Transcript of Cheryl Mills deposition released

[grasswire]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-mills-deposition-01363/

You can download it there. It is only the document, no comments from JW.

[grasswire]

1. schedule

The next witness is Stephen Mull, the former executive secretary under Clinton. Mull is scheduled to be deposed this Friday, June 3. Former State IT employee Bryan Pagliano is scheduled to testify on Monday, June 6. A State Department official designated by the agency (30(b)(6)) will testify on June 9. Huma Abedin is scheduled to testify on June 28 and top State Department official Patrick Kennedy on June 29.

[grasswire]

2. Mills' attorneys directed her to refuse to answer many questions. nt

[4139]

3. Seriously?

[nc4bo]

4. Oh myyyyy!

My tired eyes may go have a look see.

This is the same person's video interview they blocked the release of, isn't it?

[Bob41213]

8. She's also the person who walked out of the FBI deposition

When they started asking I believe about the deletion of emails.

[nc4bo]

9. Something smells like butt on fire.

That's a "tell" if ever I saw one.

[Mnpaul]

53. I'm up to page 17

stated page 16 on the document(pages 61-64)

and Mills is already screwing up. She claims Hillary transitioned to the clinton email in March but they produce an email sent to that address in January.

she "doesn't recall" very much

[nc4bo]

56. You are moving right along! Reading on cell phone not recommended.

So far I think theh could have learned more or gotten better answers if they'd put a scarecrow in the chair and asked IT questions.

I really would have liked to see the video of the interview but can definitely understand why they locked it away.

Reading this is pretty damning all by itself but the visuals would have iced the cake.

[Mnpaul]

58. Yes, the actual video would have been devastating

I can see why it is blocked

[Demsrule86]

85. hugh and serial

must mean...absolutely nothing. All the info on this is from right wing crap sites...I checked to see why it was blocked...BFD...they released the transcript. So you use Trump supporter websites and crazy JW...nice.

[NWCorona]

7. I thought it was interesting that one of those times was when

Mills was asked about the conversation she had with Brian Pagliano and the server set up.

[winter is coming]

10. Color me unsurprised.

But hey, let's declare Hillary the nominee so she can enjoy it for a few days.

[msanthrope]

67. Yes. Her right and privilege to do so. nt

[grasswire]

68. yes

also telling.

[msanthrope]

70. Of her ability to discern her rights and privileges? Yes. Very telling.

Interesting how smart female lawyers set this forum off.

[leveymg]

84. They're all lawyers so they try to claim privilege. Oldest game in the book.

[hedda_foil]

5. It's a very rough transcript.

I wonder why they posted it before the court stenographer could clean it up.

[nc4bo]

6. It's like reading a book in a car on a country road.

Yuk

[mmonk]

28. .

[AgingAmerican]

50. It's like the Starr report

The establishment wants it obfuscated.

[alc]

54. "Clean up" can mean many things

Of course the people "cleaning" it here would make it worse for Clinton.

[hedda_foil]

59. Not at all Many words were left out so sentences were garbled and ID of speakers was unclear

Take a look at the first couple of pages.

[Segami]

11. Kick!

[DemMomma4Sanders]

12. Why was this thread just sent to jury?

Isn't there a mechanism or moderator who can prevent people from flagging posts to jury....if those post obviously aren't against the Tos????

[Agschmid]

14. Yes the jury system itself just did that. Relax.

[JTFrog]

15. DU has a long history of deleting/hiding links to disgusting right wing sources.

I find it appalling that people use this fucking right wing click bait here thus driving revenue to those assholes. Thank god they are changing the system to insist people follow the TOS, Community Standards and Mission Statement of DU.

Read the TOS and you will see specifically that right wing sources and points of view are not welcome here. That has never changed in the entire history of this website. I would never be as generous as the admins these last three years. Before that time, there was a very good chance someone posting right wing links would get permanently banned. I look forward to the return to sanity next month.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

16. Judicial watch funding seems to target people based on their actions

not their party affiliation.


Source targeting, in this case, seems to be a result of disagreeing that people have a right to express opinions different from the crowd.

If disagreements aren't allowed, without attempts at censorship, it doesn't create an atmosphere where people can actually accomplish anything productive.

[JTFrog]

19. Sorry,

People agreed to the terms when they joined this site. They do not have the right to use this site however they see fit.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

21. Violating someones FEELS is different than violating the tos.

Judicial watch blows the whistle on any corruption it gets wind of, on either party.

Using accusations of tos violations to intimidate people on the other hand should be a violation of tos.

If people can't interact civilly when facts are presented it's better they just avoid adding anything negative to the atmosphere.

[CorkySt.Clair]

26. You should post a lot of Judical Watch stuff

Especially after June 14.

Post a lot of it.

Everywhere.

[Octafish]

38. No need to be puerile. From 2001, Judicial Watch on the Bush-bin Laden connection...

Statement from Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC)

Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, reacted with disbelief to The Wall Street Journal report of yesterday that George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm. The senior Bush had met with the bin Laden family at least twice. (Other top Republicans are also associated with the Carlyle group, such as former of Secretary of State James A. Baker.) The terrorist leader Osama bin Laden had supposedly been "disowned" by his family, which runs a multi-billion dollar business in Saudi Arabia and is a major investor in the senior Bush's firm. Other reports have questioned, though, whether members of his Saudi family have truly cut off Osama bin Laden. Indeed, the Journal also reported yesterday that the FBI has subpoenaed the bin Laden family business's bank records.

Judicial Watch earlier this year had strongly criticized President Bush's father's association with the Carlyle Group, pointing out in a March 5 statement that it was a "conflict of interest (which) could cause problems for America's foreign policy in Middle East and Asia." Judicial Watch called for the senior Bush to resign from the firm then.

"This conflict of interest has now turned into a scandal. The idea of the President's father, an ex-president himself, doing business with a company under investigation by the FBI in the terror attacks of September 11 is horrible. President Bush should not ask, but demand, that his father pull out of the Carlyle Group," stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.

"This has the potential of making 'Billygate' (Jimmy Carter's brother's dealings with Libya) look like small potatoes," added Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

SOURCE: http://emperors-clothes.com/news/jw.htm

[CorkySt.Clair]

40. Absolutely agree it should be fair game here.

[JTFrog]

44. Nope.

You are wrong. And your opinion is irrelevant. The admins have already made it clear what they find inappropriate and they will be putting their foot down next month. People who think that they can continue using right wing sources here will be in for a big surprise.

Judicial Watch and their ilk can go to hell.

[TeddyR]

51. What is "their ilk"?

Is it anyone that calls Hills on her lies?

[DemMomma4Sanders]

61. Anoyone his person disagrees with.

[JTFrog]

63. Their ilk is right wing conservative trash.

As has been pointed out several times already in this thread.

Yet another poster in for some big disappointments next month.

You can expect the admins to make it exquisitely clear that right wing points of view and sources are not allowed nor welcome here and that they posting them will likely have consequences.

This is Skinner, EarlG and Elad's house and people are currently dragging in mud from the most disgusting places. They deserve more respect than that.

[msanthrope]

69. JW is currently suing the DOJ for sponsoring LGBT inclusive events. That ilk. nt

[DemMomma4Sanders]

60. This is a petulant temper tantrum if Ive ever seen one.

and i think the only one WRONG here was the CENSOR loving authoritarian that attempted to flag this post as insulting or disruptive.

There will be no wide swath censorship on ANY SITE if it wishes to play even a minute part in uniting the party. The independants are the key to this Vote. Even the slightest hint of censorship or alienation will guarentee they move to more democratic and free speech oriented venues.

[JTFrog]

62. Boy, you are in for some big disappointments then. nt

[DemMomma4Sanders]

71. If anything remotely resembling the censorship that the OP called for occurs

There will be no wide swath censorship on ANY SITE if it wishes to play even a minute part in uniting the party. The independents are the key to this Vote. Even the slightest hint of censorship or alienation will guarantee they move to more democratic and free speech oriented venues.

I'm not in for a disappointment. I post all over the place, as do most people here and elsewhere. If anyones in for a disappointment its the owners of the sites that watch their base($$) migrate following the introduction of extreme censorship.

The only unfortunate thing is that this will further destabilize party loyalty...but then again this has become a game of we know we lost already so lets throw the baby out with the dishwater.....

[JTFrog]

80. Yeah, ok.

[angrychair]

78. You have to have the intellectual capacity

To discern right-wing nonsense from just plain facts.

What is posted here is the raw transcript of Ms. Mills, nothing more, nothing less. The source is not relevant.

If there was commentary or editorializing, you could whine a little but it is nothing more than the raw transcript.

This is an ongoing legal action that is a matter of public record and concern. Ignoring it or pretending it is not happening is not in the best interest of the Democratic Party.

[Agschmid]

23. Judicial watch is a right wing source.

Plain and simple.

[grasswire]

46. but the document is the document....

...and it pertains directly to the future of our party in the upcoming election.

Censorship here is just nuts.

[Agschmid]

55. Yup and I voted to leave.

[uponit7771]

31. ummm...no...more winger tripe

[TwilightZone]

37. Anyone who actually knows anything about Judicial Watch

knows that they're right-wing hacks. That you have chosen to ignore their history in pursuit of winning at all costs says plenty about you.

[840high]

43. Correct.

[Land of Enchantment]

17. People want to read the transcripts. Juducial Watch brought the civil suit and therefore has

the transcripts. The judge in this case has announced the video taped depositions will remain sealed so they cannot be used for political purposes. The only other way to find out what these people testified to would be to hope the Court or the defense release transcripts.

This is the only available source, right wing or whatever. It's about Freedom of Information. Don't shoot the messenger.

[JTFrog]

18. No thanks. N/t

[TeddyR]

52. So the truth isn't the truth

If you don't like the source?

[Renew Deal]

29. Judicial Watch is a right wing organization.

[Demsrule86]

75. It should have been lockedd

Junes 7th or June 14th if DC matters and the right wing propaganda ends...it can't come soon enough. Judicial Watch a notorious right wing hate site.

[Agschmid]

13. 2-5 Leave.

[Land of Enchantment]

20. K&R. Very difficult to read---not as good as last week's release of Louis Lukens.

They did a good job cleaning those up...will keep trying to decipher Mills'.. thanks for posting!

[2cannan]

22. Who is Oscar Flores and what did he do re: the server? nt

[grasswire]

47. I see that you are reading. Very good.

He is a personal aide in the Clinton house.

[KoKo]

73. Oscar Flores: Culinary Specialist, USN Retiree, Director of Ops at Clinton Chappaqua Residence

Clintons' Attend Retirement Ceremony aboard USS Makin Island

By Ensign Stephen Logan, USS Makin Island Public Affairs

4/1/2011

SAN DIEGO - Former President William Jefferson Clinton, and Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton were guests at a retirement ceremony aboard USS Makin Island (LHD 8) April 1.

The ceremony marked the conclusion of a 22-year Navy career for Chief Culinary Specialist Oscar Flores, United States Navy Reserve, who had served as a culinary specialist at the White house.

Flores is currently employed as director of operations at the Clinton residence in Chappaqua, N.Y.

"Oscar without the Navy, is like me without a pants suit," said Hillary Clinton. "…We call him the 'Mayor of Chappaqua,' because a simple trip to the grocery store or to the post office turns into a three hour town hall meeting. Everybody wants to talk to Oscar."

Secretary Clinton also spoke of Flores' charismatic personality and his broad group of close friends and acquaintances.

President Clinton reiterated Flores' beloved status, lamenting that even the family dog likes Flores more. He said Flores had become a member of the family through his devotion and steadfast service. Decorating the Christmas tree, preserving family heirlooms during a flood, and taking care of the former president during his quadruple bypass surgery, all forged a solid bond between him and the Clintons.

"I was so proud of him," President Clinton said.

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lhd8/Pages/Clinton'sAttendRetirementCeremonyaboardUSSMakinIsland.aspx

[Fawke Em]

77. Wonder if he still has a security clearance?

I bet he doesn't.

[KoKo]

81. I wondered that too. n/t

[Beacool]

25. I refuse to soil my eyes by reading anything on Judicial Watch.

[emulatorloo]

27. It is actually literally unreadable. Looks like 4pt courier on my screen

You'd think the wingnuts at JudicialWatch could at least come up w a PDF w Times New Roman

[JonLeibowitz]

32. It looks fine here, actually. I wonder if it may be your computer.

[emulatorloo]

34. No. Your reply is perfectly readable

Maybe we are looking at a different document. More likely yr eyes are younger!

[JonLeibowitz]

45. Indeed. :-)

[grasswire]

48. I'm not having any trouble with it either...

...am about half way through.

[One Black Sheep]

33. If you download the file, it is a simple PDF file. Then use a PDF reader and you can zoom into it

and make the text as large as you please. I use Foxit PDF reader personally - it is awesome.

https://www.foxitsoftware.com/products/pdf-reader/

[emulatorloo]

35. Thanks!

[One Black Sheep]

36. no prob.

[Jarqui]

30. Five of the seven lawyers for the defense were representing Cheryl Mills,

who is a lawyer herself, representing lawyer Hillary Clinton when she's not her chief of staff or campaigning for her.

Five lawyers for a lawyer witness .. to another lawyer's "mistake"


... nothing to see here folks !!

... kinda mindblowing

[mmonk]

39. We should at least get a scorecard.

[Mnpaul]

57. and she became Hillary's lawyer after leaving SOS

making all those conversations privileged

[grasswire]

65. there is no privilege for co-conspirators nt

[840high]

41. Bookmarking for later

[Barack_America]

42. **lalala*** this is not happening ***lalala*** attack the source

[oberliner]

49. Also on Judicial Watch: Obama IRS Scandal, Benghazi Cover Up, and US Gives Green Cards to Muslims!

It is seriously insane how these crazy far right-wing sources are being posted here un-ironically.

[passiveporcupine]

64. So...questtion about this other thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2096863

Oh No. Cheryl Mills Testimony in Judicial Watch Case Released... and it's not good.

If the transcripts are accurate, they reveal that Hillary intentionally violated FOIA record keeping laws. Hillary mens rea.

Is anyone seeing this who is reading the released transcripts? I'm not going to even try as my eyesight is getting crazy bad.

[grasswire]

66. I am about half way through

..and I am not prepared to make any conclusions. Hoping that someone at a higher pay grade will do so.

[bobthedrummer]

72. K&R#31

[Demsrule86]

74. Judicial Watch

My God you have sunk to a new low...GOP and Bernie supporters ...what a duo.

[grasswire]

76. thanks for the kick

Nobody with a brain cares about the host of the document. There is no other way to see it. They are the plaintiff. This is not JW opinion, it is the document produced for the court.

But you knew that.

[morningfog]

79. The link is to Cheryl Mills' own words.

[Demsrule86]

83. Oh please it is such bullshit

I have no interest in anything that has anything to do with judicial watch. You all can play on Trump's team if you want...not me.

[morningfog]

86. That is insulting and out of line.

You should be interested in MIlls' testimony. Every bit we learn helps understand the scope of the liabilities of Hillary and her inner staff.

I could care less about Judicial Watch. But the federal judge in the case found enough evidence of bad faith to permit the depositions and what the deponents say matters. You should drop the petty insults.

[lumberjack_jeff]

82. interesting stuff

A So I don't remember the mail to server.
3 I'm quite confident I should start with I
4 had to provide a lot of different testimony during
5 the time period when I served in the government.
6 I'm happy to have my memory refreshed, if there's
7 something that could do that.
8 Q Okay. Let's just -- let me just ask it
9 this way: Shortly before coming to the State
10 Department, Judge Lamberth ruled in the Alexander
11 case, in which he criticized your conduct, as well
12 as some others, in the White House with respect to
13 handling of e-mail requests. And I believe the word
14 he used was "loathsome."
15 A "Loathsome"?
16 MS. BERMAN: I mean, I object to the form
17 of the question in terms of characterizing the
18 opinion.
19 MS. COTCA: Okay.
20 Q He was -- the opinion was critical. Did
21 you ever read the opinion? Did anybody ever make
22 you of the opinion -- and he specifically said that
your conduct was loathsome.
2 A So I have not had occasion to read the
3 opinion.
4 Q Okay.
5 A And, you know, I can't speak to both his
6 observations or the set of facts in that regard,
7 because I think I would need to -- to do that well,
8 I've always tried my best to be responsive and tried
9 my best to do the best that I could. And I think I
10 get up each day trying to do that. I'm not perfect
11 and would never say I was. But I certainly do my
12 best.
13 Q Sure. Sure. You said you never read the
14 opinion. But were you aware, did anybody tell you
15 about it, did you ever become aware of that opinion
16 that came out --
17 A So --
18 MS. WILKINSON: I am going to -- excuse
19 me. I'm going to object. Compound and the form of
20 the question. And, also, just if you could direct
21 us to why this is relevant to the matters which the
22 judge has repeatedly said are circumscribed to what
you agreed upon.
2 And talking about another case from many
3 years ago and an opinion by Judge Lamberth, I don't
4 understand the relevance to the topics which you
5 agreed upon were the, you know, stated basis for the
6 deposition.
7 MS. BERMAN: Objection as well. This is
8 beyond the scope of discovery.
9 MS. COTCA: Okay. Merely just to
10 establish Ms. Mills' experience with respect to --
11 as an attorney with respect to handling requests --
12 MS. BERMAN: You're not asking --
13 MS. COTCA: -- for documents.
14 MS. BERMAN: I'm sorry.
15 You're not asking about FOIA requests
16 right now.
17 MS. COTCA: We're just establishing the
18 background.

"Loathsome? No, I don't remember ever giving testimony to a federal judge who subsequently described my conduct as "loathsome". I do lawyer stuff all the time, and this kind of trivia would escape my notice.