2020 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20006

202-546-0054
ChristianNewswire.com

                              
                                       

 

One Penn Plaza, Suite 6202
New York, NY 10119

212-290-1585
StandardNewswire.com


 

One Penn Plaza, Suite 6202
New York, NY 10119

212-290-1585
CatholicWireService.com


 

Religion Newswire
2020 Penn. Ave., NW, Suite CCN
Washington, DC  20006

202-546-0054

ReligionNewswire.com


 

2020 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20006 U.S.A.

Judicial Watch Asks Court to Compel Hillary Clinton Email Answers

'Secretary Clinton failed to provide sufficient reasons for refusing to answer … and the limited reasons she provides do not warrant sustaining her objections'

Contact: Jill Farrell, Judicial Watch, 202-646-5172

WASHINGTON, Nov. 3, 2016 /Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch today announced it filed a motion to compel former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to answer three interrogatory questions she refused to answer under oath, submitted to her by Judicial Watch under a court order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 19, 2016. In its brief, Judicial Watch argues that Clinton "failed to provide sufficient reasons for refusing to answer them, and the limited reasons she provides do not warrant sustaining her objections." Hillary Clinton refused outright to answer questions about the creation of her email system; her decision to use the system despite warning from State Department officials; and the basis for her claim that the State Department had "90-95%" of her emails.

In her responses sent to Judicial Watch and the court on October 13, 2016, Clinton refused to answer three questions outright and responded that she "does not recall" 20 times concerning her non-government clintonemail.com email system. She preceded her responses by eight "general objections" and two "objections to definitions." The words "object" or "objection" appear 84 times throughout the 23-page document submitted to the court and Judicial Watch.

In its motion to compel, Judicial Watch argues:

    Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[t]he grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity…. In addition, the party objecting to the interrogatory 'bears the burden of show[ing] why discovery should not be permitted….'" Although she objected to the three interrogatories, Secretary Clinton failed to provide sufficient reasons for refusing to answer them, and the limited reasons she provides do not warrant sustaining her objections.

Interrogatory 1 asks: "Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational." In its motion to compel, Judicial Watch argues:

    Secretary Clinton objects and asserts that the interrogatory is outside the scope of permitted discovery…. However, the creation of the clintonemail.com system is squarely within the scope of permitted discovery. Understanding the basic facts surrounding the creation of the system is an integral part of understanding how and why it came to be used for State Department business. To date, no witness has testified about these facts, and the Court specifically authorized interrogatories to enable Plaintiff to gather this information. Secretary Clinton's refusal to answer the interrogatory is therefore misplaced.

Interrogatory 14 asks:

    On March 6, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to your Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, that he "cannot stress too strongly, however, that any unclassified...

MORE: www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-asks-court-compel-hillary-clinton-email-answers


Issuers of news releases and not Earned Media™ are solely responsible for the accuracy of the content.
Click here for terms and conditions, including restrictions on redistribution.

Copyright © 2018 Earned Media. All Rights Reserved.