Judicial Watch Goes Fishing With Cheryl Mills Deposition; Proves It's All A Witch Hunt

[BootinUp]

SNIP

A Contentious Deposition


The entire questioning involved these side trips into disallowed discovery territory, with the lawyers having to stop the proceedings at several points, asking Ms. Mills to excuse herself, while they wrangled among themselves about what was allowed. At one point, Mills' lawyer Alexandra Walsh, snarkily asked the Judicial Watch folks if they needed a copy of Sullivan's discovery order.

MS. WILKINSON: I'm trying to get a basis for asking the questions. So I don't want to have to object.

MS. COTCA: This isn't with respect to processing of FOIA; this is respect to Secretary Clinton's use of her e-mail as the Secretary of State.

MS. WILKINSON: But that's not what the order says. It says the creation, operation of Clintonemail.com.

MR. ORFANEDES: This is not a debate. If you have a scope objection, say "scope," and we'll move on. If your witness --

MS. WILKINSON: You know, in most depositions people try to work together. Because I do want you to be able to get the questions asked and answers that you're entitled to. So I'm not trying to just make an objection for the sake of it. I'm actually trying to see if there's a basis, then I would be happy to have my client answer the question. In any deposition I've done, normally people are more than willing to do that, because the idea is to get you the information you're entitled to and that you need.

MS. WALSH: Do you guys need a copy of the order? I've got an extra one.

MS. WILKINSON: So is -- is it your position -- and I'll let her answer, maybe I won't instruct her not to answer. Is it your position that those questions go to the first topic, the creation and operation of Clintonemail.com?

MS. COTCA: We don't -- we don't need to -- I don't need to explain with respect to the strategy of how the questions are asked or with respect to where they fit in within the scope. We believe they are within the scope of Judge Sullivan's order. If you have an objection as to scope and if you want to instruct the witness not to answer, please do so. And refrain to just doing that when the witness is here.

MS. WILKINSON: I just want to make a record. We're trying to work it out. I wasn't asking you for your strategy. I was asking you whether you thought -- what topic it was under. And you're telling me you won't answer.

MS. COTCA: I already told you that it was within the first topic. It wasn't within the processing of FOIAs. And that's pretty obvious, that this scope is within that.

MS. BERMAN: Would this be a good time to take a break since we've been going for a while?

MS. COTCA: Sure.

SNIP

If this is starting to be confusing, welcome to the world of trying to follow Judicial Watch's many, many FOIA lawsuits.

Crooks And Liars Much more at the link

[Eko]

1. Of course this is a farce.

Any reasonable person knows this.

[Her Sister]

2. Yep!

KnR!

[Walk away]

3. Doubtless! But this will make Rosannadana Dawson and the Bernie Followers so Sad.

[TwilightZone]

4. The number of Sanders supporters who have put their full faith in Judicial Watch blows my mind.

They seem to have no clue who they are, who founded JW, or what their history is like. They're convinced that none of that matters, because...Hillary.