Supreme Court Rejects Efforts to Depose Hillary Clinton over Email Server

breitbart ^ | 29 Mar 2021 | KATHERINE RODRIGUEZ

[MarvinStinson]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied efforts to require former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to face a deposition over her unsecured email setup while she served in the Obama administration.

In an unsigned order issued with no comment, the justices denied an appeal from the conservative legal group Judicial Watch, mainly keeping in place a federal appeals court ruling from last August which stated that Clinton could not be forced to sit for a deposition.

Judicial Watch had wanted to depose Clinton, her aide Cheryl Mills, and other State Department employees over Clinton’s use of an unsecured personal email server — even for classified information — in a case seeking public access to State Department emails.

Clinton’s emails were subject to multiple investigations, including an FBI investigation which declined to charge her with violating federal record-keeping requirements or other crimes, despite clear evidence of violations.

Clinton’s emails were a major political issue in her failed 2016 bid against former President Donald Trump.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued a statement accusing the court of upholding a “double standard” and undermining faith in public institutions.

“Hillary Clinton ignored the law but received special protection from both the courts and law enforcement,” he said. “For countless Americans, this double standard of justice has destroyed confidence in the fair administration of justice.”

This case is Judicial Watch Inc. v. Clinton, No. 20-1051 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

[mastertex]

Supreme Court Rejects Efforts to Depose Hillary Clinton over Email Server

Of course they do. No reasonable...

WHAT KIND OF FOOL ARE YOU???

[mastertex]

wAKE UP...UNIFOX

[mastertex]

What a tall scum bag.....no ball makes him tall I guess. Kommey is a shit bird.

[A Navy Vet]

Yup, and on a non-State Department server in her home, which Weener had on his computer via Huma (sp).

America has lost its way. I'm so glad I lived most of my life in a lawful Republic as I head into the home stretch. The commies can just kiss my Constitution loving rear.

[Puppage]

Absolutely agree.

[Preachin']

This just tells you how dirty they are, and how much dirt the Clintons have on them. None of us should be surprised.

[packagingguy]

Just a question but can Judicial Watch force someone to testify? Apparently Judicial Watch thought so, but since they were not directly involved with or victim of Clinton’s acts could that be the reason?

[ETL]

Well said, FRiend.

And Thank You for your service.

[Knocker]

More proof the US Supreme Court is faithless to the US Constitution and devoid of integrity. The Third Branch under Chief Justice Roberts exists only to rationalize Federal Government oppression of the American people by the other two branches. It isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit.

[Cowgirl]

God must want her all to himself.

[ETL]

A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment. ..."

Here’s a full transcript of the exchange:
_____________________________________________

Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey.
Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?

Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.

Gowdy: It was not true?

Comey: That’s what I said.

Gowdy: OK. Well, I’m looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said “I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material.” That is true?

Comey: There was classified information emailed.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?

Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.

Comey: That’s a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there’s no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey: No.

Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements are used for what?

Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

Comey: That is right[]

Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent?

In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.

You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether

They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.

Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You’re right. An average person does know not to do that.

This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn’t say that in ‘08 but says it now.

She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.

So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don’t know whether or not she was.

And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.

You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ‘On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.’

It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you’re Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.

My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there’s no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn’t. There’s nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.

And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out.

But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.

(the source of this transcript is closed captioning)

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/rep-trey-gowdy-rips-into-fbi-director-james-comey-on-hillary-clintons-intent.html

Backup link:

https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/rep-trey-gowdy-rips-into-fbi-director-james-comey-on-hillary-clintons-intent.html

[ETL]

From CNN, July 2016...

This was not his first time investigating the Clintons [Comey]

Nor his second. The email server probe marked the third time Comey has investigated Bill or Hillary Clinton.

His first run-in came in the mid-1990s, when he joined the Senate Whitewater Committee as a deputy special counsel. There he dug into allegations that the Clintons took part in a fraud connected to a Arkansas real estate venture gone bust. No charges were ever brought against either Clinton..."

"In 2002, Comey, then a federal prosecutor, took over an investigation into President Bill Clinton's 2001 pardon of financier Marc Rich, who had been indicted on a laundry list of charges before fleeing the country . ..."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/who-is-james-comey-fbi-director-things-to-know/index.html
__________________________________

"The Whitewater controversy (also known as the Whitewater scandal, or simply Whitewater) began with investigations into the real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim and Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and 1980s."

Whitewater Convictions

Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, removed from office (fraud, 3 counts)

John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)

William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy)

Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.

Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)

Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)

Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.

David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)

Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)

Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.

Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)

Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.

John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)

Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)

Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)

Ultimately the Clintons were never charged, but 15 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including Bill Clinton's successor as Governor, who was removed from office.[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_%28controversy%29#Convictions

or,

https://web.archive.org/web/20090326122112/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_%28controversy%29

[Osagegirl]

Of course, Roberts past could be exposed if he allowed it

[Ann Archy]

CORRUPT COWARDS!! Our ENTIRE
GOVT is CORRUPT!

[DoughtyOne]

Branch Assessment:

Executive
Legislative
Judicial

[TribalPrincess2U]

Lower swamp chicken-s**** (D) are more privileged but higher swamp chicken-s**** (SC) are the greatest, right?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The issue is that this is a FOIA suit against the State Department for not turning over records. But Clinton isn't the person at the State Department responsible for searching at turning over the requested records.

"the District Court ordered Secretary Clinton’s deposition primarily to probe her motives for using a private email server and her understanding of the State Department’s records-management obligations. See Mem. Order at 10, ECF No. 161. However, neither of these topics is relevant to the only outstanding issue in this FOIA litigation – whether the State Department has conducted an adequate search for talking points provided to Ambassador Rice following the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, or for any communications or records related to those specific talking points."

"The District Court has impermissibly ballooned the scope of its inquiry into allegations of bad faith to encompass a continued probe of Secretary Clinton’s state of mind surrounding actions taken years before the at-issue searches were conducted by the State Department. Secretary Clinton has already answered interrogatories from Judicial Watch on these very questions in the case before Judge Sullivan, explaining the sole reason she used the private account was for “convenience.” Resp. to Order at 3, No. 1:14-cv-1242, 14 ECF No. 143 (Sept. 23, 2019).3 But more importantly, even if a deposition of Secretary Clinton were to somehow shake some novel explanation loose after all these years, this new information simply would have no effect on the rights of the parties in this FOIA case, making it “an inappropriate avenue for additional discovery.” Status Rep. at 5, ECF No. 133. As the Department of Justice argued below:
Even if this Court found that Secretary Clinton used private email with the specific intent of evading FOIA obligations, Plaintiff has already received the only relief such a finding would (arguably) make available: State’s recovery, search, and processing of any records held by the former Secretary, including records that were not in the possession, custody, or control of State at the time the FOIA request was filed or the original searches were conducted."

[kagnew]

The USSC is as useless and worthless as the politicians. This is just another reason why I don’t see any hope for America.....the corruption is so deep and wide, America is gone.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

America is gone.

You may be right. We went into the 2020 election with majorities in the Senate, the SCOTUS, and several state governments, and one by one they let us down.

Without divine intervention, I don't see any hope for this country.

[BEJ]

I don’t have links — I was only speculating. But nothing would surprise me.