Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Legal group submits plan to depose 7 top Clinton, State Dept. aides in email battle
Source: Washington Post
A conservative legal advocacy group submitted plans Tuesday to question under oath seven current and former top State Department officials and aides to Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton — but not Clinton herself at this point — about her use of a private email server when she was secretary of state.
Judicial Watch said its deposition plan includes Cheryl D. Mills, who was Clinton’s chief of staff at State; Huma Abedin, a top aide who served as Mills’s deputy and who now is vice chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign; and Bryan Pagliano, a Clinton staff member during her 2008 presidential campaign who helped set up the private server.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington granted a request on Feb. 23 for legal discovery by Judicial Watch, which seeks to determine whether Clinton’s email arrangement thwarted federal open-records laws. After his order, Sullivan directed Judicial Watch to file a detailed plan about how it intended to proceed.
The submitted plan can be contested by lawyers from the Justice and State departments and is subject to approval by Sullivan.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-group-submits-plan-to-depose-7-top-clinton-state-dept-aides-in-email-battle/2016/03/15/b0f1e47a-ead6-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html
Here's a copy of the court document:
PLAINTIFF JUDICIAL WATCH’S PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN
Aside from :
Cheryl Mills, Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department
Huma Abedin, a long time aid who served as Mills’s deputy
Bryan Pagliano, a Clinton staff member who helped set up the private server and got immunity recently after pleading the fifth
they've also requested:
Stephen D. Mull, Executive Secretary of the State Department during Clinton time there
Lewis A. Lukens, Executive Director of the Executive Secretariat
Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management since 2007
Donald R. Reid, Senior Coordinator for Security Infrastructure, Bureau of Diplomatic Security since 2003
- more on them and how it's claimed they fit is in the linked Discovery plan.
from linked court document: "Based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary. If Plaintiff [Judical Watch] believes Mrs. Clinton’s testimony is required, it will request permission from the Court at the appropriate time".
The administration is trying to run out the clock so they'll probably wait until close to the April 12th deadline to respond. They'll argue about it for maybe a couple of weeks and then the judge will need a couple of weeks to make his decision around the middle of May (about the time some say they expect the FBI and Inspector General reports to start to come out ...)
Testifying should begin roughly about 8 weeks after that, around the middle of July (about 3-4 weeks after the House Benghazi report comes out) and run through the conventions. The plan is to get the above testimony done in eight weeks. Then, around the middle of September, they may ask Hillary to come in and testify. Could be sooner if a bunch of them plead the 5th (as I expect some likely will have to because a crime has probably occurred for exposing classified information and someone is going to take the fall).
The best defense in terms of the Clinton candidacy is to try to stretch this out until after the election.
Judicial Watch has several more lawsuits going on this and recently, the GOP joined them, filing six more lawsuits on FOIAs related to Hillary's time at the State Department.
Stock up on the popcorn. The schedule for dragging Hillary through the media mud is starting to fill up ....
59 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
-The Issues in the Case: FACA's Scope, and Permissible Discovery
The core issue in this case is whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) applies to the National Energy Policy Development Group. If so, then the Group's proceedings must be revealed. Cheney's position is that FACA does not apply, by its own terms, since the president appointed only federal officials to serve on the panel.
But the plaintiffs in the case -- Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club - argue that in fact, it's not true that only federal officials served on the panel. To the contrary, they say, a number of energy industry lobbyists (such as Enron's Ken Lay) were so deeply involved in the work of the Group, they were effectively members. And the D.C. Circuit ruled in 1993, in Association of Physicians & Surgeons v. Clinton, that in such a situation, FACA does apply.
The Court left the question whether FACA applies for the Court of Appeals. But it did speak, at least to some extent,to the discovery issues the case also raised. The plaintiffs had served discovery requests--principally requests for documents, and written interrogatories - on Cheney.
Cheney refused to respond. He also refused to invoke executive privilege. Thus, were it not for his decision to seek Supreme Court review, he would have had to either invoke executive privilege, or produce documents and respond to the interrogatories. On this issue, the Court sided with Cheney. It held that: "Given the breadth of the discovery requests in this case …, our precedent provides no support for the proposition that the Executive Branch "shall bear the burden" of invoking executive privilege with sufficient specificity and of making particularized objections."
But it also pointed out that the federal trial courts in the District of Columbia had previously fashioned discovery requests from the Executive that did not require an invocation of executive privilege, and caused no separation of powers problems. Thus, the Court left the ultimate issue of whether similar requests could be fashioned in this case, to the D.C. Circuit. (Dean, 2004, p. 2)
The core issue in this case is whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) applies to the National Energy Policy Development Group. If so, then the Group's proceedings must be revealed. Cheney's position is that FACA does not apply, by its own terms, since the president appointed only federal officials to serve on the panel.
But the plaintiffs in the case -- Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club - argue that in fact, it's not true that only federal officials served on the panel. To the contrary, they say, a number of energy industry lobbyists (such as Enron's Ken Lay) were so deeply involved in the work of the Group, they were effectively members. And the D.C. Circuit ruled in 1993, in Association of Physicians & Surgeons v. Clinton, that in such a situation, FACA does apply.
The Court left the question whether FACA applies for the Court of Appeals. But it did speak, at least to some extent,to the discovery issues the case also raised. The plaintiffs had served discovery requests--principally requests for documents, and written interrogatories - on Cheney.
Cheney refused to respond. He also refused to invoke executive privilege. Thus, were it not for his decision to seek Supreme Court review, he would have had to either invoke executive privilege, or produce documents and respond to the interrogatories. On this issue, the Court sided with Cheney. It held that: "Given the breadth of the discovery requests in this case …, our precedent provides no support for the proposition that the Executive Branch "shall bear the burden" of invoking executive privilege with sufficient specificity and of making particularized objections."
But it also pointed out that the federal trial courts in the District of Columbia had previously fashioned discovery requests from the Executive that did not require an invocation of executive privilege, and caused no separation of powers problems. Thus, the Court left the ultimate issue of whether similar requests could be fashioned in this case, to the D.C. Circuit. (Dean, 2004, p. 2)
The Washington Post reported that representatives from Chevron, Conoco Phillips, and Royal Dutch/Shell among other oil companies met with the NEPDG and "’gave detailed energy policy recommendations’ to the task force.”91
One of the first visitors, on Feb. 14, was James J. Rouse, then vice president of Exxon Mobil and a major donor to the Bush inauguration; a week later, longtime Bush supporter Kenneth L. Lay, then head of Enron Corp., came by for the first of two meetings. On March 5, some of the country's biggest electric utilities, including Duke Energy and Constellation Energy Group, had an audience with the task force staff.
British Petroleum representatives dropped by on March 22, one of about 20 oil and drilling companies to get meetings. The National Mining Association, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and the American Petroleum Institute were among three dozen trade associations that met with Cheney's staff, the document shows. (Abramowitz & Mufson, 2007)
British Petroleum representatives dropped by on March 22, one of about 20 oil and drilling companies to get meetings. The National Mining Association, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and the American Petroleum Institute were among three dozen trade associations that met with Cheney's staff, the document shows. (Abramowitz & Mufson, 2007)
-Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, sought documents from the NEPDG beginning on April 19, 2001. JW was forced to file a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) when the government failed to comply with the provisions of the FOIA law. U.S. District Court Judge Paul J. Friedman ordered the government to produce the documents on March 5, 2002. The documents, dated March 2001, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” (JW, 2003)
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
I stopped reading after that...
