quote:

Judicial Watch announced today that it has scheduled the depositions of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, as well as top State Department official Patrick Kennedy, and former State IT employee Bryan Pagliano regarding the creation and operation of Clinton’s non-government email system. The first witness, Lewis A. Lukens, will be deposed on Wednesday, May 18.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted “discovery” to Judicial Watch into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email system. The court noted that “based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.” The discovery arises in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton. The lawsuit, which seeks records regarding the authorization for Abedin to engage in outside employment while employed by the Department of State, was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

The Clinton email witnesses are scheduled to be deposed by Judicial Watch attorneys for as long as seven hours:

May 18 – Lewis A. Lukens, deputy assistant secretary of state and executive director of the State Department’s Executive Secretariat from 2008 to 2011, who emailed with Patrick Kennedy and Cheryl Mills about setting up a computer for Clinton to check her clintonemail.com email account.

May 27 – Cheryl D. Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff throughout her four years as secretary of state.

June 3 – Stephen D. Mull, executive secretary of the State Department from June 2009 to October 2012, who suggested that Clinton be issued a State Department BlackBerry, which would protect her identity and would also be subject to FOIA requests.

June 6 – Bryan Pagliano, State Department Schedule C employee who has been reported to have serviced and maintained the server that hosted the “clintonemail.com” system during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

June 8 – 30(b)(6) deposition(s) of the State Department regarding the processing of FOIA requests, including Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, for emails of Clinton and Abedin both during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and after.

June 28 – Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and a senior advisor to Clinton throughout her four years as secretary of state and also had an email account on clintonemail.com.

June 29 – Patrick F. Kennedy, undersecretary for management since 2007 and the secretary of state’s principal advisor on management issues, including technology and information services.

In a separate FOIA lawsuit concerning Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi terrorist attack, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled Judicial Watch can conduct discovery into the email practices of Clinton and her top aides. Judge Lamberth ordered Judicial Watch to follow up with his court once Judge Sullivan issued his discovery order:

When Judge Sullivan issues a discovery order, the plaintiff shall — within ten days thereafter–file its specific proposed order detailing what additional proposed discovery, tailored to this case, it seeks to have this Court order. Defendant shall respond ten days after plaintiff’s submission.

Judicial Watch filed its discovery plan yesterday with Judge Lamberth.

“This court-order testimony could finally reveal new truths about how Hillary Clinton and the Obama State Department subverted the Freedom of the Information Act,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.

quote:

Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a proposed order for discovery with a federal court that seeks the testimony of Hillary Clinton about her use of non-state.gov email account(s) for official State Department business. Judicial Watch’s discovery plan also seeks the testimony of Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff; and Jacob “Jake” Sullivan, former senior advisor and deputy chief of staff, as well as other current and former State Department officials. Judicial Watch proposes the testimony take place over 12 weeks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Rasmussen polls are not at all credible, it is nutsuckerism at its finest felch since Scott Rasmussen sold it.

Judicial watch, much like the nutsucker Gowdy can depose call ins to nutsucker slobberblog shows for all anyone cares, it will come to the same end as the nutsucker Gowdy's felching. Nothing. The good news, is they are wasting money from nutsuckers and not the American Taxpayer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Rasmussen polls are not at all credible, it is nutsuckerism at its finest felch since Scott Rasmussen sold it.

Judicial watch, much like the nutsucker Gowdy can depose call ins to nutsucker slobberblog shows for all anyone cares, it will come to the same end as the nutsucker Gowdy's felching. Nothing. The good news, is they are wasting money from nutsuckers and not the American Taxpayer.

Well, at least you see some good news. You haven't been around. This place isn't as entertaining.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

We were thinking it Wilbur, but you said it.

quote:

Breitbart News has obtained a letter that Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chairwoman Edith Ramirez sent this week to Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn. Blackburn previously asked the FTC to look into whether or not the Clinton Foundation is a “sham charity” because it reportedly spends just 15 percent of its money on “direct program expenditures.” The FTC is brushing that complaint off for now. The FTC also appears to be ignoring the other complaints that Blackburn made against the Clinton Foundation, including the Foundation’s reported failure to report millions of dollars in foreign grants.

“Although any particular case would require a fact-specific analysis, the Commission generally lacks jurisdiction over non-profit entities,” Ramirez wrote. “…In particular, the Supreme Court has held that spending only a low percentage of donations for charitable purposes, without more, does not establish fraud.” The letter went on:

When the Commission can establish that an entity claiming to be a charity is in fact operating to profit itself or its members, i.e., is a ‘sham charity,’ the Commission can bring an enforcement action against the entity for making deceptive representations to donors. As you noted, the Commission has acted against sham charities in such egregious cases.

Blackburn is not happy about the FTC’s response. In a statement provided to Breitbart News, Blackburn blasted he Commission.

“The lack of transparency by the Clinton Foundation raises issues of deception and false claims. In our letter, we lay out a number of reports that have put the Clinton Foundation on a ‘Watch List’, questioned its transparency and accountability, and found it to be an ‘atypical business model,'” Blackburn said.

“The FTC’s response is inconsistent with their mission and precedent. It appears they took the easy route of sending back a form letter rather than truly investigating an issue that is of compelling public interest. The allegations swirling around the Foundation are very serious and should be thoroughly vetted. This is an issue of fairness and accountability that needs to be addressed,” Blackburn stated.

quote:

A financial analyst and whistleblower is alleging there are discrepancies with the Clinton Foundation’s finances.

Charles Ortel, known for his financial analysis work with General Electric (GE), discussed his report on the Clinton Foundation’s finances on the FOX Business Network’s “After the Bell.” [oh no comrades, fox business!]

“I took the big donors, the big governments, the big foundations and I looked through their filings and compared them – what they said they gave to the Clinton Foundation with what the Clinton Foundation says it receives in press releases and in other disclosures—and there are massive discrepancies,” he told Fox Business’ Melissa Francis.

Ortel talked about the legality of the foundation’s actions.

“When you have a charity and you’re soliciting in states, in foreign countries you absolutely have to file truthful disclosures,” Ortel said. “You can’t slough it off on accountants and executives. The trustees are responsible for doing that. And the IRS and the tax authorities don’t trust you. They require you to get audits. The Clinton Foundation – no part of it – has ever gotten a compliant audit since inception – October 23, 1997.”

The financial analyst and whistleblower, whose report on the filings took 15 months to complete, discussed the charitable status of the organization.

“There is no evidence that the Clinton Foundation was ever approved to be anything other than a library and research facility in Little Rock.”