Federal Judge Orders Rhodes, Rice, & Other Obama Officials To Respond Over Clinton Benghazi/Email Scandal

Tyler Durden
January 16th, 2019
Zero Hedge


In what Judicial Watch describes as a “major victory for accountability,” a federal judge ruled Tuesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice and former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes must answer written questions about the State Department’s response to the deadly 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, as part of an ongoing legal battle over whether Hillary Clinton sought to deliberately evade public record laws by using a private email server while secretary of state.

As Fox News’ Samuel Chamberlain reports, the judge’s order amounts to approval of a discovery plan he ordered last month. In that ruling, Lamberth wrote that Clinton’s use of a private email account was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency” and said the response of the State and Justice Departments “smacks of outrageous misconduct.”

Judicial Watch announced last night that United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that discovery can begin in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides will now be deposed under oath. Senior officials – including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap – will now have to answer Judicial Watch’s written questions under oath. The court rejected the DOJ and State Department’s objections to Judicial Watch’s court-ordered discovery plan. (The court, in ordering a discovery plan last month, ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”)

Judicial Watch’s discovery will seek answers to:

Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system;
whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and
whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

Discovery is scheduled to be completed within 120 days. The court will hold a post-discovery hearing to determine if Judicial Watch may also depose additional witnesses, including Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills.

Judge Lamberth ordered written responses under oath to Judicial Watch’s questions from Obama administration senior officials Rice, Rhodes and Sullivan, and former FBI official Priestap. Rice and Rhodes will answer interrogatories under oath on the Benghazi scandal. Rejecting the State and Justice Department objections to discovery on the infamous Benghazi talking points, Judge Lamberth reiterated:

Yet Rice’s talking points and State’s understanding of the attack play an unavoidably central role in this case: information about the points’ development and content, as well as their discussion and dissemination before and after Rice’s appearances could reveal unsearched, relevant records; State’s role in the points’ content and development could shed light on Clinton’s motives for shielding her emails from FOIA requesters or on State’s reluctance to search her emails.

Judicial Watch also may serve interrogatories on Monica Hanley, a former staff member in the State Department’s Office of the Secretary, and on Lauren Jiloty, Clinton’s former special assistant.

According to Lamberth’s order, regarding whether Clinton’s private email use while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA, Judicial Watch may depose:

Eric Boswell, the former Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security.… Boswell’s March 2009 memo to Mills … discusses security risks Clinton’s Blackberry use posed more generally. And Boswell personally discussed the memo with Clinton. So, he plainly has relevant information about that conversation and about his general knowledge of Clinton’s email use. Judicial Watch may depose Boswell.

Justin Cooper. the Clinton Foundation employee who created the clintonemail.com server. In its proposal, Judicial Watch noted Cooper’s prior congressional testimony “appears to contradict portions of the testimony provided by Huma Abedin in the case before Judge Sullivan.” … Cooper repeatedly told Congress that Abedin helped set-up the Clintons’ private server, e.g., Examining Preservation of State Department Federal Records: [before a Congressional hearing] Abedin testified under oath she did not know about the server until six years later.… Judicial Watch may depose Cooper.

Clarence Finney, the former deputy director of State’s Executive Secretariat staff…. [T]his case’s questions hinge on what specific State employees knew and when they knew it. As the principal advisor and records management expert responsible for controlling Clinton’s official correspondence and records, Finney’s knowledge is particularly relevant. And especially given the concerns about government misconduct that prompted this discovery, Judicial Watch’s ability to take his direct testimony and ask follow-up questions is critical.

Additionally, Judicial Watch states that it seeks to go beyond cursory, second-hand testimony and directly ask Finney what he knew about Clinton’s email use. This includes asking about emails suggesting he knew about her private email use in 2014, and emails he received concerning a December 2012 FOIA request from Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington (CREW) regarding senior officials’ personal email use-topics State’s 30(b)(6) deposition in Judge Sullivan’s case never addressed. Judicial Watch may depose Finney.

4. Heather Samuelson. the former State Department senior advisor who helped facilitate State’s receipt of Hillary Clinton’s emails.… [T]his case turns on what specific government employees knew and when they knew it. Judicial Watch must be able to take their direct testimony and ask them follow-up questions. Judicial Watch may depose Samuelson.

5. Jacob Sullivan. Secretary Clinton’s former senior advisor and deputy Chief of Staff. The government does not oppose Sullivan’s deposition.

Regarding whether the State Department’s settlement attempts that began in late 2014 amounted to “bad faith,” Judicial Watch was granted depositions from the State Department under Rule 30(b)(6); Finney; John Hackett, the former deputy director of State’s Office of Information Programs & Services; Gene Smilansky, an attorney-advisor within State’s Office of the Legal Advisor; Samuelson; and others.

Judicial Watch was also granted interrogatories on whether the State Department adequately searched for responsive records, as well as several document requests.

“In a major victory for accountability, Judge Lamberth today authorized Judicial Watch to take discovery on whether the Clinton email system evaded FOIA and whether the Benghazi scandal was one reason for keeping Mrs. Clinton’s email secret,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“Today, Judicial Watch issued document requests and other discovery to the State Department about the Clinton email scandal. Next up, we will begin questioning key witnesses under oath.”

The court-ordered discovery is the latest development in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:

Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.

The Judicial Watch discovery plan was in response to a December 6, 2018, ruling by Judge Lamberth.

Incredibly, Justice Department attorneys admit in a filing opposing Judicial Watch’s limited discovery that “Counsel for State contacted the counsel of some third parties that Plaintiff originally included in its draft discovery proposal to obtain their client’s position on being deposed.” This collusion occurred despite criticism from the Court that the DOJ engaged in “chicanery” to cover up misconduct and that career employees in the State and Justice Departments may have “colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.”

Judicial Watch countered that “[t]he government’s proposal, which is really nothing more than an opposition to [Judicial Watch’s] plan, demonstrates that it continues to reject any impropriety on its part and that it seeks to block any meaningful inquiry into its ‘outrageous misconduct.’”

As a reminder, this Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

Judge orders Susan Rice, other Obama officials to answer questions in Clinton email case

William Cummings, USA TODAY

A federal judge has breathed new life into questions surrounding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server and the 2012 attack that killed U.S. officials in Benghazi, Libya.

Judge Royce Lamberth ruled Tuesday that Obama administration officials, including national security adviser Susan Rice and deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, must answer written questions as part of a conservative judicial advocacy group's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department over Clinton's emails.

The lawsuit by Judicial Watch – now with the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit – was first filed in 2014 in an effort to obtain records related to Clinton and her staff's response to the Benghazi attack. Specifically, the group sought documents about Rice's explanation immediately after the attack on the U.S. compound that characterized it as a protest turned violent instead of a deliberate terrorist assault. At the time of the attack, Rice was serving as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

"But the case has since expanded to question the motives behind Clinton's private email use while Secretary and behind the government's conduct in this litigation," Lamberth wrote in his Tuesday order.

Judicial Watch claims that Clinton intentionally used her private email server in an attempt to shield her communications from FOIA requests and that the State Department acted deceptively and did not really try to complete the request.

Lamberth, who was appointed to his seat by former President Ronald Reagan, ruled that Judicial Watch can depose the State Department on the development of Rice's "talking points" for her media appearances, the "advance dissemination or discussion of those talking points," the "aftermath of Rice's appearances" and State Department officials' "evolving understanding of the Benghazi attack."

"Rice's talking points and State's understanding of the attack play an unavoidably central role in this case," he argued. Lamberth said questions about those issues could uncover "unsearched, relevant records" and "shed light on Clinton's motives for shielding her emails from FOIA requesters."

The judge approved the submission of written questions to Rice and Rhodes, who "helped develop Rice's talking points." But he rejected Judicial Watch's request to depose the two former Obama officials in person.

Lamberth agreed with government lawyers' objection that Judicial Watch can't "appoint itself as a freelance Inspector General" and conduct its own investigation into the Benghazi affair.

"But that's not what Judicial Watch does here," he wrote. "Though Judicial Watch cannot helm a fishing expedition trawling anything and everything concerning the Benghazi attack," he ruled it can depose the State Department on subjects related to its FOIA request.

Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

During appearances on Sunday-morning talk shows that weekend, Rice said that based on the information available at the time, the attack appeared to be a "spontaneous reaction" and a "copycat" of a protest against the U.S. embassy in Cairo. The Cairo protest and others in Islamic nations were sparked in response to a published online by and American that Muslims considered offensive to their religion.

Critics said Rice, Clinton and other government officials intentionally deceived the public about the nature of the attack, which they knew was perpetrated by terrorists and was not about the video.

Those critics believe the deception was designed to avoid the perception that the administration failed to prevent a terrorist attack less than two months before voters went to the polls in the closely fought 2012 election.

Obama administration officials attributed the initial confusion over the cause of the attack to the "fog of war."

Numerous congressional investigations were conducted into the lack of preparation for the attack and the administration's responses, including a House Select Committee that spent two years looking into the affair.

Lamberth's order follows his ruling last month that approved Judicial Watch's desire to dig deeper into Clinton's use of a private server. In that ruling, he said the case involved "one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency" and that he had doubts the State Department was acting in "good faith" to grant Judicial Watch's FOIA request.

Although Clinton's use of a private server did not become public until six months after the FOIA request was filed, Lamberth said State Department "officials already knew Clinton's emails were missing from its records."

"State played this card close to its chest," he wrote. "At best, State's attempt to pass-off its deficient search as legally adequate during settlement negotiations was negligence born out of incompetence. At worst career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court."

He said the Justice Department under the Trump administration "made things worse." He said Justice Department lawyers' claims that the officials who first responded to the FOIA request didn't know the emails were missing "strain credulity."

"Did the Department merely fear what might be found? Or was State's bungling just the unfortunate result of bureaucratic red tape and a failure to communicate?" Lamberth wondered. "To preserve the Department's integrity, and to reassure the American people their government remains committed to transparency and the rule of law, this suspicion cannot be allowed to fester."

Lamberth approved the group's request to depose another eight officials who worked at the State Department under Clinton, as well as the Clinton Foundation employee who set up Clinton's private server, and officials from the Office of Information Program and Services who worked on the case.

He also said the group could submit written questions to former Clinton staffers Monica Hanley and Lauren Jiloty, and E.W. Priestap – an FBI official who supervised the investigation into Clinton's emails.

The judge gave the parties 120 days to complete the discovery phase of the case. After that, he will hold a hearing to determine "the adequacy of State's searches" and if Judicial Watch needs to depose more witnesses, "including Hillary Clinton."

It's about damn time.

Onward and upward,
airforce