A federal judge angrily said he was “shocked and dumbfounded” when he discovered the fact that FBI agents granted immunity to former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills during its suspiciously conducted investigation into the use of Clinton’s Internet server, according to a court transcript of his remarks obtained by a government watchdog group in our nation’s capital.
During a hearing in his courtroom, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth stated: “I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case.”
The DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz revealed — and most of the news media ignored — a disturbing report in June 2018 that it was “inconsistent with typical investigative strategy” for agents from the FBI to allow [Miss Mills] to attend the interview of Hillary Clinton during the email probe, given that classified information traveled through Mills’ own personal email account. “[T]here are serious potential ramifications when one witness attends another witness’ interview,” Horowitz reported.
The watchdog group involved in the case is Judicial Watch a group that’s successfully exposed a number of incidents of corruption, fraud and criminal acts within federal, state and local governments and officials. Judicial Watch on Thursday reported that in his opening remarks at a Friday, October 12 hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth lambasted the U.S. Department of State, stating, “The information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the [Clinton email] search and… what we now know turned out to be the Secretary’s [Hillary Clinton’s] email system.”
The Department of Justice also was criticized by Judge Lamberth. He said that he was “dumbfounded” by the agency’s Inspector General report revealing that Cheryl Mills had been given immunity and was allowed to accompany former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to her FBI interview:
I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case. So, I did not know that until I read the IG report and learned that and that she had accompanied the Secretary to her interview.
Judge Lamberth also voiced his displeasure with the Justice Department’s attorney representing the State Department who was using “doublespeak” and playing “word games,” in their defense. The 75-year-old Lamberth’s comments from the bench were given little attention by the Deep State-friendly news media.
The hearing had been ordered by Judge Lamberth regarding a request from Judicial Watch for testimony under oath from Clinton, Mills and several other State Department officials regarding the State Department’s processing of Judicial Watch’s FOIA request and Clinton’s emails. The State Department still opposes all of Judicial Watch’s requests for additional discovery into the Clinton email scandal.
Judge Lamberth said he was relieved that he did not allow the case to be shut down prematurely, as the State Department had requested:
“The case started with a motion for summary judgment [seeking to close the case] here and which I denied and allowed limited discovery because it was clear to me that at the time that I ruled initially, that false statements were made to me by career State Department officials and it became more clear through discovery that the information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the search and this – what we now know turned out to be the Secretary’s email system.
“I don’t know the details of what kind of IG inquiry there was into why these career officials at the State Department would have filed false affidavits with me. I don’t know the details of why the Justice Department lawyers did not know false affidavits were being filed with me, but I was very relieved that I did not accept them and that I allowed limited discovery into what had happened.”
In March 2016, Judge Lamberth granted “limited discovery” to Judicial Watch:
“Where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.
“[Judicial Watch] is certainly entitled to dispute the State Department’s position that it has no obligation to produce these documents because it did not “possess” or “control” them at the time the FOIA request was made. The State Department’s willingness to now search documents voluntarily turned over to the Department by Secretary Clinton and other officials hardly transforms such a search into an “adequate” or “reasonable one. [Judicial Watch] is not relying on “speculation” or “surmise” as the State Department claims. [Judicial Watch] is relying on constantly shifting admissions by the Ggovernment and the former government officials.
“President Trump should ask why his State Department is still refusing to answer basic questions about the Clinton email scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Hillary Clinton’s and the State Department’s email cover up abused the FOIA, the courts, and the American people’s right to know.”