Judicial Watch served a subpoena Wednesday on Google to produce Hillary Clinton’s missing emails from the Google account believed to contain her government emails when she served as Secretary of State.
The subpoena was authorized by a DC federal court. According to documents and testimony Platte River Networks’ IT specialist Paul Combetta reportedly “used the Google account to transfer Clinton’s emails from a laptop to a Platte River server, then used Bleach Bit to remove any traces of the emails from the laptop.”
“Judicial Watch’s subpoena seeks all Clinton emails from her time at State, January 21, 2009, to February 1, 2013. Google is requested to produce the emails by May 13,” stated a statement released by Judicial Watch Wednesday.
Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president, said “a federal court, tired of the State and Justice Departments’ gamesmanship authorized Judicial Watch’s subpoena to Google to follow a lead on the Clinton emails. DOJ and State are AWOL and covering up for Hillary Clinton, so it is again up to Judicial Watch to do the basic investigative heavy lifting to get at the truth.”
Judicial Watch’s subpoena comes on the heels of a lawsuit that seeks records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack,” the watchdog group stated.
In an August 2019 federal court hearing, U.S District Court Judge Royce Lamberth “raised concerns about Clinton’s Gmail cache and ordered Judicial Watch to ‘shake this tree’ on the issue,” Judicial Watch stated.
Judge Lamberth noted that Senator Grassley released:
“a report in which he had some very troubling information about a guy named Combetta who had been one of the contract employees on the Clinton emails, and he and the Senator who Chairs the Homeland Security Committee released in the Senate this report Friday, and the gist of it was that Combetta had said, I guess, that he had created a dummy email account with all of the Hillary Clinton emails in it in a different name, and the FBI had investigated that to see whether or not the Chinese had ever hacked into it. They have determined that the Chinese hadn’t, but that the FBI never told the State Department about that account and that the emails that were not given over to State could have been obtained from that account, but the FBI never told State about it. So it leaves out in the open whether there are these other emails that State could have obtained but nobody ever bothered to tell State about them. I don’t know the status of that and I’m sure you don’t either, but that did occur to me that would be a problem for me as to whether an adequate examination of that circumstance occurred and, assuming that Combetta deleted them, as he said he did before he took the Fifth, I guess, whether or not the server that they were on or the — or whoever maintained the server, whether they can be reconstructed from — by that …”
AS PUBLISHED BY JUDICIAL WATCH
Judicial Watch seeks to subpoena Google for relevant documents and records associated with Secretary Clinton’s emails during her tenure at State.… The subpoena seeks to discover new emails, so it certainly relates to whether State conducted an adequate search.
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. For this reason, the Court believes the subpoena would be worthwhile and may even uncover additional previously undisclosed emails. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS this request.
You may like
Historic House Vote Expels Rep. George Santos Amidst Scandal
In a turn of events, the House of Representatives made history on Friday with a vote to expel Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.), marking the first such expulsion in over two decades. A moment fraught with gravity unfolded as Speaker Mike Johnson wielded his gavel to formalize Santos’ removal, setting a precedent in congressional annals.
Santos, indicted on 23 counts related to wire fraud, identity theft, and other charges, has not faced conviction but stands accused of misusing campaign funds for opulent purchases. The bipartisan vote, tallying 311 to 114, signaled robust support for expulsion, with a marginally higher number of Republicans opting to retain Santos.
Questions loomed as Speaker Johnson left the chamber, his silence leaving the fate of the ongoing government spending battle uncertain. According to reports from Fox News, Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer emphasized the non-partisan nature of the decision, asserting that members concluded Santos had tarnished the House’s reputation and was unfit for representation.
Within the GOP, conflicting opinions emerged, with Rep. Darrell Issa arguing against expulsion, citing the presumption of innocence. The tight-lipped stance of the House Ethics Committee played a pivotal role in the deliberations.
Conversely, members of the New York Republican delegation, led by Rep. Marc Molinaro, asserted Santos’ commission of crimes, justifying expulsion based on a comprehensive investigation.
Santos himself predicted the outcome in an exclusive morning interview on “FOX & Friends.” This vote not only underlines the House’s rare use of expulsion powers but also sets a critical precedent in handling members facing severe legal challenges.
You may like
Media6 days ago
Robert De Niro anti-Trump speech mysteriously replaced in teleprompter at Awards Show
education7 days ago
Calls for Hofstra University President’s Resignation Over Statements on Israel-Hamas Conflict
Nation6 days ago
Political Gambit or Defense Strategy? Hunter Biden’s Aggressive Testimony Plans Stir Democratic Intrigue
Israel5 days ago
Israeli Military says Hamas violated ceasefire agreement by firing at IDF troops