 April 2020 11:21 AM

Hillary Clinton's desperate appeal to avoid testifying in Judicial Watch's lawsuit is even too much for her defenders at the Department of State and the Justice Department, which represents the State Department in court. State/Justice sided with us in opposing Clinton's appeal for special privileges and singular treatment to avoid having to testify in person and under oath to our legal team.

Here's the backstory. On March 2, a federal district court rejected Clinton's and the Deep State's attempts to shut down our inquiry into her emails and agreed with us — that it's time to hear from Hillary Clinton. Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills then filed an emergency appeal.

Our lawyers at Judicial Watch and the State Department, through Justice Department lawyers, filed separate responses in opposition to Clinton's and Mills' Writ of Mandamus request to overturn that U.S. District Court order requiring their testimony under oath before Judicial Watch regarding Clinton's emails and Benghazi attack records. At the same time, the government argued in its response that it did not engage in "bad faith" in failing to disclose the Clinton non-government email system to Judicial Watch and the court. The briefs were filed on April 3 with the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The filings come in the appeals court's proceedings concerning our lawsuit seeking records concerning "talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack" (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)).

In our response, we argue that Clinton and Mills "must demonstrate that they have no other adequate means of relief," which they failed to show. Also, Clinton and Mills do not demonstrate "that the District Court's order was a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion, or that [Clinton and Mills] have a clear and indisputable right to a writ." In fact, "the District Court reasonably concluded that Clinton's previous explanations for using a personal email server are cursory, incomplete, and seemingly at odds with what discovery has yielded to date."

Click for Full Text!

Poster Comment:

Keep Billary's feet to the fire.