Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Require Hillary Clinton Testimony Over Email Server


The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a request to require former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to testify in a case regarding the private email server she used to send classified documents while secretary of state.

Justices denied an appeal from the watchdog Judicial Watch. They did not explain their decision. The denial was one of about 100 the court issued.

David Kendall, a lawyer for Clinton, told The Epoch Times via email, “I have no comment: the Court’s decision speaks for itself.”

The Department of Justice, which was representing the Department of State, declined to comment.

The decision upheld a lower court’s ruling that Clinton does not have to sit for a deposition over her use of the private email server.

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled for Clinton and her former aide, Cheryl Mills, in their decision. They said Clinton had already answered questions from Judicial Watch on the matter in a separate court case. Clinton, supplying written answers, said in that case that “the sole reason she used the private account was for convenience,” Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama nominee, wrote in the panel’s ruling.

The appeals court overturned a ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan nominee. Lamberth had ordered both Clinton and Mills to sit for depositions.

In a statement on Monday in response to the new ruling, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said: “Hillary Clinton ignored the law but received special protection from both the courts and law enforcement. For countless Americans, this double standard of justice has destroyed confidence in the fair administration of justice.”

“Americans would never have known about Hillary Clinton’s email and related pay for play scandals but for Judicial Watch’s diligence. We expect that the Biden State and Justice Departments will continue to protect her and cover up their own misconduct as we press for additional accountability through the courts,” he added.

The existence of the private email server was first uncovered through a lawsuit from the watchdog.

Clinton was secretary of state during the Obama administration. She used an unsecured private email server, breaking government rules, to transmit classified information.

James Comey, the FBI director at the time, announced on July 5, 2016, that the bureau was recommending Clinton not be charged for using the server.

Comey said Clinton and her aides were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” but that agents “did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.”

The FBI recommended the Department of Justice not charge Clinton. The department did not.

“Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State,” the attorney general at the time, Loretta Lynch, said one day after Comey’s announcement. “I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”

Mimi Nguyen Ly contributed to this report.

March 31, 2021 | 5 Comments »

Leave a Reply

5 Comments / 5 Comments

  1. @ keelie:
    Yes, however, the optional element of the law seems to be selectively employed to placate and satisfy the China Class and their corrupted allies as of late.

  2. @ Edgar G.:
    The judicial branch was intended to be kept in check by the legislative branch(I would laugh if it didn’t make me so sick to say it). The justices, of any federal court including Supreme Court, must be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate. This is regardless if they even break the law and are found guilty. The executive branch can investigate and bring charges for any crime they commit and even if they are imprisoned for the crime, they remain justices for the entirety of their term of office, they collect their salaries and keep their titles until the term of office expires or they are successfully impeached and found guilty by the House and Senate. These China co-opts are safe and secure, nobody is going to touch them and they know it. A more likely scenario here is that Thomas and Alito will be impeached for not participating in the coup, or, perhaps, the judges plot that Ryan D. White, the whistleblower that Lin Wood has referred to often, will be re-ignited now that there truly is no legal oversight and we have devolved into a one party rule by a league of truly malevolent souls.

    An associate of mine, a man of significant Democratic leanings no less, stated to me, some time ago, that we seem to have been transported to an alternate world where Gotham is not just real, but also a really bad place and we just can’t get out of it. I have reflected on that statement often since then. It seems so true and so wrong, both at the same time.

  3. @ Sebastien Zorn:

    Seems to make no difference to their obviously impeachable decisions. They rule that same as if there were 50 all Dem Justices.

    What penalties are laid donw n Law for Supremes misconduct..Do you know of any??

  4. The Supremes are afraid the Dems will pack the court, as threatened, if they step out of line, and Roberts, who seems to rule the court with an iron hand, though nominally Conservative, hates Trump, himself, besides.