Washington, D.C. – A federal judge ordered on March 2nd for Hillary Clinton to make an appearance for a sworn deposition to start answering questions related to her using a private email server while she was functioning as the Secretary of State.
This time, it’s Judicial Watch who gets to ask the tough questions.
BREAKING: A Judge just ordered that Hillary Clinton must participate in a sworn deposition to address her private email scandal.
It’s about time.
— Ryan Fournier (@RyanAFournier) March 2, 2020
Clinton is claiming that she shouldn’t have to be subjected to this sworn testimony, citing she’s already answered all the questions related to the topic. D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth thinks quite the opposite.
The judge stated the following regarding Clinton’s previous responses to questions revolving around her private email server:
“As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business.”
BREAKING: Federal Court Orders Deposition of Hillary Clinton on Emails and Benghazi Attack Records. Rules prior testimony "left many more questions than answers." https://t.co/pvW4CD2oBS
— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) March 2, 2020
When looking back at how Clinton responded during her initial inquiries, Judge Lamberth didn’t hold back his skepticism toward her then-answers:
“Those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. Simply put, her responses left many more questions than answers.”
During the ruling, the judge even pointed out the types of questions he’d like to see answered. His provided examples touched on areas like:
Why did Clinton think her private emails would be well-maintained under standard State Department protocol, and who led her to believe that would be the case?
When did she realize officials were oblivious to her private server?
And, perhaps, the most burning question:
What made her think that conducting official State Department business on a private server was even legal in the first place?
Judge Lamberth’s ruling came not long after Judicial Watch revealed last December that the FBI released “approximately thirty previously undisclosed Clinton emails,” and that the State Department didn’t explain where they came from.
This will be Hillary Clinton's first deposition that she hasn't bought off, and our first opportunity to ask actual questions that expose her treason and espionage – instead of details about the color of the cloth she used to wipe her server. #PainIsComing https://t.co/8bfDTL9aYb
— Joe M (@StormIsUponUs) March 2, 2020
Judicial Watch has been working hard on the email scandal since 2014. The watchdog group wants to know if Clinton’s email conduct was a means to intentionally get around the Freedom of Information Act.
The group is also trying to see if the State Department was trying to sweep this case under the rug years back, and whether the department had then-made an honest effort to locate records when Judicial Watch filed their first FOIA request.
Hillary Clinton used a secret server and private personal email to handle classified information!
Imagine if President Trump put our national security at risk the way she did! The media would never let it go!
Hillary put American’s safety and security in danger!
— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) March 2, 2020
It’s not just Clinton who’s going to be in the hot-seat either, as Judge Lamberth also granted that Judicial Watch can depose a handful of then-Clinton cohorts who may hold critical information relevant to the probe.
Those individuals include Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, IT Specialist Paul Combetta who helped scrub those emails from the server, and State Department officials Brett Gittleson and Yvette Jacks, who were both privy to Clinton’s private email server.
During the planned deposition, Clinton and Mills will not only face questions about the infamous email server, but emails specific to Benghazi. While Judicial Watch wanted to take a deep dive around Benghazi with the two, the judge only permitted that questions may be framed around “emails, documents, or text messages related to the Benghazi attack.”
Federal Judge orders that HILLARY CLINTON can be deposed about private email server – The Court also ordered the deposition of Clinton's former Chief of Staff, CHERYL MILLS –
The Judge rejected Clinton's argument that she had already answered questions about this – BRING ON DOGS!
— charles benjamin (@chaleeboh3131) March 2, 2020
So, will justice be served this time around, or will the public be forced to once again see Clinton slide by unscathed? That remains to be seen, but this is a step in the right direction.
That’s not all that’s new regarding Hillary Clinton either. Turns out she pocketed quite a bit of change from Harvey Weinstein over the years.
Federal Election Commission filings show that Hillary Clinton, who seemingly still can’t accept the fact that she isn’t president, received over $1.4 million bundled by convicted sexual predator Harvey Weinstein for her failed 2016 presidential campaign.
Weinstein also donated an additional $73,390 to Clinton going back to her 1999 New York senate campaign.
Here’s a shocker. https://t.co/m0bHQP17ZQ
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) February 27, 2020
Clinton brushed off her relationship with Weinstein, saying that he had also raised funds for other politicians, among them Barack Obama, John Kerry and Al Gore during their presidential runs.
Nice deflection there, Hill.
“He contributed to every Democrat’s campaign,” she said during a screening of her new film “Hillary” at the Berlin Film Festival on Tuesday.
Remind us to skip that one. Her comments came one day after Weinstein was found guilty on rape charges.
This almost sounds like the kindergarten kid who gets caught doing something wrong. “But Johnny did it!!!!”
Clinton said that the verdict against Weinstein “speaks for itself” and that it was “time for an accounting.”
“It is obviously something that people have looked at and followed because it was time for an accounting. And the jury clearly found that,” she said.
Weinstein’s downfall started in 2017 when a series of magazine articles came out which described his predatory behavior toward women. This spurred an onslaught of women coming forward and forced Hollywood insiders, many who ignored his behavior for years, to finally confront his behavior.
“He contributed to Barack Obama’s campaign, and John Kerry’s campaign and Al Gore’s campaign and everybody’s campaign.”
Clinton and her husband Bill, who has had his own issues with sexual deviance issues, have been friends with Weinstein for years.
Clinton has insisted that she was unaware of Weinstein’s predatory behavior.
“How could we have known? He raised money for me, for the Obamas, for Democrats in general. And that at the time was something that everybody thought made sense. And of course, if all of us had known what we know now, it would have affected our behavior.”
In the case of Obama, he raised $72,100 for him, but only bundled $679,000 for his 2012 presidential campaign, or half of what he raised for Clinton.
Weinstein also made five-figure contributions to other Democrat politicians, such as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Cory Booker (D-NJ), with lesser amounts to Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Notice a pattern here? Democrats.
Top candidates that Weinstein donated to while succumbing to his "Demons":
— Libertarian-In-Chief (@ToddHagopian) October 7, 2017
In addition, according to Fox News, the Democratic National Committee received over $300,000 from Weinstein going back to 1994. In total, Weinstein contributed more than $2.34 million to Democrats. #MeToo???.
As a point of information, “bundlers” are “people with friends in high places who, after bumping up against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates and well, anyone who’s willing to give, and deliver checks to the candidate,” according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Weinstein was found guilty of third-degree rape and a first-degree sexual act last Monday. He faces up to 29 years in jail. That is, if he doesn’t fall victim to a Jeffrey Epstein.
After Weinstein was outed as a sexual deviate in 2017, and after getting tremendous blowback, Democrats said that they would repay the contributions to women’s charities.
On Wednesday, spokesmen for Schumer and Booker said that they had repaid their contributions from Weinstein to women’s charities, with Booker choosing to give his to the New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Violence.
In 2017, Gillibrand said she would be giving the $11,500 she received from Weinstein to RAINN, the nation’s largest anti-sexual violence group.
Spokesmen for Blumenthal and Leahy said they also repaid the cash to women’s charities, while the DNC said they donated $30,000 to political action groups including Emily’s List, a pro-choice group.
In a 2017 interview with CNN, Clinton said that it was impossible to give back all the money Weinstein donated, but said $13,000 would be contributed to a women’s organization. Wow, 1/10 of 1% of money Weinstein donated given to charity…how very generous.
Spokesmen for neither Obama nor Kerry could be reached for comment.
In a case of very bad timing, Weinstein has also been tied into billionaire presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg. In 2005, Weinstein recorded a robocall endorsing Bloomberg during his 2005 mayoral campaign.
NEW: Harvey Weinstein recorded a robocall for Mike Bloomberg’s 2005 reelection campaign, part of a political alliance that also included Bloomberg naming Weinstein to a philanthropic board.
— Kevin Robillard (@Robillard) February 25, 2020
A Bloomberg spokesman blew off the connection, claiming that Weinstein was known for raising “tens of millions of dollars for 9/11 responders” years before “the truth” about his sexual perversion was known.
Let us not forget either that former first lady Michelle Obama also sang Weinstein’s praises. According to Newsweek, in a White House Careers in Film Symposium in Nov. 2013, Obama said:
“I want to start by thanking Harvey Weinstein for organizing this amazing day,” she said to attendees.
“This is possible because of Harvey. He is a wonderful human being (emphasis added), a good friend, and just a powerhouse.
The fact that he and his team took the time to make this happen to all of you should say something not about me or about this place, but about you. Everybody here, here because of you.”
That didn’t age well.
Michelle Obama: Harvey Weinstein is a wonderful human being, a good friend and just a powerhouse
(November 8, 2013) pic.twitter.com/IPh2iLUjlQ
— PolishPatriot™️ (@PolishPatriotTM) February 24, 2020
Newsweek attempted to reach Obama for a comment but did not receive a response.
After allegations about Weinstein arose in 2017, the Obamas said they were “disgusted” by reports about Weinstein’s sexual exploits and abuse.
“Michelle and I have been disgusted by the recent reports about Harvey Weinstein,” the statement said. “Any man who demeans and degrades women in such a fashion needs to be condemned and held accountable, regardless of wealth or status,” the former president said.
In a statement, actress Annabella Sciorra, who testified against Weinstein regarding charges that he was acquitted of, said that she and other women “can never regret” being vocal in their claims.
“I spoke for myself and with the strength of the 80-plus victims of Harvey Weinstein in my heart.”
“While we hope for continued righteous outcomes that bring absolute justice, we can never regret breaking the silence. For in speaking truth to power we pave the way for a more just culture, free of the scourge of violence against women.”
It’s amazing that all of these politicians were contrite after the allegations about Weinstein became public. However, it was well known within Hollywood circles for decades that something was off about him.
I cannot believe I'm actually reading the story I've been expecting to read for 17 years: https://t.co/bH7b9o3mdE
— Rebecca Traister (@rtraister) October 5, 2017
But hey, when you’re getting money tossed your way, it’s apparently easy to look the other way.