Appeals Court Mulls Making Hillary Clinton Testify In Email Case, Case Adjourned Until Sept. 9

Twice failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has received some bad news this week.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is currently deciding whether Clinton will be ordered to sit down for an in-person deposition to a conservative group about her use of a private email account and server during her tenure as secretary of state.

Clinton has been trying to avoid testifying under oath about her emails and the Benghazi case.

“The official topic of Tuesday’s arguments before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was Hillary Clinton’s bid to avoid giving an in-person deposition to a conservative group about the subject that dogged her during her 2016 presidential bid: her use of a private email account and server during her tenure as secretary of state,” Politico reported.

The appellate court is considering a request, formally known as a “petition for writ of mandamus,” to overturn an order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth requiring Clinton and her former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, to testify.

Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group who is trying to force Clinton to testify on the matters, thinks they have a good shot of winning in court.

The case has adjourned until September 9th.

WATCH:

Back in March, a federal judge granted a request from Judicial Watch to have Clinton sit for a sworn deposition to answer questions about her use of a private email server to conduct government business.

Clinton’s team argued she has already answered questions about this and should not have to do so again, but D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said there were still more questions that needed to be answered.

“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,” Lamberth said.

The judge went on to recognize that while Clinton responded to written questions in a separate case, “those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. Simply put her responses left many more questions than answers.” Lamberth said that using written questions this time “will only muddle any understanding of Secretary Clinton’s state of mind and fail to capture the full picture, this delaying the final disposition of this case even further.”

Back in April, former FBI General Counsel James Baker revealed that the FBI had enough evidence to indict Clinton but decided not to charge her.

Baker argued that Clinton was not indicted when she mishandled classified information because the FBI believed she was going to win the 2016 presidential election.

Does that sound like upholding the rule of law?

Beyond that, it has been reported that Baker is cooperating with Attorney General William Barr and special prosecutor John Durham’s investigation into the Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign.

The investigation is looking to determine if there was wrongdoing by the Obama administration.

This also comes after it was revealed that the Department of Justice announced last week that an administrative review of the Russia investigation has shifted into a criminal inquiry.