April Webinar RegistrationApril Webinar Registration


Clinton Email Scandal: Time To Serve Hillary A Subpoena

Hillary Clinton turned the House Benghazi hearing to her advantage, but she might not be able to do the same if she has to testify about her email arrangement. (AP)

Corruption: A federal judge's ruling could set in motion the legal gears that will produce a subpoena that will compel Hillary Clinton to testify under oath about her outlaw email. Waste no time.

Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Tuesday that Judicial Watch's motion for discovery -- into questions about Clinton evading the Freedom of Information Act with her personal email account while secretary of state -- could go forward. There is "at least a 'reasonable suspicion,' " he said, "that the FOIA law had been violated, and Clinton's top State Department aides should be questioned under oath about her email arrangement.

Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton, president of the legal watchdog group, said that while "Clinton's testimony may not be required initially, it may happen that her testimony is necessary for the court to resolve the legal issues about her unprecedented email practices."

We suggest that Judicial Watch, which provides an indispensable public service, move quickly on this. Voters deserve to know why Clinton opted to use a personal email account handled by a private server. Or as Sullivan said, "this case is about the public's right to know," because the "constant drip, drip, drip of declarations" has created a strong appearance of impropriety.

Once she's under oath, the most natural questions to ask Clinton would be:

• "What were you trying to hide?"

• "What business did you conduct that you wanted to keep in the dark? And with whom?"

• "Was your position at the top of the State Department just a means to funnel cash into the Clinton Foundation's coffers?"

• "Did you make side deals with anyone?"

She won't own up to committing these offenses or any others. Her husband, who appointed Sullivan to his current position, has lied under oath and she will have no uneasiness about doing the same. She can't be trusted to give truthful testimony. The Clintons simply don't know much about honesty. It's not a family tradition.

But it will be instructive to see how her testimony contradicts the testimony provided by her aides. The inevitable inconsistencies will be meaningful. There will be a story in the different webs they will weave. Conflicting testimony could also force a special prosecutor to be assigned to the case.

Our IBD/TIPP poll says that two-thirds of those closely keeping up with the scandal already believe a special prosecutor should be appointed.

It will also be meaningful to see a presidential candidate under oath in a setting other than a congressional hearing. This can't be good for her campaign. The electorate went through an odd change eight years ago from which it has not fully recovered.

But voters probably won't see a candidate being hauled into court as a plus, especially when the issue is whether the candidate tried to deceive the country. Clinton should have no immunity from this because of her political stature.

With an election coming soon, the discovery process needs to move quickly. We trust that Judicial Watch understands that and will act accordingly.