![](/wp-content/themes/judicial-watch/assets/images/logo-color.png)
![](/wp-content/themes/judicial-watch/assets/images/logo-color.png)
Fitton: Judicial Watch Asks for Full Court Review on Clinton Testimony
![](https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Clinton-Obama.jpg)
![](https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Clinton-Obama.jpg)
From Tom Fitton’s Breitbart article:
We still intend to interview Hillary Clinton.
We have filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia concerning the deposition of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit relevant to her government emails (In re Hillary Rodham Clinton and Cheryl Mills (No. 20-5056)).
We filed the petition after an August 31, 2020, opinion by the Court of Appeals granting Clinton’s petition for mandamus relief, allowing her to avoid giving sworn testimony in our lawsuit seeking records about the Obama administration’s public statements regarding the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of Clinton’s email use (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)).
We argue that the appeals panel granted Clinton extraordinary relief that was specifically denied to General Flynn by the full appeals court. The full appeals court, in denying General Flynn mandamus relief, ruled that he could pursue alternative remedies for relief, such as an appeal of any adverse decision by the lower court at the end of his criminal case. The panel treated Clinton differently:
The panel’s failure to consider Clinton’s available remedies when it labeled her a party-litigant has, in effect, extended more rights to Clinton than to ordinary parties, including Plaintiff, the Government, and most recently Flynn. Rehearing and rehearing en banc is necessary for this additional reason.
Read more here.