Judicial Watch Submits Proposed Witness List, Discovery Plan to Federal Court in Clinton Email Matter

Kevin Lamarque AP
District of Columbia

Judicial Watch took another important step forward in our massive effort to find out the truth about the Clinton email scandal we uncovered one year ago.

Last week, we filed a plan with a federal court for “narrowly tailored discovery” into the former secretary of state’s email matter. Judicial Watch’s discovery plan seeks the testimony of eight current and former State Department officials, including top State Department official Patrick Kennedy, former State IT employee Bryan Pagliano, and Clinton’s two top aides at the State Department: Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin. Judicial Watch’s plan says that “based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary” but would only occur with permission by the Court.

During a court hearing on February 23, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch’s motion into whether the State Department and Clinton deliberately thwarted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for six years. The discovery arises in a Judicial Watch 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)).

Judicial Watch seeks testimony from:

Stephen D. Mull (Executive Secretary of the State Department from June 2009 to October 2012 and suggested that Mrs. Clinton be issued a State Department BlackBerry, which would protect her identity and would also be subject to FOIA requests);

Lewis A. Lukens (Executive Director of the Executive Secretariat from 2008 to 2011 and emailed with Patrick Kennedy and Cheryl Smith about setting up a computer for Mrs. Clinton to check her clintonemail.com email account);

Patrick F. Kennedy (Under Secretary for Management since 2007 and the Secretary’s principal advisor on management issues, including technology and information services);

Donald R. Reid (Senior Coordinator for Security Infrastructure, Bureau of Diplomatic Security since 2003 and was involved in early discussions about Mrs. Clinton using her BlackBerry and other devices to conduct official State Department business);

30(b)(6) deposition(s) of Defendant [designated witness(es) for the State Department] regarding the processing of FOIA requests, including Plaintiff’s FOIA request, for emails of Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin both during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State and after;

Cheryl D. Mills (Mrs. Clinton’s Chief of Staff throughout her four years as Secretary of State);

Huma Abedin (Mrs. Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff and a senior advisor to Mrs. Clinton throughout her four years as Secretary of State and also had an email account on clintonemail.com); and

Bryan Pagliano (State Department Schedule C employee who has been reported to have serviced and maintained the server that hosted the “clintonemail.com” system during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State four years as secretary).

With respect to testimony of Clinton, the Judicial Watch court filing states, “Based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.  If [Judicial Watch] believes Mrs. Clinton’s testimony is required, it will request permission from the Court at the appropriate time.”

Judicial Watch also seeks court approval of written questions requiring answers under oath by the State Department:

Who was responsible for processing and/or responding to record requests, including FOIA requests, concerning emails of Mrs. Clinton and other employees of the Office of the Secretary;

Who was responsible for the inventorying or other accounting of Mrs. Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s emails, records, and information;

Who was responsible for responding to Plaintiff’s FOIA request from the date of submission to the present; and

Which State Department officials and employees had and/or used an account on the clintonemail.com system to conduct official government business.

Judicial Watch also seeks testimony from a 30 (b)(6) witness or witnesses who can provide testimony on behalf of the State Department on the following issues:

the creation or establishment of the clintonemail.com system as well as any maintenance, service, or support provided by the State Department of that system;

the knowledge or awareness of State Department officials and employees about the existence and use of the clintonemail.com system;

any instructions or directions given to State Department officials and employees about communicating with Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin via email;

any inquiries into Mrs. Clinton’s use of the clintonemail.com system as well as any discussions about responding to such inquiries or publicly revealing the existence and use of the clintonemail.com system to the public; and

the inventorying or other accounting of Mrs. Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s email upon their departure from the State Department.

The Judicial Watch plan requests only eight weeks to conduct the requested depositions. Judge Sullivan will rule on Judicial Watch’s proposed discovery plan after April 15.

This discovery will help Judicial Watch get all the facts behind Hillary Clinton and the Obama State Department’s thwarting of FOIA so that the public can be sure that all the emails from her illicit email system are reviewed and released to the public as the law requires.

And that is why the Clinton machine’s response last week was to again attack Judicial Watch. A spokesman for Hillary Clinton told The Washington Post:

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said, “This is the same right-wing organization that has been repeatedly attacking the Clintons without success since the 1990s, and they are clearly going to pull out all the stops to try to hurt the secretary’s presidential campaign.”

JW will not apologize for pursuing Clinton corruption through the years. And, of course, if we weren’t “successful,” Hillary Clinton would have all her emails still secret from the public! This response demonstrates that Hillary Clinton thinks she is above the law. It is incredible, however unsurprising, that she would attack us for pursuing questions asked by a federal judge.

I expect the attacks by Clinton and her allies to only get worse, especially if Judge Sullivan authorizes our attorneys to begin questioning people close to her. Please be sure to stand with us in the coming weeks and months as we face this onslaught, both in the press and in the courts.