馃攳
Judge orders Hillary Clinton deposition in Judicial Watch lawsuit - YouTube
Channel: Fox Business
[0]
a DC district court judge today ordered
[3]
the deposition of Hillary Clinton in a
[5]
Judicial Watch lawsuit the former
[7]
Secretary of State will have to answer
[9]
questions under oath about her emails
[11]
and Benghazi attack documents judge
[15]
Royce Lamberth stated the following in
[18]
his ruling quote the State Department
[21]
has thus failed to persuade the court
[23]
that all of secretary Clinton's
[24]
recoverable emails have been located
[28]
this is unacceptable joining us tonight
[31]
tom Fitton president of Judicial Watch
[33]
and Tom congratulations on this ruling
[36]
and and get your thoughts about where
[41]
this goes now this is not the first time
[43]
that a judge has said proceed it is it's
[46]
striking that it's in a DC federal court
[49]
district court yes and it's over the
[52]
objections of the Justice Department of
[54]
State Department they were in court in
[56]
December against us on this very issue
[58]
trying to shut the inquiry down we got
[60]
wanted one or two attorneys on our side
[62]
I'm sitting there on the other side of
[64]
six attorneys with the government and
[66]
four lawyers for Hillary Clinton and her
[68]
aides and thankfully the judge overruled
[72]
the objections to further questioning
[74]
here because we have had more evidence
[77]
come out as a result of discovery in
[79]
this case this is the case by the way
[80]
loo that broke open the Clinton email
[82]
scandal way back in 2015 it's about
[85]
Benghazi talking points and you know the
[88]
judge wants to know what was Hillary
[90]
Clinton thinking when she was using this
[92]
system as it relates to the Freedom of
[95]
Information Act he wants to know about
[96]
whether there are document issues
[98]
related to Benghazi and her top aides
[101]
Cheryl Mills also has to be questioned
[103]
he also authorizes a subpoena subpoena
[106]
Google because there's this issue about
[108]
whether one of her email aides or
[112]
vendors had sent all of her emails to a
[114]
Google account so this is a broadening
[117]
inquiry it's limited in scope we can't
[120]
get to ask every question under the
[122]
Under the Sun we might want to but it's
[125]
remarkable that a the Justice Department
[127]
and State Department oppose this the
[129]
State Department and the Justice
[130]
Department yeah they were all in there
[132]
yelling about it yeah every every every
[136]
every effort we made to get more answers
[139]
they've opposed I'm so Browns if I may
[142]
inquire I mean I hate to see them
[145]
stunned but to see this Justice
[147]
Department again trying to shut down an
[150]
inquiry I into a matter that is far from
[153]
settled and they certainly in the view
[155]
of the public eye is remarkable
[158]
well they suggest that the extraordinary
[160]
circumstance is necessary for discovery
[163]
and questioning witnesses under oath
[164]
hadn't been met by the Clinton email
[166]
scandal they didn't think it was serious
[167]
enough they thought all the questions
[169]
had been answered and obviously the
[171]
court disagreed we're getting war
[173]
testimony showing that there was a weak
[175]
first we just got a Benghazi email I'm
[177]
showing that they had a Benghazi email
[179]
for years that they're holding back and
[181]
that if it been disclosed we'd have been
[184]
at the whole email scandal would have
[185]
been exposed years ago and then the FBI
[187]
and State Department are dribbling out
[189]
more Clinton emails the judge is upset
[192]
with the way this has been handled by
[194]
the State Department and the Justice
[195]
Department and he thinks Hillary Clinton
[197]
can provide more information because she
[199]
has answer questions under oath but in
[201]
writing to us and for the judges point
[204]
of view that hasn't been sufficient and
[206]
we should be able to question her
[207]
directly our attorneys will and follow
[210]
up directly with her in person so this
[212]
is a straightforward case if any were
[214]
respects which remarkable is the
[217]
obstruction we've been facing from this
[220]
administration the president had said
[222]
when I tweeted about this from one of
[225]
our last appearances he said it was a
[227]
disgrace that the Justice Department was
[229]
still defending Hillary Clinton and it
[231]
we'll see what happens next we have to
[234]
get it done within 75 days Lou well I
[236]
good luck and in the country desperately
[239]
desperately needs to know the answers to
[243]
the questions you're going to pose and
[245]
and and good for judge Lamberth were
[249]
standing up for justice of all things
[252]
let me turn to Lindsey Graham
[254]
congratulating Jo
[256]
Jill Biden on their South Carolina
[258]
victory and he still still has not done
[262]
anything about investigating the Biden's
[265]
verismo the entire Ukrainian quagmire
[271]
why not I don't know why not and this is
[275]
why we have Judicial Watch because this
[277]
is the work we do because we don't rely
[278]
on Senate the Senate or Congress the
[281]
Senate's designed to suppress strong
[284]
investigations and unfortunately the
[287]
leadership of the Republican Party
[288]
doesn't want to change the rules to
[290]
allow them to more easily bring in
[292]
witnesses under oath it's not like the
[295]
house where majority rules they operate
[296]
by consensus in the Senate even though
[298]
the law or the rules don't necessarily
[300]
require that and so as a result nothing
[302]
much ever gets done and this is why I
[306]
think the president should appoint a
[308]
special counsel independent the Justice
[310]
Department the FBI and frankly Congress
[312]
and order full transparency by his
[315]
agencies so the American people can see
[316]
the information as opposed to relying on
[318]
the hapless Congress or in many ways the
[323]
co-conspirators in Congress with the
[324]
deep state to find out the truth there
[326]
they're usually involved either in
[328]
covering it up or there aren't
[330]
interested in finding it or they really
[332]
don't know what to do well Tom I have to
[335]
say I of the special counsel because if
[339]
I share as you know judicial washes
[343]
commitment to the public's right to know
[344]
but I also have to admit that there is a
[347]
small petty insignificant particle of
[351]
pettiness in me that would like to see
[353]
the delicious moment at which the
[355]
president seeks a special counsel on
[358]
someone else it would be somewhat ironic
[363]
justice if you will tom Fitton
[365]
thank you so much for your welcome as
[367]
always
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage