Cheryl Mills testimony to Judicial Watch:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/d...ls-deposition-01363/

about 4 MB download

Quite a group

Judicial Watch Reps, and

Ms Berlin (State Dept)

Mr Myers (DoJ, on behalf of State)

Mr Brewster (representing Mills)

Ms Shapiro (State Dept)

Ms Berman (DoJ, representing State Dept and Mills as a former State Dept employee)

Ms Walsh (for Mills)

Ms Wilkinson (for Mills)

Cheryl Mills (witness)

Judicial Watch (JD) tried to question about a former case where Mills' handling of email requests was called "loathsome". Berman jumps in w objections.

Berman: "I don't see how this is relevant at all"

Wilkinson (chief defense lawyer for Mills) jumps in too. Trying to redirect the questions.

I am reading a little bit at a time. on page 40. Berman and Wilkinson continually object.

this link gives a feel for how things went:

http://hotair.com/archives/201...tons-email-accounts/

Mills claims she didn't know about the private server until after Clinton left the State Dept. When Clinton left State, Mills became her lawyer again.

So now Mills claims attorney-client privilege about server questions.

Similarly, Mills claims all of her knowledge of Pagliano's server work was after Clinton left State.

This is all such an obvious game of smoke screen and lies.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

Unlike discovery in an ordinary civil case, this case apparently has an order regarding discovery which defines what is relevant, within the scope of the order, etc. which might be different for each witness.

I had almost forgotten how much I loathed reading deposition transcripts. They are very hard to follow unless you have the pleadings, exhibits, etc. I've made it half way through or so, and there is no hollering, no cursing, yet.

Yo Hillary - splain me this, how you happen to tell your minion to strip off the classified headers and send you materials on your non-secure line?

hopefully, the first of thousands of paper cuts that bleed the witch out...

From: H <hrod17@clintonemail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 8:21 AM
To: 'sullivanjj@ state.gov'

Subject: Re B5

If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.

From: Sullivan, Jacob J [mailto:Sullivann@state.gov]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 08:17 AM
To: H Subject:

Re: B5

They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it.


https://www.wikileaks.org/clin...elease/C05787519.pdf

more on the Cheryl Mills interview w Judicial Watch

Wilkinson - lawyer for Mills

Cotca - lawyer for Judicial Watch

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05...n-recent-deposition/

The deposition is the second that Judicial Watch has conducted since U.S. District Court judge Emmet Sullivan ordered discovery in the watchdog’s lawsuit against the State Department.

Judge Sullivan limited discovery to the creation of Clinton’s private email system and to the State Department’s handling of FOIA requests.

Judicial Watch had sued for records related to the employment of Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin. The State Department initially denied the request, saying no records were found.

But the lawsuit was resumed last year after it was revealed that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account.


One theme shines through the transcript from Judicial Watch’s deposition last week of Cheryl Mills: the former Hillary Clinton chief of staff did not want her to answer questions about what she knew about the creation of the former secretary of state’s private email system and of Bryan Pagliano, the IT staffer who managed the setup.

The Daily Caller counted 15 separate lines of questioning in which Mills’ lawyer instructed her client not to answer questions posed by Judicial Watch’s lawyers during Friday’s deposition.

Most of the don’t-answer orders involved questions about Mills’ knowledge of how Pagliano, a former State Department information technology specialist, set up Clinton’s private email system.

Wilkinson also instructed her client not to provide answers to questions about a finding laid out in a State Department inspector general’s report from January which showed that she blocked a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information about Clinton’s email accounts from being processed.

“What did Mr. Pagliano tell you in those conversations you had about the setup of the server?” Ramona Cotca, Judicial Watch’s lawyer, asked at one point.

“Objection. Beyond the scope. And I’m going to instruct her not to answer,” Wilkinson jumped in.

Cotca followed up with a question about Justin Cooper, a Bill Clinton aide who registered the clintonemail.com domain that Hillary Clinton used.

“When did you speak with Justin Cooper about the setup of the server?” the lawyer asked.

“It would have been in the course of the representation of Secretary Clinton that I would have spoken to him about the setup of her server,” Mills responded.

“Did you ever represent Mr. Pagliano or Justin Cooper?” Cotca asked later.

“Don’t answer,” Wilkinson instructed.

Wilkinson later explained that Mills did not have to provide information about Clinton’s email system that she learned as the presidential candidate’s attorney.

“You are asking her questions about work she did after she left the department, on behalf of Secretary Clinton, as her lawyer, preparing her client in an investigation and in turning over documents to the State Department,” Wilkinson said, according to the transcript.

<Jerry Springer chant on>

RICO!
RICO!
RICO!

<Jerry Springer chant off>

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
more on the Cheryl Mills interview w Judicial Watch

...

As I mentioned, much of what Judicial Watch wants to know is circumscribed by the court's discovery order. The FBI will have no such limitations to abide by. They can also be much more agressive with claims of attorney client privilege which is much narrower than the claims made for it. The privilege is legitimate but doesn't inoculate a lawyer from providing information outside a fairly narrow window.

I do not recall ever being able to refuse to answer a question in testimony because of it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: parabellum,

quote:

The FBI will have no such limitations to abide by. They can also be much more agressive with claims of attorney client privilege which is much narrower than the claims made for it. The privilege is legitimate but doesn't inoculate a lawyer from providing information outside a fairly narrow window.

A serious question, can a lawyer for the person being questioned still not advise his/her client not to answer? If the client does not answer under advice from the lawyer, what then? What if the answer is of the form made famous by H R Clinton; "I'm sorry, I don't recall, I was the kitchen baking cookies for my daughter".

If nothing else the client can plead the fifth.

It seems to me that Clinton and her aides have nothing to gain and a lot to loose by being candid here.

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:

quote:

The FBI will have no such limitations to abide by. They can also be much more agressive with claims of attorney client privilege which is much narrower than the claims made for it. The privilege is legitimate but doesn't inoculate a lawyer from providing information outside a fairly narrow window.

A serious question, can a lawyer for the person being questioned still not advise his/her client not to answer? If the client does not answer under advice from the lawyer, what then? What if the answer is of the form made famous by H R Clinton; "I'm sorry, I don't recall, I was the kitchen baking cookies for my daughter".

If nothing else the client can plead the fifth.

It seems to me that Clinton and her aides have nothing to gain and a lot to loose by being candid here.

Of course. You can advise your client not to answer any questions, or even talk to law enforcement, take the Fifth if forced to do so.

"You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you.......", just like on TV!

But if that circumstance were to be leaked, that might be worse than whatever the answer was.

Like Darrel Royal is said to have said, albeit in a different context, "only three things can happen, and two of them are bad."

They are going to have to find something on the minions that will put them in jail, jeopardy of loosing pensions and retirement funds to get Hitlery. Otherwise this is may become an exercise in futility.

That way they can grant immunity and access to lifetime payouts via pensions, otherwise the lawyers should just tell them to take the 5th and Lois Lerner them... It's the way it works in DC.

Someone will have to crack have a conscious, be concerned for the health and welfare of the country and our state department people overseas, concerned about our safety here

Unfortunately, they are all D and none of this matters to them.

My biggest concern is that nothing happens and this gets turned into a political football for the D to kick over the R heads as a scandal of investigative impropriety, and frankly I'm betting thats her game plan, let it go, let it continue to be investigated, find nothing, label it an R assault on Women in Power, and a witch hunt (well that part is right she is a witch).


Our hope is the FBI has enough to suggest the DOJ file charges.

Wilkinson and Berman were objecting so often, I did a bean count.

Wilkinson 113 objections

Berman 123 objections

Berman is from DoJ, representing State Dept and Mills in her official capacity as former State Dept

At times Wilkinson and Berman seemed like a tag team.

How can Mills be claiming attorney/client privilege between herself and clinton when she has said in other statements that she was not the clinton's attorney? Why is she getting away with that?

Goin' Down

Well I'm going down
Down, down, down, down, down
I'm goin' down
Down, down, down, down, down
My server, it had Windows
And all of my emails are gone
They're gone
Gone, gone, gone, gone, gone
They're gone
Gone, gone, gone, gone, gone
My server, it had Windows
And all of my emails are gone
So I'm goin' down
Down, down, down, down
I'm goin' down, down, down, down, down
Down, down, down, down, yes I am
My server, it had Windows
And all of my emails are gone
Well I'm goin
Down, down, down, down, down
I'm going down
Down, down, down, down, down
My server, it had Windows
And all of my emails are gone
Gone
Gone, gone, gone, gone, gone
They're gone.
Gone, gone, gone, gone, gone
My server, it had Windows
And all of my emails are gone
Well I'm Down
Down, down, down, down, down
I'm going down
Down, down, down, down, down
My server, it had Windows
And all of my emails are gone, Yes they are
Well they're gone off the drive
And I wiped them away


By apologies to Don Nix, and everyone who covered this, most proper.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Wilkinson and Berman were objecting so often, I did a bean count.

Wilkinson 113 objections

Berman 123 objections

Berman is from DoJ, representing State Dept and Mills in her official capacity as former State Dept

At times Wilkinson and Berman seemed like a tag team.

Since the DOJ is supposed to be investigating this, how can they also represent the defendants?

It sure is hard to believe that anyone in the gov't is really interested in pursuing this investigation or any charges. DOJ and State have been doing all they can to obstruct the investigation.

"How can Mills be claiming attorney/client privilege between herself and clinton when she has said in other statements that she was not the clinton's attorney? "

one of the things that came out of this deposition is that Mills is saying she knew nothing of the private server until Clinton left State Dept.

After Clinton left State, Mills was her attorney.

So Mills is now claiming any questions to her about the server violate attorney/client privilege.

smells pretty bad

quote:

Of course. You can advise your client not to answer any questions, or even talk to law enforcement, take the Fifth if forced to do so."You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you.......", just like on TV!But if that circumstance were to be leaked, that might be worse than whatever the answer was.Like Darrel Royal is said to have said, albeit in a different context, "only three things can happen, and two of them are bad."

That's about what I thought.

In the disposition, which by the way gives me a headache to read, the multiple objections on top of comments added to the general confusion, make it unlikely that the general public will ever get very upset about the non-answers. With the crowd in the room, it's a wonder that Judicial Watch is able to ask any questions.

I doubt if the normal FBI format of two agents, one subject, no other lawyers, no recording is going to happen in these cases.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
"How can Mills be claiming attorney/client privilege between herself and clinton when she has said in other statements that she was not the clinton's attorney? "

one of the things that came out of this deposition is that Mills is saying she knew nothing of the private server until Clinton left State Dept.

After Clinton left State, Mills was her attorney.

So Mills is now claiming any questions to her about the server violate attorney/client privilege.

smells pretty bad

That's complete nonsense. Smells to me like a scam to keep her from having to testify on the subject. No way she didn't know about this before Clinton left State. And has Mills actually performed any duties as Clinton's attorney or is this an obvious end around to avoid testifying? I know what I think.

The following speaks volumes about the democratic party and it's faithful followers...

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ven-if-indicted.html

A strong majority of Democratic voters think Hillary Clinton should keep running for president even if she is charged with a felony in connection with her private email use while secretary of state, according to a new poll.

Clinton was strongly criticized in a State Department inspector general report last week about her email use.

The report found repeated warnings about cybersecurity were ignored and staffers who expressed concerns were told “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”

Yet, this seems not to be a big issue among Democrats. The Rasmussen poll released Tuesday found 71 percent of Democratic voters believe she should keep running even if indicted, a view shared by only 30 percent of Republicans and 46 percent of unaffiliated voters. Overall, 50 percent of those polled said she should keep running.

The FBI investigation into her email practices is still ongoing. Democratic primary rival Bernie Sanders has avoided commenting specifically on that probe, but campaign manager Jeff Weaver on Wednesday questioned whether she could keep going if an indictment comes down.

"That would be difficult to continue running a race," Weaver told Fox News on Wednesday, when asked about the poll.

2016 Election Headquarters
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.

The email scandal could still be problematic for Clinton's general election hopes, with 40 percent of all voters saying they are less likely to vote for Clinton because of it -- though 48 percent of voters said it would have no impact on their vote.

The Democratic primary frontrunner’s argument that she did nothing illegal with her email use is also apparently failing to sway many voters. According to the poll, 65 percent of voters consider it likely that Clinton broke the law with her email use, with 47 percent saying it’s very likely.

The poll of 1,000 likely voters was conducted May 29-30. It had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

It's the Democrat Party. A strong majority would say that she should serve as POTUS, even if it is from a lockup.

quote:

A strong majority of Democratic voters think Hillary Clinton should keep running for president even if she is charged with a felony in connection with her private email use while secretary of state...

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
It's the Democrat Party. A strong majority would say that she should serve as POTUS, even if it is from a lockup.

No doubt. And this is something I just can't wrap my head around. I can't imagine ever voting for ANYONE that had been even seriously investigated for felonies committed while in office, let alone indicted.

It truly astonishes me that anyone would vote someone into any office, but especially the highest office, with so much evidence that shows they purposely and willfully lied to everyone and knowingly violated federal laws and guidelines to prevent the taxpayer from having the information they're due. Not to mention all the ethical and moral boundaries she's completely erased.

I wouldn't even vote someone onto a city council if they'd done 1/10th of what she has.

How did so many in this country get to a point where honesty and morality and ethics means nothing?