It appears swamp protects swamp, as usual.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court stated Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be forced to testify over her criminal behavior while Secretary of State in the Obama Administration.
Judicial Watch wanted to depose Clinton and other U.S. State Department employees for her use of the infamous personal email server.
Supreme Court justices denied the appeal to let Clinton off the hook once and for all over the classified documents and vast corruption tied to the server.
Despite the evidence, Hillary will once again get away scot free for her crimes.
And the double standard of the U.S. court system is beyond disgusting.
It protects criminals but has zero problem coming after average citizens.
The Supreme Court has denied a bid by a right-wing group to require Hillary Clinton to face a deposition over her use of personal email while secretary of state. https://t.co/OjMYc005rL
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) March 29, 2021
Supreme Court Rejects Judicial Watch's Final Attempt to Depose Hillary Clinton About Her Emails | By Jerry Lambe https://t.co/4SHFBLD2Vo
— SafetyPin-Daily (@SafetyPinDaily) March 30, 2021
Supreme Court – Supremely Corrupthttps://t.co/PsUpoXNbZF
— Henry Makow (@HenryMakow) March 30, 2021
BREAKING: Tom Fitton issued a statement in response to the #SCOTUS’s refusal to grant cert to Judicial Watch’s challenge to an appeals court decision exempting Hillary Clinton from testifying under oath about her emails & Benghazi attack docs (1/3). https://t.co/k2YzGjZFDe
— Judicial Watch ⚖️ (@JudicialWatch) March 29, 2021
It appears the SCOTUS has been neutered, and no longer serves a legal/Constitutional function.
It should simply be removed from our governmental structure, leaving only the Executive and Legislative branches – both of which are now totally corrupt.https://t.co/XM77bQWvcQ
— Spookd Blog (@SpookdBlog) March 30, 2021
Law & Crime reported:
The Supreme Court of the United States on Monday declined a conservative legal group’s request to revisit whether Hillary Clinton should be required to answer questions about her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
In an unsigned order issued without comment, the justices declined to take up Judicial Watch’s petition stemming from the organization’s lawsuit over the government’s response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The group had sought to depose Clinton and one of her top aides, Cheryl Mills, over electronic communications in connection with the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Emphasizing the State Department’s “mishandling of the case,” a Ronald Reagan-appointed U.S. District Court judge in March 2020 initially took the eye-popping step of ordering discovery in the lawsuit, including a stipulation requiring that Clinton had to sit for a deposition.
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously overturned that ruling in August, granting a writ of mandamus to prevent the ordered deposition.
Writing for the appellate court, Circuit Judge Robert L. Wilkins, a Barack Obama appointee, said the facts of the case “underscore both the impropriety of the District Court’s Order and the appropriateness of turning the page on the issue.” Wilkins further reasoned that Judicial Watch was likely to use the opportunity question Clinton about matters unrelated to her emails.
“Especially in light of Judicial Watch’s present access to extensive information responsive to its proposed deposition topics, the deposition of Secretary Clinton, if allowed to proceed, at best seems likely to stray into topics utterly unconnected with the instant FOIA suit, and at worst could be used as a vehicle for harassment or embarrassment,” the judge wrote.
In October, Judicial Watch’s request to have the full panel of judges on the circuit court rehear the case was rejected, with none of the 10 judges — including some Donald Trump appointees — requesting a vote on the petition.
From Judicial Watch:
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement in response to the United States Supreme Court’s refusal to grant cert to Judicial Watch’s challenge to an appeals court decision exempting Hillary Clinton from testifying under oath about her emails and Benghazi attack documents:
Hillary Clinton ignored the law but received special protection from both the courts and law enforcement. For countless Americans, this double standard of justice has destroyed confidence in the fair administration of justice. Americans would never have known about Hillary Clinton’s email and related pay for play scandals but for Judicial Watch’s diligence. We expect that the Biden State and Justice Departments will continue to protect her and cover up their own misconduct as we press for additional accountability through the courts.
Judicial Watch argued that the Supreme Court should hear its case because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in undermining the Freedom of Information Act in giving Clinton unwarranted special treatment that conflicts both with Supreme Court precedent and the precedents of other courts of appeal, including its own.
The cert petition arose from the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242), which led directly to the disclosure of Clinton’s use of a nongovernment email server to conduct government business. On March 2, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth authorized Judicial Watch to depose Clinton about her emails and the existence of relevant Benghazi attack documents. The court also ordered the deposition of Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, and two other State Department officials.