Judicial Watch Announces the Schedule for Deposition Testimony in Clinton Email Lawsuit

This news story is regarding the Lewis Lukens transcript above:

A longtime State Department official said he assumed that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was using her personal email to "stay in touch with family and friends", not conduct official business.

In a two-hour deposition with the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch last week, Lewis Lukens also said he offered to set up a "stand-alone" computer for Clinton to check her personal email account, only to be told that she "does not know how to use a computer to do email."
...
According to Lukens, he first spoke to Clinton's Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills in 2009 about ways that Clinton could access her personal email without using the State Department's OpenNet system.

So, another official is trying to distance themselves from Clinton's use of the personal email server for government business.

And - how does someone get to an executive position if they are not even smart enough to figure out how to use email?
I recall in the transcript this was detailed further. Lukens offered email training to Hillary, and was told that she would not know how to do it, or something like that.
I can see not being a computer expert or something in her position, but even a child can learn to use email.


State Department official thought Clinton used personal email for 'family and friends'

a reply to: BlueAjah

One interesting bit I found in the transcript is when they start asking about Bryan Pagliano. They ask him a few questions, then Lukens' attorney calls for a five to ten minute break, when the come back no more questions about Pagliano.

Interestingly, he said he had no idea who Pagliano was until recent news stories.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Cheryl D. Mills: May 27, 2016

And the audiovisual recording will be kept under seal until ordered by the court.

Judicial Watch his filed a response:

As this Court stated when it granted Plaintiff’s motion for discovery from the bench, “This is a public proceeding. This is all about the public’s right to know.” Never before has Plaintiff seen an agency or its head create an off-grid communications system to conduct official government business, the effect of which was to shield an agency head’s records from the public for years.

This is a landmark case and will likely set precedent as no other case comes close to the level of what Hillary and her top aides have done.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff respectfully submits that Ms. Mills’ motion, filed at 5:10 p.m. on May 25, 2016, less than two days before her deposition,1 is premature at best given the three-day hold already in place, if not intentionally disruptive.

1Ms. Mills has known about her deposition since at least May 6, 2016, when Plaintiff’s counsel provided Ms. Mills’ counsel with a copy of the Court’s order. After numerous emails and at least one telephone conversation, Plaintiff served the subpoena on Ms. Mills’ counsel on May 16, 2016, notifying Ms. Mills that the deposition would be videotaped. Although several other email exchanges occurred, including a request by Ms. Mills’ counsel to change the time of the deposition, Ms. Mills’ counsel did not raise Ms. Mills’ concern about the videotaping until May 25, 2016. Ms. Mills had ample notice and opportunity, but did not move until less than 48 hours before her deposition.

She had plenty of time to file this motion, but instead chose to do so on short notice and on the same day as damaging news was delivered by the office of the Inspector General of the State Department.

Ms. Mills’ characterizations of Plaintiff’s actions are both unfair and inaccurate, and the concerns she raises are baseless. Plaintiff has no intention of publicizing “snippets or soundbites” of her videotaped deposition. If it is released, the videotaped deposition will be released in full on Plaintiff’s website so that all interested persons can watch and assess Ms. Mills’ entire testimony for themselves.

And as a previous poster stated, Mills et al do not want any of it released because the video will not be a good representation for them for anyone who has the skill to determine body language indicators.

Scribd

The other point they make is that none of these FOIA lawsuits would have even been brought had the Clinton state Department followed the rules.

Wonder what will be in her testimony; at least we will get to read it after a few days...

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

This is a landmark case and will likely set precedent as no other case comes close to the level of what Hillary and her top aides have done.

Good point.

I think, if prosecuted, this is very likely to be true and would add credence to the idea that maybe the FBI isn't slow-walking anything. Maybe the iceberg below really is as big as the tip is letting on.

Very interested to read Mills testimony. I'm off to finish Luken's now.

This lawsuit is a thing again, federal court of appeals reopened it.

www.politico.com...

This deserves a thread of its own, just dumping info.