Hillary Clinton thought that James Comey’s get out of jail free card made her safe from prosecution, but wasn’t counting on the determination of Judicial Watch. Her bubble just got popped by a massive dose of karma when a conservative judge ordered her back onto the witness stand. Federal prosecutors are intentionally hiding evidence.
Hillary gets infected with a dose of karma
A federal judge wants to know if the Department of State is intentionally hiding Hillary Clinton’s emails, or are they just incompetent? Government lawyers have shown such a clear pattern of “mishandling” evidence that the judge is letting Judicial Watch interrogate Hillary Clinton under oath.
In the stunning decision announced Monday, federal Judge Royce Lamberth scolded, “the Court again reminds the government that it was State’s mishandling of this case — which was either the result of bureaucratic incompetence or motivated by bad faith — that opened discovery.” Hillary’s karma is catching up with her. She was accused of criminally “gross negligence” but Peter Strzok watered that down to mere “extreme carelessness.”
“With each passing round of discovery, the Court is left with more questions than answers,” Judge Lamberth writes.
Hillary to be cross-examined on ‘state of mind’
Only Hillary Clinton knows what she was thinking. Her lawyers have provided written answers to all kinds of questions but they tap dance so much that the Judge ordered Hillary’s cross examination. “The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection.”
“How did she arrive at her belief that her private server emails would be preserved by normal State Department processes for email retention? Who told her that — if anyone — and when? Did she realize State was giving ‘no records’ responses to FOIA requests for her emails? If so, did she suspect that she had any obligation to disclose the existence of her private server to those at State handling the FOIA requests?”
“When did she first learn that State’s records management employees were unaware of the existence of her private server? And why did she think that using a private server to conduct State Department business was permissible under the law in the first place? Again, who told her that — if anyone — and when? These areas of inquiry have not been explored in nearly enough detail to convince the Court that Secretary Clinton does not have any new testimony to offer.”
Where does the State Department keep finding new emails?
One of the things that most concerns the judge are 30 fresh emails the government just “found,” without an explanation for where they were hiding. “State failed to fully explain the new emails’ origins when the Court directly questioned where they came from.”
“In a December 24, 2010, email exchange,” the judge points out, “one State Department official accidentally sent an email which listed Secretary Clinton’s private email address to other employees who did not already have that information, prompting a second State Department official to reply, ‘Be careful, you just gave the secretary’s personal email address to a bunch of folks.’ The first official responded, ‘Should I say don’t forward? Did not notice.” The second official replied, ‘Yeah. I just know that she guards it pretty closely.” How could Secretary Clinton possibly believe that everyone at State knew about her private server if her subordinates took pains to ensure that her email address would not be widely disseminated?”
There also were text messages that nobody knew about. The FBI turned over emails in a separate case revealing, “that Secretary Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, conducted State Department business via text messaging as well.” They covered it up.
The government won’t explain if they ever went looking through the emails of other State Department employees to see if any were exchanged with Clinton. “State has thus failed to persuade the Court that all of Secretary Clinton’s recoverable emails have been located. This is unacceptable.”
“The Court is especially troubled by this,” Judge Lamberth emphasizes. “To argue that the Court now has enough information to determine whether State conducted an adequate search is preposterous, especially when considering State’s deficient representations regarding the existence of additional Clinton emails.”
Let the interrogations begin
Judge Lamberth approved Judicial Watch to interrogate State Department employees Brett Gittleson and Yvette Jacks, both of whom worked in the office “charged with providing technical support — including email management — to the Office of the Secretary during Secretary Clinton’s years at the helm.”
Gittleson allegedly “discussed Secretary Clinton’s email use with Gene Smilansky, an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor.” Smilansky may have recommended Clinton set up the secret server intentionally to prevent the disclosure through FOIA requests. He was the expert. “Mr. Smilansky had experience working on FOIA lawsuits, including one related to Secretary Clinton’s emails.”
Ms. Jacks “assisted with the troubleshooting of Secretary Clinton’s private server.” Another witness, Tasha Thian, “testified to something troubling — that several S/ES-IRM may have intentionally withheld information about Secretary Clinton’s email arrangements.” IT specialist Paul Combetta will not be interviewed. He made it crystal clear he’ll “assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” So, “the Court sees no reason to authorize what would be an exercise in futility.”
Cheryl Mills will also be deposed to update her testimony in light of new facts that show “a better understanding of what happened.” Judge Lamberth also approved issuing a subpoena to Google looking for more of Clintons errant emails. Despite the allegedly intense probe done by the FBI, “the subpoena would be worthwhile and may even uncover additional previously undisclosed emails.”