PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – Chris Farrell, the Director of Research and Investigation at Judicial Watch, discussed a court ruling granting them discovery in their case against the State Department about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email server.
Farrell, in an interview with Rich Zeoli on Talk Radio 1210 WPHT, claimed the Judge’s ruling shows the State Department is trying to deceive the public.
“The State Department is operating in bad faith. There’s reason to believe there’s some kind of a cover up or some sort of double talk. The public and the court is being misled by the State Department, who appears to be engaged in damage control for the Clinton campaign. They’ve had enough. They’re tired of being lied to, so they’ve ordered discovery. Which means that we will get to take the sworn depositions of various characters in Mrs. Clinton’s orbit and perhaps even Mrs. Clinton as well to finally get the bottom of this crazy email server saga.”
He hopes this ruling means that, eventually, Secretary Clinton will have to testify about her role in setting up and using the private server.
“We certainly hope so. Our initial discovery plan does not address her. It addresses all the people that actually ran the system for her. But we did reserve the right to get Mrs. Clinton under oath based upon whatever her minions happen to disclose under the course of our investigation. You don’t interview the prime suspect first. You build the case. We’re going to build the case. We’re going to interview all the people involved.”
Farrell claimed credit for bringing this story to light and stated without Judicial Watch, the public would never have learned about this issue.
“We uncovered the existence of the email server through our litigation. The New York Times likes to claim credit for it. They’re lying. It was our litigation that uncovered it because State Department came back to us after a we had closed a case. We had agreed to close the case because they swore to us, literally, in a court filing that they had searched everything they possibly could and had no further records. Then they sheepishly re-approached us about nine months later and said we may have uncovered and additional universe of documents. I said what does that mean? Eventually they were forced to admit, this is significant, they were forced to admit to the court that they had engaged in fraud and misrepresentation to the court.”