By Tank Murdoch

(TNS) In an interview Tuesday on Fox News, contributor and former state Judge Andrew Napolitano discussed a federal court’s decision on Monday to allow legal watchdog group Judicial Watch depose Hillary Clinton.

USA Features News reported that U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, issued his order in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed more than five years ago by Judicial Watch.

The news site noted further:

“The court agrees with Judicial Watch — it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton,” wrote Lamberth, who was appointed by then-President Ronald Reagan.

In addition, Lamberth also approved of Judicial Watch’s request to depose top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills and a pair of State Department information technology managers who were in charge of Clinton’s email management.

You Might Like

Good news for those of us who have been waiting far too patiently for ‘justice’ to finally be served on Hillary Clinton, the most criminally investigated presidential contender ever, right?

Maybe. And maybe not.

As Napolitano notes, Lamberth’s ruling was based in large part on documents Judicial Watch had filed with the court, some of which came from Clinton during her time as Barack Obama’s secretary of state. In Lamberth’s words, Clinton’s previous sworn answers regarding the documents were “incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best” — meaning, they didn’t match up with what the documents indicate.

Hence, the ruling to allow Judicial Watch to depose Clinton.

But so what? As the judge notes further in the interview in response to a question from the Fox News hosts, Clinton can’t be prosecuted for her mishandling of classified emails because the statute of limitations has run out — and of course, she knows that.

So why bother with the deposition at all if there’s no hope of prosecuting her for those egregious violations of national security?

You Might Like

Because, as Napolitano notes, this will be the first time Clinton has been actually deposed under oath. Yes, she was ‘questioned’ by James Comey and his tainted FBI agents a few days before he exonerated her in July 2016 so she could stay in the race against then-GOP contender Donald Trump,

This time around, Napolitano argues, is different. Maybe.

“She has never been deposed under oath on this,” he said. “She was interrogated, but not under oath, in a secret interrogation by the FBI three days before they exonerated her.

The Judicial Watch deposition “will not only be under oath, there will be a videotape of this deposition.”

As to the statute of limitations, while Clinton can’t be held accountable for that, she also can’t plead the Fifth Amendment for that same reason, Napolitano noted.

But she can be prosecuted if she lies to Judicial Watch during her deposition…which, again, is court-directed and under oath.

Will she be? As Napolitano notes, she will be represented by lawyers from the Justice Department — “the same Justice Department that would prosecute her if she lies under oath.”

Can Hillary appeal? She sure can; but as Napolitano notes, she would have to request that Attorney General Bill Barr file it for her.




Would love your thoughts, please comment.x