Politics

Judge Rules Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes Must Answer Questions About Benghazi In Clinton Email Lawsuit

Federal judge Royce C. Lamberth has ordered former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and former Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes to answer written questions pertaining to the State Department’s response to the Benghazi terror attack in 2012.

The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, seeking emails related to the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound that resulted in the deaths of four Americans.

While the judge denied the group’s request to have Rice and Rhodes sit for depositions, he did grant them the opportunity to present written questions that the pair must answer.

He also agreed that other Clinton aides can now be deposed under oath over the infamous Benghazi talking point that the terror attack was the result of a YouTube video, something Rice herself conveyed time and again to the American people long after they knew it was not true.

“Rice’s talking points and State’s understanding of the attack play an unavoidably central role in this case,” Lamberth wrote in his 16-page order.

“Information about the points’ development and content, as well as their discussion and dissemination before and after Rice’s appearances could reveal unsearched, relevant records; State’s role in the points’ content and development could shed light on Clinton’s motives for shielding her emails from FOIA requesters or on State’s reluctance to search her emails.”

Judge Has Shredded State and Justice Departments under Obama

Last month, Lamberth slammed the State and Justice departments under Barack Obama for their response (or lack thereof) to inquiries made about Clinton’s private email server.

He referred to Clinton’s use of the server to avoid public scrutiny of her activities as Secretary of State as “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency” and said the subsequent responses from the State and Justice Departments “smack(s) of outrageous misconduct.”

“At worst, career employees in the State and Justice departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this court,” Lamberth wrote.

Prior to that, the judge accused officials of lying and signing “clearly false” affidavits in an attempt to prevent watchdog groups from attaining information on Clinton’s server.

He noted certain elements of the department’s attempts to derail the case had left him “shocked” and “dumbfounded.”

Victory For Accountability

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called Lamberth’s ruling “a major victory for accountability.”

“Judge Lamberth today authorized Judicial Watch to take discovery on whether the Clinton email system evaded FOIA and whether the Benghazi scandal was one reason for keeping Mrs. Clinton’s email secret,” Fitton said.

“Next up, we will begin questioning key witnesses under oath.”

It seems as though, as Charlie Daniels reminds us on a daily basis, “Benghazi ain’t going away” anytime soon. Nor should it.

Rusty Weiss

Rusty Weiss is a freelance writer focusing on the conservative movement and its political agenda. He has been following and analyzing the political climate for several years, and his writings have appeared in the Daily Caller, FoxNews.com and more.

View Comments

  • Well halleluyah we finally got a Federal Judge who has the balls to seek the truth about the Benghazi massacre and the Hillary Clinton email scandal.. There is to the American people a need to know just what all transpired on both Benghazi and Clinton email scandal. The people are wanting answers , arrests, indictments as it is as plain as the noses on our faces that both of these unanswered travesties headed up by Hillary Clinton were criminal activities involved. The people want justice to be served. The Obama administration was laced with criminal corruption throughout and those involved were protected by Obama appointees so the guilty could never be brought to trial and the truth be known. Maybe now that blind folded lady holding a set of scales can finally find out the truth...Hopefully the new Attorney General will reopen these cases and do so big time investigating and see who in the DC swamp is guilty of crimes especially against our President...We the people will be following the t come of these cases as they are being looked at again..

  • The whole crowd is guilty and it is about time they spend time in prison. The laws apply to them too.

  • The whole crowd is guilty and it is about time they spend time in prison. The laws apply to them too.

  • hillary DESTROYED 30,000+ emails she was SUBPOENAED by Congress to hand OVER....So, why would these TWO tell the TRUTH now about Benghazi that hillary/obozo committed "DERELICTION of DUTY" back then and trying to cover it all up by telling LIES about a VIDEO that NOBODY even knew existed.....???

  • hillary DESTROYED 30,000+ emails she was SUBPOENAED by Congress to hand OVER....So, why would these TWO tell the TRUTH now about Benghazi that hillary/obozo committed "DERELICTION of DUTY" back then and trying to cover it all up by telling LIES about a VIDEO that NOBODY even knew existed.....???

  • When Hillary got her security clearance she had to sign a document acknowledging she was aware of the necessity to protect such material and the penalty for not doing so. How does the FBI/DOJ let her get away with breaking this law? 
     
    18 U.S. Code 1924 — “Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material” — clearly states that anyone who “knowingly removes” materials “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.”

  • When Hillary got her security clearance she had to sign a document acknowledging she was aware of the necessity to protect such material and the penalty for not doing so. How does the FBI/DOJ let her get away with breaking this law? 
     
    18 U.S. Code 1924 — “Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material” — clearly states that anyone who “knowingly removes” materials “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.”

  • From everything I have ever seen about judge Royce C. Lamberth he is a very good NO NONSENSE judge. They better not show up in his court room with scrubbed and redacted materials.

Recent Posts

FLASHBACK: Presidential Hopeful Nikki Haley Promoted the Bubba Wallace ‘Noose’ Hoax

The list of potential Republican presidential candidates for 2024 is growing faster than President Volodymyr…

1 day ago

Speaker McCarthy Defends Police Officer Who Killed Ashli Babbitt: He ‘Did His Job’

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy defended Capitol Police officer Lieutenant Michael Byrd, who shot and killed…

1 day ago

Joe Manchin’s Wife’s Organization Received $200 Million from Omnibus Bill

By Adam Andrzejewski for RealClearPolicy Included in the $1.7 trillion omnibus package supported by Sen. Joe Manchin…

1 day ago

Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders Set to Ban Drag Shows for Children in Arkansas

Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders is poised to sign a bill that will re-define drag…

1 day ago

In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson Explained the Correct Way to Handle the Ukraine-Russia War

Editor's note: In his first inaugural address, after the "Revolution of 1800," President Thomas Jefferson…

1 day ago

Trump Makes Impassioned Plea Calling for Peace, End to War in Ukraine

Donald Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President in 2024, is calling for…

1 day ago