Hillary Clinton Must Testify On Private Emails, Federal Judge Orders; Says “Still More to Learn”

The request comes from Judicial Watch, a watchdog group that revealed that the FBI released  "approximately thirty previously undisclosed Clinton emails." 

Furthermore, Judicial Watch claims that the State Department has yet to fully explain" where these previously undisclosed emails suddenly came from.

The judge's order also gives Judicial Watch the right to subpoena Google for records related to Hillary's lost emails.

CNN has more on a potential Google subpoena as well as the newly discovered Clinton emails:

Judicial Watch can also subpoena Google for records related to Clinton's email while she was secretary of state, according to the judge's order.

"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," Lamberth wrote. "For this reason, the Court believes the subpoena [to Google] would be worthwhile and may even uncover additional previously undisclosed emails."

Clinton's emails were already investigated by Congress, the State Department inspector general and the FBI, and she previously gave written answers in another lawsuit.

But Lamberth suggested on Monday a series of questions that he believes remain unanswered. He raised the possibility that the State Department acted in bad faith when it told Judicial Watch no records existed previously, before producing late last year 30 Clinton emails that were previously undisclosed.

"How did she arrive at her belief that her private server emails would be preserved by normal State Department processes for email retention?" Lamberth wrote.

"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?"

While Judicial Watch can pursue Hillary's emails, they will be unable to question Clinton about Benghazi or talking points for UN Ambassador Susan Rice's media appearances post-Benghazi, the judge ruled.

No date has been scheduled for the deposition. 

It will be interesting to see how this impacts the democratic primary for president, especially since Hillary has yet to endorse someone and since there has been rumor of candidates (i.e. Bloomberg) considering Hillary as vice president.

Fox News has more details on the judge's decision to grant the request from Judicial Watch:

A federal judge Monday granted a request from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sit for a sworn deposition to answer questions about her use of a private email server to conduct government business.

Clinton has argued that she has already answered questions about this and should not have to do so again -- the matter did not result in any charges for the then-presidential candidate in 2016 after a high-profile investigation -- but D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said in his ruling that her past responses left much to be desired.

"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, thus delaying the final disposition of this case even further.”

Clinton's lawyer declined to comment on the late-breaking news.

Will we finally have answers to all the questions previously left unanswered?

Time will tell!