Очень интересен сам текст решения. Он просто светится глубочайшим презрением по адресу самой Клинтон и ее защитников из славного deep state.
Discovery up until this point has brought to light a noteworthy amount of relevant information, but Judicial Watch requests an additional round of discovery, and understandably so. With each passing round of discovery, the Court is left with more questions than answers. <...> State failed to fully explain the new emails' origins when the Court directly questioned where they came from. Furthermore, State has not represented to the Court that the private emails of State's former employees who corresponded with Secretary Clinton have been searched for additional Clinton emails. State has thus failed to persuade the Court that all of Secretary Clinton's recoverable emails have been located. This is unacceptable.
Even though many important questions remain unanswered, the Justice Department inexplicably still takes the position that the Court should close discovery and rule on dispositive motions. The Court is especially troubled by this. To argue that the Court now has enough information to determine whether State conducted an adequate search is preposterous, especially when considering State's deficient representations regarding the existence of additional Clinton emails.
The Court is not confident that State currently possesses every Clinton email recovered by the FBI; even years after the FBI investigation, the slow trickle of new emails has yet to be explained.
Judicial Watch also requests permission to question Secretary Clinton in greater detail about her understanding of State's records management obligations - including questions about her various trainings and briefings regarding these obligations. <...> Judicial Watch correctly points out that many questions regarding her understanding of these obligations still remain unanswered. <...> For example, how did she arrive at her belief that her private server emails would be preserved by normal State Department processes for email retention? Who told her that - if anyone - and when? Did she realize State was giving "no records" responses to FOIA requests for her emails? If so, did she suspect that she had any obligation to disclose the existence of her private server to those at State handling the FOIA requests? When did she first learn that State's records management employees were unaware of the existence of her private server? And why did she think that using a private server to conduct State Department business was permissible under the law in the first place? Again, who told her that - if anyone - and when? These areas of inquiry have not been explored in nearly enough detail to convince the Court that Secretary Clinton does not have any new testimony to offer.
The Court also needs to know whether Secretary Clinton was aware of the active steps taken to prevent others at State - especially those who worked in records management - from learning about her private server. In a December 24, 2010, email exchange, one State Department official accidently sent an email which listed Secretary Clinton's private email address to other employees who did not already have that information, prompting a second State Department official to reply, "Be careful, you just gave the secretary's personal email address to a bunch of folks ... [.]" <...> The first official responded, "Should I say don't forward? Did not notice[.]" <...> The second official replied, "Yeah - I just know that she guards it pretty closely[.]" <...> How could Secretary Clinton possibly believe that everyone at State knew about her private server if her subordinates took pains to ensure that her email address would not be widely disseminated? Was she aware of this attempt - or any other attempts - to keep other State Department employees in the dark? Secretary Clinton's answers to these questions directly relate to her understanding of her records management obligations.
As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton's state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business. Even Ruma Abedin, one of Secretary Clinton's closest confidants, testified that Judicial Watch "would have to ask [Secretary Clinton]" herself to ascertain whether the Secretary knew if her use of a private server satisfied her FOIA obligations. <…> The Court authorizes Judicial Watch to do so. And, contrary to Secretary Clinton's assertion, the apex doctrine does not shield her from testifying.
As the parties point out, Secretary Clinton already answered interrogatories in Judicial Watch's case before Judge Sullivan. But after carefully considering the discovery materials uncovered in this case and Judge Sullivan's case, including Secretary Clinton's responses, the Court believes those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. Simply put, her responses left many more questions than answers.
The Court expects that additional interrogatories will only muddle any understanding of Secretary Clinton's state of mind and fail to capture the full picture, thus delaying the final disposition of this case even further. The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiffs counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton's answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch - it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.