The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held a hearing by teleconference Tuesday in regards to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton‘s efforts to avoid testifying under oath about the email scandal that dealt a blow to her unsuccessful candidacy for the presidency in 2016.
This hearing was held as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that aims to obtain records dealing with “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack” (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)).
.@JudicialWatch President @TomFitton: “The DOJ didn’t want #HillaryClinton to be deposed. They wanted to shut Judicial Watch down, but they lost. The Deep State is still running the show & still protecting Hillary.”
— Judicial Watch ⚖️ (@JudicialWatch) June 2, 2020
Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, is also trying to avoid providing testimony.
The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit https://t.co/d3Ee1wCpoX
— Logan Ratick (@Logan_Ratick) June 2, 2020
According to Judicial Watch, the D.C. appellate court is considering Clinton and Mills’ extraordinary request, also known as “petition for writ of mandamus,” to overturn an order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth that would require them to testify.
On March 2, the lower court issued a statement, saying that Clinton’s testimony was necessary:
“The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch – it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.”
Clinton has argued that she shouldn’t be required to testify because she is a former high-level government official and that the FBI already tried to retrieve her emails from numerous sources when it investigated allegations of classified information being improperly stored or transmitted on the personal e-mail server she used while serving as Secretary of State.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals submitted the case, which is adjourned until Wednesday, September 9 at 9:30 a.m., when the former Secretary of State will have to testify.
To listen to the full hearing, click here.
Correction: An earlier version of this story stated that Hillary Clinton lost the appeal. A decision, however, has not yet been made in the case.
You may like
Elizabeth Warren Acknowledges Unintended Consequences of Obamacare
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a longtime supporter of the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, is now acknowledging the unintended consequences of the healthcare legislation, particularly its impact on industry consolidation and rising healthcare prices.
Warren, who has been a vocal proponent of Obamacare, has recently had what the Wall Street Journal reported as an “epiphany” regarding the consequences of the healthcare law. In a letter addressed to the Health and Human Services Department inspector general, Warren, along with Senator Mike Braun of Indiana, expressed concerns about vertically-integrated healthcare companies potentially increasing prescription drug costs and evading federal regulations.
According to reports from Fox News, the bipartisan letter highlighted issues with the nation’s largest health insurers allegedly bypassing Obamacare’s medical loss ratio (MLR). According to Warren, these insurers, through vertical integration, have manipulated the system, leading to “sky-high prescription drug costs and excessive corporate profits.”
The senators detailed how conglomerates, like UnitedHealth Group, with ownership across various healthcare sectors, could inflate medical payments to pharmacies and, by realizing those payments on the pharmacy side, appear to comply with MLR requirements while retaining more profits.
Moreover, despite the Democrats’ argument that the MLR would benefit patients, it has incentivized insurers to merge with or acquire pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), retail and specialty pharmacies, and healthcare providers. This, in turn, has made healthcare spending less transparent, as insurers can allegedly shift profits to their affiliates by increasing reimbursements.
Warren, who has consistently voted against Obamacare repeal efforts, notably advocated for a “Medicare for All” proposal during her 2020 presidential campaign. Despite her prior support for the healthcare law, Warren’s recent concerns about its unintended consequences have raised questions about the long-term effects of Obamacare and its impact on the healthcare industry.
You may like
Media7 days ago
New family comedy ‘Jingle Smells’ executive produced by Sean Hannity releases a day early
Nation4 days ago
Group backed by the Islamic Republic of Iran hacked into PA Water Facility
education4 days ago
Calls for Hofstra University President’s Resignation Over Statements on Israel-Hamas Conflict
Nation3 days ago
Political Gambit or Defense Strategy? Hunter Biden’s Aggressive Testimony Plans Stir Democratic Intrigue