Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!


Judicial Watch • JW v State Clinton email hearing transcript 01363

JW v State Clinton email hearing transcript 01363

JW v State Clinton email hearing transcript 01363

Page 1: JW v State Clinton email hearing transcript 01363


Number of Pages:85

Date Created:November 28, 2018

Date Uploaded to the Library:November 28, 2018

Tags:btained, quote, Clint, Bentel, Bekesha, honor, Kendall, blackberry, Transcript, hearing, Cheney, DOMA, 01363, Bill Clinton, Mills, email, Benghazi, Secretary, Hillary Clinton, clinton, White House, Obama, State Department, FBI, department, FOIA, EPA, CIA

File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Judicial tch, Inc
Civi Action CA- 1363
Plainti ff,
U.S. Depart ment State,
For Plaintiff
Michae Bekes
Judicial Watch INC
Steven Myers
Marcia Berman
United State Department Just
Civil Division Federa Programs Branch Defendant:
WIL KINSON WALSH ESKOVIT nterested Parties ryl Mill
PLLC btained Judicial Watch Inc
Hillary Clinton
David Eva Kendall
Stephen Wohlgemut
Kyl Aaron Clark
Jamie Lynn
John Bentel
Willi Covi ngton Jack son BOIE
Huma Abedin
Court Reporter
Janice Dickman RMR, CRR
Off Court Reporter
United States Courthouse Room 6523 btained Judicial Watch Inc
Your this civil Jud
identi yourselves record
Will the parties please come forwa the ect ern and BEKESHA sus Department
Good aft ernoon Your Honor Michael
Bekesha behalf Judicial Watch
Fitton president Jud Watch
Along Tom
Good afternoon you both MYERS
Good afternoon Honor tephen
Myers with the Department Just beha
And joined colleague Marcia
Good fternoon Your
Steklo from kinson Walsh behalf non party Cheryl
Counsel good afternoon
Good ftern oon You Honor
Kendall with colleague Steve Wohlgemuth
non part former Secretary State Clint
Gentlemen good afternoon CLARK
Good afternoon Your Honor Baker Botts along epresen non party John Bentel
Kyl ark
Jami Lynn
Good afternoon Counse btained Judicial Watch Inc JACKSON
Goo fternoon, Honor
Jacks from Boies Schiller and Fle xne behalf non- party
Huma Abed in.
All right, counsel
Good afternoon
Let provide little kground maybe will
shorten the amount time counse wil need provide their
own background
But provide the Courts background
With respect the motion compel the testimony
John Bente Jud Watch moves compel Bentel
testimony after invoked the Fift Amendment
question his deposition Bentel did not demons rate reasonable ear
prosecution, especially because the FBI invest ion over
for every
And Judi ial Watch argues
The Court found the record demonstr Bentel may have lied under oath before the Hous
Representat ves mmitt Benghaz which exposes Bentel possibility perjury charges timony was taken 2015
believe for perjury fiv years
there fear prosecution whe fancif
specul tive
The tut limitati ons query whe not mean query whe can answer the ons
answer ing title ould anger Bentel ques tion
are rele vant espec fact Ben ress was not his knowledge approval the private server btained Judicial Watch Inc
aware the private server unti
bel the record his case which may have been
That one ion
The motion unseal udio visual records
depo sitions and New Media Coalition motion interve
seek reconsidera ion rder requiring that all audio visual recordings depositions
sealed protect nonparty deponent from quote annoyance
embarrassment opp ressi undue burden expense
quote May 2016 Court
issued minut
Because the transcripts the depositions were
released the court was the that was
Court words unnecessary that time make public the
recordings July the New Media Coalition filed motion intervene
pro vide the with quote more accurate and complete
record end quote because deos provide more context than
substance luding nonverba info rmati
argues there strong public interest allowing the public have quote unfettered access end quote Court proceedings
especially proceedings involving government officials guess that means have cameras the seek reconsideration the Court nute
The coalition argues that access the videos
courtroom soo maybe not
Just kidding sregard that comment
this ssue
The coalition also has noth with btained Judicial Watch Inc
Fin the coa liti rgue that tenti nipulation does
Depa rtme nt,
arguing that urt adequately accounted for pub intere releasing ranscripts. State
Pagliano and Miss Mill opposed December
establ fter election Judi cia
fil moti unsealed the audio vis recordings the
campa ove nd, ere for the deo not lik rgues seal nnecessa beca sed for political gain Mill had origi argu tion seal
there longer good sea videos
Judici tch argues that Department Abedi Miss Mill Bent and Pagl ano all ppo the mot ion.
State Department opposition argues Courts
rati sea ling audiovi sua depositions rema lid.
not presented out cont ext ite potential misuse argues hat discovery
public presumpti judi records such videos
presented jury.
State Depa rtment see ensure emp oyees are
entitl same
Miss Mill and Miss Abedin oppose motion ing that pol iti man ion was one the ncern pri vacy was ano eas ing depositions would cause undue burd
They argue publicly btained Judicial Watch Inc
tapes uld eas nipulated and pre nted without
insp reover, argue hat the common law right
judi ial records does encompass depositions
The Court also rdered that any deponent who sough keep deposi sealed supplement iefing
specific parts the deposition that would cause
subjected racism, delusional attacks for years and that the ecordings will manipulated.
Miss Abedin responded arguing
she been
Counsel tated that theres
specific part the ideo hat would sed more othe
The point hat the entire depo sition uld cause undue
burden released
Miss Mills also sponded, making many the same
She reiterated dissemination the pertinent
information the public has been served release
the transcripts spec ifi rti ons hat would damag released
She argues that good cause sti xists because the video could used for improper purposes
She also says the parties are not requ ired
The Department also responded arguing that
unse ling the depo itions could negatively mpact State
abi lit represent the United States abroad because the tapes
cou manipulated
Howeve the State Depart ment Luk rrently serving abroad
also says that would not Court find that its original rationale for btained Judicial Watch Inc
sea the depositions nger pertinent
And the final motion before the urt has with
int erroga ory answers
The Judi ial Watch moves ompe Secretary Clinton answer hree interrogatories ons
Sec eta Clinton and the State Depa rtment oppose argu ing that
Nos and are outside the scope discovery
Cli nton also argues answer quest
pro tected ey- ent privilege
Secret ary terms background May th, Court
granted Judi ial Watch for 56(d) discovery findi
that Judicial Watch ould not respond adequacy
State search without narrowl tailored discovery related
the creation purpose and use the lintonemai server
Court ound Judicial Watch rais ffici ent questions about
whether FOIA request was processed good ait
Therefore the Cou held that the scope
permissible discovery sha incl ude quote the creation and
ope rati clintonemail .com for State Depar tment business
well State Departme approac and practice for
processing FOI request hat potentially implicated ormer
Sec tary Clinton and Miss Abedin mai and State
processing the FOIA request that the subject this
laws uit. Augus 016 the Court granted part Judicial btained Judicial Watch Inc
Watch depose add ition eop
Cli nton way interrogatorie purpose discovery was eso whether there was lib era intent thwart
Secretary Clinton nswers were quo nece ary enab
her exp lain the record the purpose for the crea tio peration clintonemail com system for State ment
FOIA ing Sec ret
The Court reiterated Court ound that
Now, udici Watch wit ect interro gat ory Judi ial Watch Secretary Clinton quote scrib crea clintonemail com system,
who decided crea the sys tem, was decided reate system, why was cre set up, and when became per tio nal argu ing tion beyond scope pointing
the rrow scope scovery, quo the crea and
ope rati clinto State Department business quo
Secr ary Clint and the State both
Beca sys was created prior Sec
Clinton becoming ecret creation the
system eside Clinton sta quote, ear ing
Sec Clinton use ntonemai com for State partme bus ness
clinto doma regi tered hortl ore Secre
Clint came secretary tat
Jud Watch
The ore aus ible btained Judicial Watch Inc
that the system was crea ted State Department bus ness
the intent thwart FOIA square with scope discove
The Court permitted discovery determine whe ther
Secretary Clint use private email account condu
State Department business was one with quote, deliberate
intent thwart
granted discovery
was established eight days prior Secretary Clinton
FOIA end quote
And the Court does point the fact that the server
sworn the secretary state
word the Court
Court February 2015 hearing
Watch represented, the second motion hearing the domain was
set January set January 2009
The ove rnment was position dispute that the
Thereafter Judicial raises the question about the creation the
system ose Secretary inton nfirmati
secretary tate whether that relevant key
question whe ther there was int thwa FOIA
The interrogatory that question references quote information memo end quote sent Boswell
Cheryl Mills
are vulnerable that Secretary nton approached Boswell and said
she read the memo and quote gets end quote
The memo warns that unclassified BlackBerrie
The questions refers email that says
Judicial Watch asked whether Secretary Clinton read btained Judicial Watch Inc
the memo nd, quo te, why did cont using
uncla ifi BlackBerry access her lintonemail. com ema
accoun and fficial Depar tmen visits? end quote
Both Secretary Clinton and the tate Department
object his question outside scope scovery
because concerns cybersecu rity and the risk using the
clintonema system evan because concerns operat Secretary
Cli nton int ema il. com system State Department
Judicial Watch arg ues this est ion
bus ness
quote about secretary motivation and intent end quote using Blackberry condu fter being advi sed risk doing also argu that the question seeks information,
State Department business
The question clearly med under standing why
Sec tary Clinton con tinu use her personal emai ackBerry when she knew there were vulnerability risks
query whe ther question relevan not purpose discovery; earn whe ther FOIA search was adequa te,
Court explicitly excluded discovery related quo
storage handling, ansmiss prosecution classified
information, including cybersecur ity ssues there was attempt thwart FOI
Indeed, the
Jud Watch seeks understand and arn why
Secretary Clinton continued the BlackBerry access Department -ma when she knew ere was bvi ously btained Judicial Watch Inc
there was some cybe security invo ved ery whether question elated whe ther the tate duct equa search spo intiffs FOIA reque
whe Judi ial ntitl discovery
thi opic
one rob most difficult quest
for the Court consider. nterroga ory references
Sec tary Clinton Octob 2015 pearance before use Representatives ect Commi ttee Benghazi ring tified percent her -ma were within
the were within the State Depar tme system
Judicial sks for, quo
the this tement including act you relied supp ort the tement, how and you became ware ese acts
awa the acts through another erson son made you aware hese scove plaintiff seek ing.
not ions, hese acts and you were made dentify the
Secretary Clinton objec the question guing ques tion calls for info mation protected the ttorn ege
pro vided her ttorne the urpose ing
legal advice advance her Bengha committee mony
She rgu that she nno ose how and who was
The State Department has aken
Sec tary Clinton rgu info rma was btained Judicial Watch Inc
mad awa the
the State Department cent her the tem
Now Kendall matt public record
that Kendall sent lett Representativ Gowdy
Gowdy asked for sour Sec Clin figure
letter whi set forth the pleadings thi case
states bout 000 mai and about 000 had recipient with government ema address
The ret nton sent the tate Department
Dep rtmenta rmed nda that ove 000 the
30,000 were not deemed quote,
because hey were personal ure era
records, end quote tiff rgues Secretary Clinton has not
met her burden show the info rmati covered
privi ege
specifi representation mad ngress
Secretary Clinto has met her burden Kend sure and maybe his answer wil
provide more insight
The question mere seeks sis for
Now ery wheth
Now, ear from
Also query wheth lege here one waived irtue tter was sent Kendall publi informa tion the sec retar eeds pro ffer more about the nformat who told when and how, ons titute
commu nic provided ece ved purpose leg mum, seems btained Judicial Watch Inc
representat dist nct here
attorney- lient ege protects osure
commun ons does not pro ect disclosure under ing acts hose who communicate with ttorn end quote
You know uery whether ere part medium
that necessary eva nt, given the fact that Kend lls letter the
cares thi nt? don don know
Query whethe any this
Ill hear other words who
But, not making light but intere ting question
spend trying respond this?
discovery not opinion hear Kendall about that
But how much time want abou fine line act some pent minutes talking about what the
backgro und every torn the well cou rt.
wan you make your principal
you doing that think hat fair accurate tatement background
for each the rema ining issues
hop ing cut down hear ing about
But not going depr
And misstated some thing, please
And hat really don want misstate anything hear from aintiff first, you
emphas principal points that will persuade grant
you the relief you seek BEKESHA
Thank you Your Honor think you btained Judicial Watch Inc
summarized the facts pretty accurate was think Bentel hasn
audiovisual tapes
only two points that were inaccurate not the one smal
taken pos the
sure Pagliano sti know early did
But think those the
One thing nted when
first came here
and you have already done reiterate why here
During that May 4th 2016 order where you approved the scovery plan that the parties agreed Your Honor
quest ons surrounding eat purpose
clintonemail com server must explored through limited
discovery before the Court
whether the government has conducted adequate search
response Judicial Watch
same the past two years ema and that why here
and use the
can decide matter law
FOIA reques even tho ugh the election over
That the lot has happened
That quest that ssue
Why still important simi arly because you
secretary state cre nongovernmental email sys
use her and her deputy ief staff conduct government
business and State Department officials knew about and used
that system ema with the ndividuals still knowledge the firs ime that extraord nary except ona
And there was cont inues great pub interes btained Judicial Watch Inc the case and tho ssu
out here and why time passed
the in?
Why orry didn want now wha
you use the order used minimize the reasons why anyon strong eve pub has right
its government doing ubje
appropr ate exemptions for that BEKESHA mportant because ere ticul order you want ddress
And ourse that whe are
Absolutely Your just wan make clear
THE COURT here because publi rong know what the government inundated wit awsu more FOIA awsu its robab than
any other juri tion
right gets stronger every day urt ous beca BEKESHA heard the numb are drastically
thi year
abou how cas hey ave imag ine tic Department
But know, with respect questions
You know wha
can talk Bent asked asse rted Fifth Amendment right
THE COURT: year statute limitati ons till within
fiv years btained Judicial Watch Inc BEKESHA
Nowhere their brief any point the tal about the concern Congress and
perjury charges brought aga
him that thin illi ant
That the fir
law clerk may have
found that out kind implied yeah
years don think wrong that
assuming correct ill withi
years hink BEKESHA
But ust ure there rea sonab
basis believe Congress uld refer the orney,
THE COURT: BEKE SHA Att orney would -Re lly?
You don
think so? have reasonable basis believe Bentel ttorne haven
they don even believe there reasonable basis for that. ere were
didn mean possible but high speculative tat guess
they wou have Your Honor and think here also that you know
never said that the committe
seemed discrepancy based wha other emp oyees said
and wha
people thin ing about matters and discussing matters
the spec genera
found. just there
you know two
and they may have different perspectives btained Judicial Watch Inc iff ent int ews emembe someth may not ead finding potent was perjury charges record know wha did know wha
fin ing that
That wou helpful ave suc was speciali
And didn kno was charge
informa tion technology for the office ave been his office wou have been the office handle ema sys ems her Blackberries
case uld eve was fil was his that hand led the
ques related iffi lti Secretary Clinto
time with receiving sending age Department
employees was import nt, when asked for
deposition initially, and still important today fin out
wha knew and wha ssue may
has been provided that here easonable basis
bel eve know ere but
And guess perjury ust see that dence
something that wou appen
Tha with respec Bentel his time
unle you have her questions
addr ssues pretty ll, jus
each ssue
THE COURT: eco ngs? hink iefs
had points
What abou the deo the video
You have the tran cript wha would that add btained Judicial Watch Inc BEKESHA deos are important. think, the Media Coa liti Med Organizations there value eos ead itt word lot rom body language,
That can man pula ich troubles the Court they can
Court can control once they out there
kid with Xbox can man ipul it.
You can
you know
There way the
Maybe ong about
Some kid some kid cou probab manipulate them BEKESHA mean here poss ilit
manipulation could happen
wit nscript
context, certain rds can pulled out
info rmati there for mani pul tion.
think utwe ighs significant publ and even orica
Manipulation could have happened
Your Honor hey ould read out
That good
manipulation the same category
insert llips into ansc pt? BEKESHA
But dont you put ideo
you wou put say,
not everybody puts
ellipses nto transcript
Everything all
They put hem eadings tho ugh.
Well you put
them pleadings
but tal ing about
Its the fir
thing Coun that btained Judicial Watch Inc
judges look
the ellipses. BEKESHA:
But mean the same time would
put video their entirety our bsit would
the same filing brief. uldnt happen there.
do, but ther people could have manipulated
taken context the transcript.
concern with info rmati
You know, manipula
And dont know what her people can
they could have
You have the same concern
therefo re, you ways going have that
You have that concern wit the
Freedom rmat Act and every that made public
could taken context.
But here still strong public interest,
especially case where talki about senior level
State Department officials alking about their offici
You know this isnt personal matter personne matter
for that matter ansparency, tal king about what the ove nment ffici did didn whe came the Freedom ormation Act, Federal Record Act, and ansparency more
Its, you know talking about
What actually added the test mony
itself watching someone conscientious maybe occasion
struggl ing with properly answer the uest
added? BEKESHA mean
Whats hink paints fuller btained Judicial Watch Inc cture
answer the quest ons whe her not the wan there don want there, hostile
not shows how these indi dua are
how they one want deposed BEKE SHA:
They don mean
some are you
cannot want there and also respectful tan one want deposed lot the deponents were and think
that mportant mean
And hink
the record and make lear wel think important realize media organizations are focu sed more video ese days
than print word and think because human nature umans like see like ome thing that way iff erent
And though
you know experience han written word was als tel that your
recent der you asked deponents point spec ifi ces where the release particular part uld harass
the deponents couldn that
inst ance that they concerned about
nature it.
embarrass offensive harmful
There wasn
and rti just the general Abedin concern ll, its posted wil ano her opportunity people post comment
webs not that the video wou ead but btained Judicial Watch Inc ple would the opportunity another
ahead and
subs tantial int ave for hese videos
And that doesn utwe don publ and that his ory hink you know don hink
there been showing ubst ant arm that uld really
preven the videos fro disclosed
Honor addressed some hese ssues ttle ove ten years ago the Cre matter
And think Your ink
you were some the imilar rgume were made about whe ther not the eos could dis orted manipulated
was good cause
those depositions withhe and think till
applies tod
THE COURT osted the deos that case BEKESHA don
And you ound ere
enough have videos
And Court the Crew case get how they were posted
reca that
THE COURT BEKESHA hat Cheney case? thin was cigarette igarett compa ted something
was about wro down informa except was 078
for wha case apolog for that
Tha all right you have thing else that btained Judicial Watch Inc
move interrogator ies
THE COURT: BEKESHA: think fir part wou quo ich Your Honor did ago
supplement ary discovery order whe you said The
persuaded Secretary Clinton necessary
enable her explain the purpos for the tion and ope ration clintonemail com sys
what the fir
interrogatory asks
sure how
have idea out the sco when directly
wha Court direct what Court thought was this case absolutely
With respect have int roga ory
issue think interrog ato not asking
any ques ons about cybers ecur concerns
cybersecurity memo ava the public
ask whether Sec eta Clinton believed wha memo cybersecurit questions were concerned
were Did she read memo?
The not king whether Secre ary Clint can expound wha
Our que think found ter asked quest read the memo
ano ema
she did
suggests the why cont use her ackBerry?
And you know, that directly goe thi dea tiva her purpose was using the sys em? btained Judicial Watch Inc
Was conve nienc was another reason? when esented with fact thi -may- not -th
best -me tho d-t use emai came ttenti she not llow the guidelines because ienc
because somethi else? think that quest also squarely lls
within wha
the scope scovery the questions
the pportunit submit terrogator Sec retar Clint time when Court grant authoriz
during that think Augus long discussion
had ons abo motiva
end her term
ema the system she was ing, which was the erver the
clinto sys tem, ema address and ackBe rry use it, ich was not State Departme
systems prope rty ech ology.
directly thin, squarely within cope what the tie wha Court utho zed with the granting llowing submit int erroga Sec ret Clinton lot wha
hea about was how
And wasnt just motiva tio
the egi but motivation during and
And this just those estions,
What was purpose for using
And hink that alls regard ird one terrogatory you
know think Court summar ized the thin ask ing act-ba sed nformat not btained Judicial Watch Inc
ask pini
attorney- lient ege
matter why importa
record letter?
think ere some for tio there abo when
Secretar Clinton first arn Kendall was saying wel this whe came thi why wou protected
The quest guess the
the Court ked end why does don
since Kendall put the
that ull answers not thi ead
You asking advice the
recommendation abou any fac ttorn may have sha wit the attorney ent you
asking for discovery wha BEKESHA acts were learned?
Yeah wha acts
how she knew and why
she ercent the ema were preserved and
ava lab the State Depart ment sys 30(b) (6) witn ess about Lang said
because Secre ary Clinton may ave emailed individuals thei Department system didn
access ibl accessible
And asked Lang accuracy that tement hat over simplification tha
they eas lly goes ome that Sec eta Clinton thought about and knew years that she was sec tary? that mething btained Judicial Watch Inc learned terwards? thin air prepar for her Senate timo ny? rying figur out what was and she and why she knew it. COURT
somet hing that she ated bas orney told
wha act
invest igati why isnt that pro ected? BEKESHA learn not pro ect because
atto ey- client the ile pro ects acts ded the
atto ney client.
conducted inves tigatio and provided that actual
info rmat ion client, maybe pro ect ttorne produ but not orney- ent privilege because
didn art
And the atto ney went and
from the client. tor ney- ege lly protect nt. mat orney provide ini ased those act Mr. Kendall arguing that Secre tary Cli prov ided
thi informa him then provided her,
But the unde ing informat pro ected protect the nt, share the
the lient needs pro ide attorn ey,
opi uld pro tected.
And may even
she provided formation him
The lient ovid ands newspape art icl att
that newspaper articl going btained Judicial Watch Inc
pro tected commun tion between the torney
the lient and the orney protected and any opinion that orney provides esu her relying
newspaper article
And Judicial has precisely asked
for appears quote the basis his ement
including all cts ich you relied support tat emen how and when you became aware ese acts. fact discovery you asking which can
guess according the plaintiff sepa rated out from
opinion recommendations BEKESHA
That corre especially and then one step further the opinion
recommendation from the ttorn came from cts that
come the not necessari orney- ent
privi ege
really inion and certain cumstances apply may torn work product
And that questi
answered then will get assertion ano ther privi lege and back ere more wee so? BEKESHA
protected attorney work product
THE COURT: BEKESHA assume Kendal thought was wou have asked right? wou have claimed already
imag knows the fferent privileges and out. btained Judicial Watch Inc
think back the same circumstance
don think attorney work product wou necessa rily appl sayi not orney- ent privilege
just asking the and where she gathered
think Your Honor
Let back for second
Sure the question refers why the former
secretary continu use BlackBerry with discovery, hough?
case why that relevant? BEKE SHA
Anything more 24?
What does that have
The underlying discovery FOIA
Because the ckB erry was how she
accessed the intonemail com ema address all part
the sys she was using
until the end her tenure didn use iPad
used iPho ne.
she was able access the Clinton ema accoun was through
the BlackBerry
mean she even said forg exactly where she said
but you know, when alking about the convenience was
she didn have carry two separate Blackberries
her the BlackBerry and the emai account were one
And why the question relevant within scope
She didn use deskt
She never she used BlackBerry and the way
And thi about her purpose
And btained Judicial Watch Inc
All right ank
Thank you Your Hono
Anyone? don know
discu rder among your ves? MYERS: Honor havent, but happy with the Depa rtment think Your Honor has ccur mmarized Department position various motions say take one the Bentel mot the ealing moti our pos iti
our fili
have brief point the inter hink Oct ober 22nd
With respe
And jus nterrogatory scope
discovery including order granting add ition
discovery has ways been mited peration and the creati use per for
Dep rtment bus ness
exp and think burden exp lain, why
creation server and infra tructur for,
indi vid als prior former Clinton usi account the sys within scope scovery that showing yet
And don think Judicial Watch has kno don
think respect nterro gat aga in, plaint iff entitled ask why dec ded use the lint account have asked that quest btained Judicial Watch Inc
the extent they asking why did you use even after you warned about hese cybersecurity ssues they just
tacking cybersecurity question the question they have
already asked
cybersecurity question speci cally excluded from the
scope discovery
That all have Your Honor
And that additional question hat
unless you have any
THE COURT pos iti then? MYERS taken pos iti
Thank you Counsel MYERS
Thank you Honor STEKLO just addressing the videotape issue behalf
Thank you Honor
Miss Mills
backgro und there wel
But think that backg ound elevant even ill oday, ven
whe are the transcripts was fficient provide info rmati the
public about what was place during those deposi ions
but nonethele due the potentia
annoyance embarrassment oppression undue burden
expense think Your Honor accura ely summarized the
and iti the deotape 2016 Your Honor found that the pub ease
sea led the videos think due under Rule Miss Mill and others
And noth changed now think hear the one hand that reason why btained Judicial Watch Inc
you nseal the deos that the election over but the ther hand hear even afternoon tha
continued and unique int
think hat con inued spec ial and unique interes
issues which all know rom the news every day occu rring
whether chats rallies tweets that occurring President others her ential manipulation
this the itica these here these issues
And these
atmosphere that there unique interest
And that same tential that Your ound 201 for undue hara ssme burden embarrassment
exists today,
like existed May 201
The transcripts are none heless public
But counsel pposing counsel indicated tran scr ipt
you know they tampered with STEKLOFF
That course true that anything
can tampered with but there feren between
tamper with deos and tampe with transc pts
What the difference?
Well Your Honor, commented
ellipses mean lawyers
and udges and others can with ellipses
for news story political other things necessarily
The written word doesn
potent video whe you tryi take imag
someone out context snippet video where someone
But don think that that you know
necessar the same impa btained Judicial Watch Inc ght using words
You ece together ifferent that omeone saying ideo and cre iffere
typ manipulated image manip lat han you can
you know jus trying take words anscr ipt. think vid ipe
manipulation especially this liti environment than ranscript
sen ence and put next sent ence you can ake
three ces and cut not denying hat ranscript ake
out words try chang the
THE COURT eve rything manipulated ccompli some goal not let everyt hing out here
the ubli domain? STE KLOFF:
Well know Your Honor this and ook back but
the act raise hat ore Hono anyth about mean are transcripts proceedings that are put edera judici every for ublic ave
info rmat ion; here rent videotape recording our edera courts around the country
because can lead judici ry,
context dec ded can ead pro ems actu relevance there aren
cameras allowed re. was
it. ppen
lea imilarly, ere just know that deos liti ads her con can manipu ated btained Judicial Watch Inc erent than transcr pts ransc try piece toge her words that have nothing with each other
things that Mrs Mills other people here who are
subject this motion were weren even
the same time, said different hours and then you know,
make tle cuts you mock hem more easily, you can
these people mean one thing have
you cou different words think more easily racia
attacks other attacks
Maybe the answer need eth
all thi and not post tran ript because they can
manipulated also
get PACER tem some thing plug into the PDF document file just not publish anything ust make people come the ourt STEKLOFF that the answer? not suggesting that the answer
But think Your Honor has drawn line and think you did
approp ate 201 where you dec ded and did not ght release information transcript form pub
would have hat
there difference ween videotapes and written word
that recognized again the lack cameras here
concern till exists today for non party who private who party this lawsu who has been
attacked politically before
But did think and till think oday that
give much
just btained Judicial Watch Inc
dodged very diff cult issue two years ago and just said
look take the videos and
being give too much credit STEKLOFF good practice give Your Honor lot credi
the sense that the public also think been good solut ion
THE COURT STEKLOFF ock them for ime you ins accept the credit
Sometimes earned
things you know whe when credit due
But think that worked
Right? for don
The public has
the information
manipulation has occurred
climate anything ngs are exacerbated
video almost more likely become manipulated the
pol cal limate
wee and happening courthouse you know down the
But think that the litical that just saw manipu ation videos ast
What happened?
Alleged manipula ion you know
the CNN issue, where reporter the White House briefing
you know and there alleged ere eged manipulation the video try make
another get into that here
seem like one thing happened have view the egat ons but don
have btained Judicial Watch Inc
But think that deos ust know ety where Your Honor ommen mea agers appen all the time ripe
nothing changed know the elect ion thi
con think burden
say changed
And think, given thi argued that ecti over ech that ows video man ipu
eno ugh
Tha not
And when you ave npart lik Mills vate iti
attacks poli
Rule says avoid
undu burden whe ere has been ubli rel ease
info rmati bout what Mills estified
have bee the orefro
cont ext why why subject hem what
Annoyance embarrassment, res ion
Thank you Counsel
Good ernoon ackson beha Abed
notice ppe ance thi morning argued colleague Martha Goodman but she
with rela ively sty omach she sked step her ead
THE COURT apo filed
Thi was actually upposed our regards miss her ome
Thank you reiterate eague just said beha Mills btained Judicial Watch Inc
exact the same views
pleadings, dent ifi specific undue burden annoyanc mbarrassme and ass ment that Miss Abedin
result the events ques including fact hat her
YouTube actors
inappro priate things done with hat
sections her deposition have been the
And those, there have been comments and
THE COURT JACKSON: identified the just for
Inappropr iate ing such wha there you ook hat with that
comments and all commentary about
video ere are racist ment and cri tic ements
her and uggestion phys ical harm her and her family hose comments.
annoyance embarrassment and undue burden that uld result the videotapes here, the videotapes themse ves ing eleased
That the exact kind thing that
And eagu beha Ms. Mills eady
said, the tran scr ipt hemselves are out there.
the degree the purpose FOIA and tting informatio about
what the government doing which very val legitimate
concern the transcripts are out there.
are already avai able both Jud tchs webs ite and
other place lud New York Times etcetera
see any benefit tually hav videotapes
They eady exist and don btained Judicial Watch Inc dditi and there subs nti risk ras sment ust enced
Good ter noo Your Hono
Good ftern oon CLARK
Kyle Clark behalf n-pa rty John
All ght ank you Your Honor
Bentel. taking back the beginn ing where Cou
started oday, agree with the summary accurate
addressed Mr. tel Fifth Ame ndment ight and ques tio
rai sed, did correct one thi for the record
suggestion that not discuss reasonable
concern briefing incorr think summary
And work rom how intiffs have
The opposition ges through opposition speak ire that. ecog zed, was using argument using quotat
memorandum inion, pointing out that urt ecognized
reaso ar, hat was self- nt.
went speak it. ext ent
And Your Honor has quo ted ave raised urt, any concern about wha record
And wha sed urt was what the Cou
obse ved order rom August reasonable one based aract riz eco rd, btained Judicial Watch Inc
that the record appeared ntr sworn test mony Court fiv yea statute mitations
statut limit ons believe law ets ut, once have sonable prosecution possible?
its likely? the attorney office?
And noted and urt lerk has here are wit hin
The way that rgu it, way
Tha very dange ous
Who say whet
Who say whe someone uld refer case
The question and wha Circuit has looked ore luding the
there absolut bar rose uti on?
immunity granted? rue thi case
app have hey run?
And case Honor has
not have not that ituati prosecut
poss ibl intiffs guess hat wou
when remains possib uga Container case
Was ere tut ory
Tha wou absolute bar
That not
Are limitations that could
And not for and spectfully,
Which ring point
for the
raised ich question -by question the Court has ddr ess whe her Bent had reasonab fear
pro secut ion, whether cution oss ibl ituation might regular case invol ing depos iti asi
Because thi depos iti btained Judicial Watch Inc
involved sole sub ject
And the Court addressed this its where
spoke what Bentel was asked speak about was asked speak one
topic oundational ask the next question?
thing for Bentel assert his Fifth Amendment right response those questions was what needed prote
Those questions either were directly that
Can email?
Can get nda ion for was not only the appropriate lege
Aga the Circuit spoken thi
can alk about generalities and then assert lege
the particulars
Corrugated Container yet again speaks about how you
Your respectfully had tried draw
that line single subject deposition believe would arguing whether had ved Fifth Amendment ege whether had ved his right attempting
pick choose
believe hat there basis for upholding granti the
motion compe given the reasonable fear prosecuti and
the possibility prosecution thi matter didn that didn was the correct ion and don
THE COURT the Court were deny the
mot would more appropria the Court under dvis ment and take statute run and then rule btained Judicial Watch Inc
Your Honor good
potential charges tha have longer tatutes limi ions
Taking 2013 and hold until fter 2020 spect fully esn
seem like good use the Court resources
under advisement 2015 ement aws
THE COURT would need think about whether there wouldn
just itting there ect dust JACKSON
You wou hold the cases open
longer uldn like that her doing anything iled
And suspec the ladies and gentlemen
THE COURT uld keeping your part the case
open JACKS ON:
You would non party, Your Honor the case that wou extraordinary, have plaint one non part nds the Justice Depart ment don
Honor eave
think tha the right approach Your hink that his case -THE COURT
They your friends now the Justice
Depar men JACKS
Wou trange let tran scr ipt there
They are today ght
They are oday
Mak sure you get that btained Judicial Watch Inc JACKSON
They ing
But Your hink traightforwa why lerted intiffs advance epositio hat was our ention wanted preserve court
reso urce and
this was approp ria app ach
Before you start you know what are you today? you want
All right hank you
Thank you Your Honor Kendal ort recess?
Would you let know, and when
you need break
How are day? KENDALL
Thank you Your Honor
And think Your nor summary was accurat the ssu
thi case beg Huma Abedin story search but
The question then was adequacy search and
wha brings and wha sparked covery
Cou authorized does behoove jus mome look back how FOIA case out mpl oymen document State Departme
the State Depart made search
Now the Court recogn zed that scove FOI
cases pains mph the limi tur btained Judicial Watch Inc that scovery
the 4th order and August 9th order was about both
That the context ich nterrogatory answers
that Secretary has propounded arise
reca interrogatories answered hem without
any pro ems here three answers one int errog tory hink well gave answers gave the acts cou
And woul like take the lad you start ing with
one that mos one KENDALL
Your remember thi ion very well was Octobe repo ted
the Bengha committee wen until little ock night
Appendix have page how question came
came nterest way question xpen ive ake
more one more and will pay Kendall
question how tha Chairman egan clock morning
And our
Chairman Gowdy says have
And Clinton had you know lawyers
THE COURT KENDALL says wel one Clinton don hink you
Tha never happ ened didn
But nyway, but sess nal ends with Cha rman Gowdy ask for
sou Secretar tat emen about percent btained Judicial Watch Inc
the mails were lly government retained accounts.
Now wha
happened was some time later, November 13th, 2015, wrote Chairman Gowdy back etter answering
that question
there not syllable that letter about
the ent how the
chairman question didn
communications with just answer ing think the urt right emphasize that
The math ere the tter.
there sometimes acts are not presented pro cted
the privilege
relationship make ure the client unders the act
simply saying someth ing ctua does not necessarily mean
that not protected the ivilege.
single reason nvade privilege orney- ent
However awyers tal clients very often
And essential role attorney-cl ient
They not given
The informa they seek set out here
info rmati the got that.
once formation orma abo creation and
operation clin tonemail com sys for State Depart ment
business what can asked about
That wha
the entitl
How thi relates again the Court said think this one answer and
wou just refer Court the exact interrogatory question
Identify the basis for thi tatement, luding ich you support tat emen how and when you btained Judicial Watch Inc
became aware these acts and you were made aware
tho and through another pers ide tify that
THE COURT fact inquiry KENDALL nswered letter.
about mean she can answe that without divulging ttorn ey- ent privilege information then she can answer
But our point here that ivil eged
That fact inquiry hat
But terms how the client thinks
Except the
letter here not leged claim privilege ove
the response
Does letter waive privilege? does not bec use does not refer way communications the lient.
question she had consented rli its going int
11th let see the 11th hour ing int
the 2th hour and basically says all rig just get the
Gowdy asked the got the info rmati
THE COURT ask you this ppose you had
conducted independent nvest gat learn wha
were behalf your client and you had page cts
you id, you know wha
fact that believe can rely upon
gears and get your recommendation and your inio about
how those act should apply case his what fou
the acts
But then you shift
Isnt there fine btained Judicial Watch Inc
lin twe those two rios, the gather ing acts and hen the cus ing tho acts and advice your lient
abou wha
wha teve is?
those facts inso maybe her exposure there fin lin between hat? want
They not concerned love have mmendation and pinion, but
But want
What bas that?
they not going get hat and know tha know wha KENDALL basis ement?
the fact here.
Again, Honor, in, its all Appendi
them over try err completeness
you sort
Department ddre and many hat ano her government ddr ess
they should have the Dep artme work.
Ill through the
You now tten number mails turned Department said some them are didn ave turn thos
And when
those you many that went the State
Now, those she beli eved, btainabl
THE COURT: mea can speak how rati
But act thought the
are not protected orney- client privilege correct?
Cor are ove math.
some thing more
And the acts ere are what but wha want
They know communi btained Judicial Watch Inc make the tatements
but far and somebody else ews report rking ory, are the facts she answer
that question
client rela ionship, nges are protected
they about act Your Honor
advise lient you often talking about
saying act lat nship are here
But nce you start tting int the torney-
Now jus wan
They cts simply enough pry basically adopt what Myers aid about errogatory and
abou Clint email sys
interroga which answered comp ly,
why imony fro her FBI int erv ew, she knows she ows great deal about many but setting
and email sys tem and registering
kno edge and she that much FBI erroga tory has thi you look her ccount clintonemail
And the one, hink both utsid rea
discovery and the
She knows thing about her husband tti ema
account she her own acco unt terms real don
about that 2009 memo
abou ntonema il. com nswer that
have much more say
says oth wha soever
The point that btained Judicial Watch Inc
use BlackBerry SCIF, sens compartment nforma
grumpy about didn but left kBerry
sho uld not move compel further answers interrog torie and
And tha all that
right was
Nothing with email would respe ful submi
And her imony didn that
that Court
Thank you Counsel briefly plaint cou nse
Let just have couple
quest ons ask you and you respond
With respect question you concede not
that the clintonemail system was crea before Secre ary
Clinton was confirmed secretary state? yes then how the creation that system relevant
State Department business was created before she was
confirmed? BEKESHA
And the answer was created ght days before while
she was the subcommittee giving timony before the vote was created
husband system lintonemail com, was wjcoffice com and
presidentclinton com
account that sys tem
Secretary Clinto Chelsea Cli nton and Huma Abedin who
deputy chief staff Kendall talked about how was her
Her husband system wasn
President Clinton didn have email
The ema account that system was wasn Bill Clinton email system btained Judicial Watch Inc Clinton ema
system cof com and
pre dentcl com
Clint system
creation what asking here dispute about when was reated
believe was created effort condu
Depa rtmen was ted for her
THE COURT mean ntonemail was Hillary the question then BEKE SHA was ated ght days before
the pro cess the Senate tarted whi mea wasn
created summer ore President Obama won and she knew was going ecre
that two wee eriod between the 2008 ecti and when
President Obama ask her secretary state
created Decemb
sta conf rmat process
account her entire four yea
year wasn cre wasn was created when she
And then used ema
And not nly the
speci ema acco unt but about system
system put place?
not eside Clinton use eside Clinton didn
that account
sys didn int mai com Huma Abedin deputy taff
Sec Clinton
The sys tem was put didn
Neither taff
Why the place
use was her staff sed
and btained Judicial Watch Inc was Bill Clinton wasn nybody the undati wasn anybody his t-pre identi taff.
And had people ere
think here dispute mean maybe don know
maybe Kendall saying that Bill Clinton had ema
address that accoun that sys clintonemail com
But hasn been wha
years our years ear abo thi system had their own email
And the eco hat they did don it? and half
one has
Hillary Clinton email system her and Huma Abedin and
was used conduct their official State Departme business was Bill Clint email sys
THE COURT: was concerned your reply
brief the urpos for question und ers and
Sec tary Clinton quote motivation and int using
pers nal ackBerry conduct State Department business after eged being advised the risk doing
clear does this ques have with the adequacy
the State Department FOIA search?
Secretary Clinton did ontinue her BlackBerry, knowi wou create secu rity risk what does that have BEKESHA
Just other words assume ano her ultimate
quest whether not Secretary Clinton sought
del berately thwar
bearing personal email account deliberately thwart
Did she use her BlackBerry
FOIA btained Judicial Watch Inc
that her records weren
avai le?
Thats ltimatel uld wou fficial.
Watch other anspa ency organiza ons saw emai
Secretary Clint for four years didn get
questions that will addressed the end discovery
whet not that was Secre ary Clint intent was memo that said don use personal BlackBerry
She ntinued
And one the
She she used for
conven ence, was her reas why she
You would hink not you know want
know wel was till convenient and you that
this going security risk, does convenience overweigh
sec urity risks?
state can make decisio
mot purpose why she used the BlackBerry, why
she used the ema sys tem.
whe not she deliberately thwart FOI
that question tha asn been answered and
answe until afte discovery done
wha all this discovery leading toward don know
THE COURT: haven been secre ary
But what the
That just another piece
And you know
Ultimate ly, that sti troubled
bas Secretary Clinton tatement was provided
Congress ndall and its publicly ava ble, btained Judicial Watch Inc
then what else can accomp shed requiring furth answers that question? BEKESHA
Well ted what act were
but didn state wha
the basis mean says
different percentages and the number emails
that information where did she get basis that
informa tion when she made statement Congress? think ask percent guess
the let talk bout the
But where does
You know
Identify the basis this statement
including all which you relied suppor
statement how and when you became aware ese fact
you are made aware the acts hrough ano ther person enti the person who made you aware the acts
That comple inqu iry
Now maybe Kendall has issue wit very last par dentify
pers who made you aware tho act
her tating she was made war her ttorne Kendall issue could see maybe littl bit ose
fac tual scovery being related ient,
protected attorney- client privilege don
And ques tion
think anyone would disagree that that not
But the fir part that
quest about
Thats why separa ted ques out btained Judicial Watch Inc the gathering acts
you know ini the implicati those act vis vis
client jeopardy rights, etcetera inning act whateve offering that BEKE SHA
relying the then
Right era think the ques tion and
dont think Mr. Kendall asked the question about when
talked about investigat ion that her tto rneys ite -page epo ayi out act and here pinion don swe whether not
page report uld avail discovery and not pro ected ttorn ey- clien acts cli nt, hen the attorney- client privilege doe pply. wou ldn didn rely said attorney product maybe pplie
was prepared rep for liti gation
foll ows you those rongs
created counse not based anyt cussed
you know and
But, t-ba sed report protected attorney- lient privilege
Suppose Court were mod ify
question and llow you propound
the bas for the were who those mean
the pro ect the ttorne ent ivil but
essent ly,
jus have some hought the fact BEKESHA bout
That ask ing btained Judicial Watch Inc know bas the stateme
say they are Kendall
(Nods head
(Nods head
you have
Just facts
Just acts who
Tha ight BEKESHA
Other questions that?
THE COURT look ing don
You want say, want you off BEKESHA was
Maybe don wan doesn
talk about
Anyone never eard Friday? ome
expec ting eve rybo all ssues think you know back audiovisual rding you know thought was lling ttorn representing fir now forg tting who esented who
not aware any that occurred when espec transcripts think was Mills said they manipulation has btained Judicial Watch Inc
occu rred already, why
reasonab and ghly
specu that going occu the uture talking about video being something
completely dif eren here are lot publicly available
Mills you wanted make mpa not ure don
think she running for off
Secretary Clinton running president again
sure where thi campaign
know what the campa ign would
And don
know not
But you wanted
campa you could have the ctu Mill and you
could have words under completely manipulated and out
order and pieced together
The bottom line anything can
manipula unfortunately
anything that can still manipu ated BEKESHA
PDF forma that doesn
mean think teenagers know
man pulate that the days
about video with the CNN incid that was SPAN video mean does tha mean should not have SPAN?
the media the one wants all press briefings
because there chance that may manipulated
You know when counse talked think
Maybe should stop televi all press briefings respect court proceed ngs the Ninth Circuit
some ther cou Nint Cir also deotape
proceedings being btained Judicial Watch Inc
The Supreme Cou uts transcripts well aud oral argument those manipula
Maybe take those down
maybe should
rid FOI because hose can
You know
And then PDFs app reci ate
some ese former
gove rnme officials now ivate citi zens
case about wha was conduct when senior-l eve partme ffi they went about their day- day
this espons iliti
about wha
the did didn with res pect pare ncy when the
were government ffici
about their personal lif its not hey done private itiz
THE COURT about wha
Would compelling reason llow deos posted because videos hemse ves
enabl erso formul ini abou BEKESHA
Abso lutely.
cred ibility? mean there are iff erent reasons why video mor powerfu
the itt rd.
there ong public interest.
talked about there public interest thi case and anspa ency and wha pened
farth int uture there ing ifi cant
historical nterest wha how wha
And think thats mporta
for the ublic, hink erybody tod
And art her and
happened and how case played
happened State Depart with btained Judicial Watch Inc
Sec eta Clint ema what
whe the was good whe her bad whe ther was far ous honest
you know people can judge thems ves when see the
deme nor hey see one the person
and think the Coal ition Media Organiza ked bout
Those all ques ons that how the
And that ignifi mport ant think see that tan ces
espec you know tran sparency
organization, wan put everything out and have
the public abl ook and know, decide own the cred ibility wha
imp ortant
but can happen everyt ing and every medium eco can happ the oss ibilit that happen
And thi think man tion bad shouldn
jus doesn
every typ utwe igh the ifi publ
there making ese videotapes public Mill reason alked about campaign was
because Mills foc used ima
ini when she soug
the pro ecti rder sea ling order was ing about thi wou used dur ing campa ign season beca tting pretty los the pre nti ect
whe Secretary Cli esump
was hink the nominee but presumptive nominee
fir btained Judicial Watch Inc
the democratic nomi nee you know, tho int eres now gone
long running for president
Huma Abedin the time was
senior level the campaign you know, disagreed with
Your Honor opinion also why when the media rganizati led their brief two months ter their motion
two mont later remained silent
you reconsider that point
was over until the process
You know ask waited until the election
for the most part was over and then asked for the records unsealed because here
strong public interes and the potential harm ect would have had pres dent ial campaign onger
remaining ques ions KENDALL: you have
Excu one seco Kendall couple ques ons
Your Honor may make the end
that may make one point about interrogatory
That that ther quest pro bably covered everyth
All right
Sure ahead ahead regard nte rogatory
disagr with what the plaint iff say about
the Clinton ema btained Judicial Watch Inc
system ted definition nte rogatory
don recogn that the server nsi ted equipment
up, hos
accounts it.
office located the house Chappaqua and clintonemail com
unlike their definition was simply account it. ave say
And their
Because you know the define it, they
for President Clinton taff.
That till
Bet talk bout the server han various
The server was set President Clinton
THE COURT: keep going back that the more icult question
fact from letter but
have all the acts
told Secretary Clinton the acts and when
fact protected from how are acts part
attorney- client communication?
You argue that Judicial tch has
Judicial tch argues doesn
For example the etter does not say who KENDALL
talk about
does not make the ivilege app licable
facts lient
And how are those
Well Your Honor, often attorneys
The act
they ing
That why sepa question out relating what acts were result
inves tig tion; thi wha found,
what und
facts, vis impact throug his
Then scuss the impl icati those
you know,
jeopa rdy you
your rights how help you
your rights
That little btained Judicial Watch Inc iff ent but epa ted that pini part
and the commendation part, tinguis rela ting wha act NDALL:
And, Your wha tri give hem hat, bec was asked question Chairman
Gowdy answered the tio
basis for our ans wer?
says get back you out the act not nything communicat her, then says Wha the
So, its the end the hearing she get back
Aga in, jus
speaking the the ere hing about any epara nves tion anything like hat.
But how learned something again don your awyer you can tify
it. ege
Wha said here his vered the ttorne
THE COURT: the ion
add iti ona
privi ege answer uld none?
What are the acts erwi ove ttorne KENDALL: ll, rms
inte rrogatory
THE COURT: mean uppo there was new quest
suppose urt said Hav ing hea rgumen
the quest will llow answered
add iti ona ivilege. acts not erwi cove red the attorn ey-
the btained Judicial Watch Inc KENDALL: answer would acts her mind ong she doesn have ose where they
came rom wou probably discoverable simply act
not wha
your rney told you, not wha
you said your hey want
All right
hea plaintiff counsel second
they want acts
rev the question, don
wha the why that discoverable?
nothing -MR KENDALL
But the orne ent has Honor you alk lient, very often you will talking about facts
that the privilege pro cts exploration the facts
You can
report something form.
protected the work product ege the very eas
And your hypo cal was you epare believe
Now the ent you some thing hat uld inform your epo rt, might pro ected the
attorney- client
Stock nformat sorry? nothing were talk
about that ege would just matter heard btained Judicial Watch Inc KENDALL:
But know who Friday Your
THE COURT: thought you Judicial Watch hasn
shown why the privilege should overcome
burden KENDALL that your
When establ shed the ivilege don think there going doubt that ient there attorney the attorney
know the client herself charges ees think
that you know can answer because
attorney- client privilege crime fraud exceptio you published third- part
know some way defeat privilege
Now got show ere
But that your initial burden
though, show the privilege attaches correct? KENDALL
That right, exactly,
Sealed Case our circuit
present Cou ffi cient
establ shing the privilege and the cts seek ing
you claimant burden
fact establish thin there fine line between fact
And that all acts not otherwise protected the KENDALL
And aga thi abo her timony certain te, wha are the facts behind that. btained Judicial Watch Inc
think those
The last question have being with respect and asked thi othe attorneys because system was created ight days
before Mrs Clinton onfirmed, why tha KENDALL sonable
Your Honor, with respect, think
disagree there.
The system was created over per iod time sys was created relying server was eed
the Hillary Pres ident Campa ign 2008 wasn cre jus took months don know where their date it.
comes from.
President system, answered the ques ons about her account.
object their definition clintonemail com wha
is. tri say here the server and everyt hing else
And aga
Tha just account gger system
All right
All right.
Did you have
anyth else Counse KENDALL
THE COURT you Your Honor
All right. tho ught government
counsel how about hat last question here? the argument about statement that the system was reated
eigh days before she was confirmed secre ary? MYERS think You object importa care fully parse word system defined plaintiff definitions the int erroga refers btained Judicial Watch Inc
ema ems servers providers and infrastructure
hosted any ema ccount with the domain name ntonemail com think FBI epo ugge that domain name
clintonemail com was ered know, about ary 13t
But poi that have made
the server
and the infr tru ture and all hat the same serve and
infr tru tur that was hos ting presidentc inton com cof com
And aga
think Jud has
exp ned mat about those serve relevant
creation the clintonemail com account
the bje separate inter roga
Yes counse BEKE SHA
The again
Thank Your
Anyone else?
One there creat lint nema il. com sys em, had ffi com presidentcl nton com when
system was registering the domain decision
place was done and you know,
have clintonemail com
asking abo creation hat
system server did that you know,
THE COURT: reation not intere about the serv day one? btained Judicial Watch Inc
Were just terested when
became -THE COURT:
When this particu serv ntifi secretary was created BEKE SHA
Absolutely Your Hono
The erve domain name
The domain name hen the domain
name was placed syst was placed that server
not asking detai about else was server
just know you ow,
Was set the day
domain name regi stered?
those questions, you know whom Abedin said dur her
deposi that think
Jus Cooper someone crea dec ded name
domain name aced the serve
Justi Cooper days before?
Why set up?
Why was
Who reg stered hat domain ame?
forget she said was was
Justin Cooper during ngr ess est imony
whi was und oath said that was Huma Abedin decision
abou what domai name was
figure out
sys being doma name that was placed erve you that was
And just try
the bas act the crea sys em,
Not abou
the deta out President Clint ten yea before eva nything, you know
Thi btained Judicial Watch Inc
bunch smo mirrors they
bas question ave answer the
When all and mea thi the funda ment question that ads
And know nce deliberate thwa ing FOI get clo ser know, when
you know have Secret Clinton then Sen ato Clinton
statement 2000 mebody asked her bout ema
You know she made statement she when asked about
ema and trail 2000 then Senator Clinton summar judgment,
much been nves gat all that you why
Can imagine?
even wan why uld ever wan ema il?
And part trying piece together
that idea her head
because ere uld paper she 2000
when ecame Sec retar State 2008 guess been anuary 2009 fir ever
sub Freedom Info rmati Act
and Feder
Record Act did she decide system was ing make hat rgani zat ons like cou find
she doesn want use ema ave paper trail
And tima before Court
This ions that pro osed submi ocu sue beginning lked abou guess been our ocus btained Judicial Watch Inc most years thi
Thank Your
This wha uld like ctual prepared rule the ers toda but
take short
that ave come up.
But going any more time ing,
this case need
reces some tho ught couple points would like recess until oclock. rule rom the bench these mat ters ere need stand the cou oom. hank you.
You don have tay court will ess til
rig may different eco ngs depos itio taken thi New Medi Coalition motion int rvene eek
reconsideration the Court order sea ling the audiovisual
record ings
The Court will consider each motion turn. ere are two motion sea aud sua first,
The second Judicial motion nseal
First Court will grant New Med Coalitions
mot interve sett quote third
part may llowed permis intervene under Rule 4(b) limit purpose see king access ria btained Judicial Watch Inc
that have been shielded from pub view either sea
protect rder, end quote replying upon versus
National ldren Center Incorporated, 104
The refore, Cou will llow New Media
Coalition intervene for the limited purpose movi
reconsideration unseal the audiovisual recording ega see New York versus Micro sof Corporat 206 .R.
19. that
Seco nd, the Court will deny both the New Media
Coa liti subs tive motion cons iderati and Judicial
Watch mot ion unseal the audiovisual eco rdings. May 2016 Court ordered all aud iovi ual
recordings depositions sea led protect the non party
deponents om, quote, the annoyance embarrassment oppression undue burden end quote pursuant Federal Rule vil
Procedure 26(c)
right know about the subs tan the depositions and ere ore released the script
the pub licl ava anscr Cou found
was quo unnecessary end quote udiovisu
recordings public ll.
The Court
then und that pub had
However light its motion for econs ider New Media
Coa lition argues audiovisual recordings are ssary provi the public with uote, acc urate and comp ete
record end quote because provide more context and btained Judicial Watch Inc
substance its motion unsea udici Watch argues that
the sea conc lud
good cause keep the depositions sea onger exists
These ons are opposed State Departme and
several the deponents including Miss Cheryl Mills and Miss
Huma Abedin
for seal ing the aud iov isual eco rding remains val onger necessary because the 201 Pre denti
Judicial ere ore argues that
The opponents argue that the Cour rationale
Pursuant Federal Civil Procedure the urt may
for good der protect party
person for annoyance
burden expense
has broad discretion
posi tion weigh fairly the ompeting needs and interest
parties ected scovery,
substant ial ude ashion protective orders
Relying upon Seattle Times Company versus Rhinehart 467 U.S.
embarrassment, oppression undue ermi whe Court
Because the Court, quote
end quote the best must have quote
end quote
Ultimately, the Court must quote balance the
public intere
private interest avoiding annoyance embarrassment
oppression undue burden expense end ote
relying upon New York versus Microsoft Corporation 206 .R.
19. open proceedings aga inst ind ivi dual
Again granting Miss Mills motion protective btained Judicial Watch Inc rder the Court that Miss Mills met her burden
art culat specific show, quote clearly fined ser ous injury, end quo te. V-I-R versus Hull 252
considering briefing the Court concludes hat good cause
remains keep the audiov sual reco rdings under sea
See Ill spell it,
After carefully
First pretri deposition not judicial record ling within common right ect judicial
Indeed quote retri depositions
interroga tories are not public opponen civil tri end
Audiovi sual depositions were permitted quote means
presenting deposition testimony juri that super eadings from ld, inted records end quote.
quote not tend veh icl generating con tent for
broadcast and media end quo
Park Enterprises Inc versus Uptown Products F.Supp.
347 and 349
Relying upon Seattle Times Company 467
They were
Relying upon Paisley ndeed audiovisual recordings are quote subject higher degree ent abuse han tra nscripts. cut and spliced and used sound bites, end quote
vers Knight 2001 Westlaw 782360
The can
Seco nd, the proceedings this case ave been
subject igh degree publ rutiny and nonparty
deponents ave convinced the Cour will unduly burdened btained Judicial Watch Inc sub ject ras sment the iti rding
unsealed. dit tak ntext the purpose ara sing emb ass ing deponents pecific harm, end quo the non- part deponents derives tur medium lf.
Univer LLC, 016 Westl 4098195 nevit able segment the epos itio would ndeed the, quote,
Low vers Trump Court finds parti harm
will result Cou the two mot unseals the eco ngs
And finall the that 2016 ential
election does not change Court conclusion ndeed Court order sea ling depositions did not nce the presidential election availability deposition tra nsc ripts erved
publi rights know and obviated the eed losur audiovi ual eco lid epositio recordings marginal espec iall bec the ipt have been wid ely distributed and publicized
over two years iti gat upp
That reasoning rema ntirely public int gaining acc
Relying upon Apple iPad Tune Antitrust
There Cou den the New Media Coa liti for recons tio and Judicial Watch
uns the audiovisual depos iti eco rding btained Judicial Watch Inc respect Bent testimony Novembe 2016 plaintiff Judicial tch filed tio compe n-party deponent
considering Judici motion Mr. Ben oppo iti Judicial ly, the Court denies motion
After October the 4th, 2016 Judicial deposed Bentel rmer State Depa rtmen empl oyee adv from attorney, Bentel invo Fifth Amendment
answer all Judi tch questions moves compel his estimony uant Federal Rul
Civil Procedure rguing that Mr. Bent did not entify
legitimate prosecution and
prosecuted any event easonabl basis for invok ing his Fifth Amendmen ege Ben
Judi tch unl kely
responds that had
The Fifth Amendment the tut mandates hat quote hall compel any imin case witness against himself, end
against compul sory lf-i rimi quote, can asserted any proceeding civil iminal, admini
judi investigative judi cato ry, end quote
upon Kastigar versus Uni States 441, 444 privi ege
Indeed quo witness may pro perly invoke the
pri ege when easonably apprehends
self-in imin hough imin cha rge are pending btained Judicial Watch Inc lyi upon
Corrugated Container nst him
Antitrust Litigation 662 875 882 rmining whether the Fifth Amendment was
properly nvoked the Court accord quote, lib ral
construction favor was intended secure
end quote
answer quote clearly appears Court that
ind dua mistaken end quo invo king Fifth
Relying upon Hoffman versus United States
The Court must for nly order ind idu
Amendment pri ilege
The Court canno
find that ntel was clearly stake invoking Fift Ame ndment Bent Judicial rgu reco luded ntr ictor evidence egard ing Bentel knowledge
Sec tary Clinton privat server and ema practices
the urt memorandum opinion ECF moving depo
Indeed Judi tch tion
Cou ound that quo the eco thi case appe
contradict Bentel sworn timo before nghazi
Committee end quote ason basis for believing danger might exist
answering particul tions because sworn mony
before Congress may ave been untruthful
ver sus Prospect Cafe Milano Inc 233 216 cord ngly Bentel quote lying upon eove Court reviewed each the btained Judicial Watch Inc uest Bentel and con ludes ring questi could ither uote upport conv
und fede criminal end quo te, could quot rnish link the cha evidence needed prosecut the
claimant for ederal crime, end quo 486
impl icati ons the est ions that respo nsive answer might
dangerous because injurious disc osu could esult, end quote ffman 486
Relying ffman here ore quo evi dent the
And finall uch danger not quote anc
merely spe ulati end quote, Judicial tch cont ends
Relying upon 883
invest igati into Secretary Clinton private email
serve doe guarant that imin action would
not start end uote onc lude that pos ilit pro ecuti quote mot quote invok right
remain silent
Corrugated Con iner Antitrust Litigation
The act the FBI clos therefo appropr ate
The Court, herefore, sust Bent
invocat Fifth Amendment privilege and denie Judicial
Watch compe respe nterro gat vember that, November 201 plaintiff Judicial tch
fil compel ormer tary Clinto swer btained Judicial Watch Inc
three unan swered interrogatory quest ns.
Specifi cally,
Judicial Wat move compel Secretary Cli nton answer
int rrogatory Nos.
motion all hree question while State Department
opposes motion ques tio and refully cons idered the motion the spo ses and the reply ereto and grants part and denies part Judicial Watch
brief providing contextual backgro und
Secretary Clinton opposes
The urt has
The Court will address each question separately May 201 the Court granted Judi ial Watch
motion for Rule 56(d) discovery
raised sufficient question whether its FOI request was