by Frank Holmes, reporter
Hillary Clinton has an amazing streak of luck when it comes to the courts — and her winning record just got longer.
Clinton won’t have to answer for her role in lying about the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, or her use of a homebrew email server to set those lies in motion.
What’s more, her latest legal victory was easily handed to her by the “conservative” Supreme Court.
Clinton and her well-heeled legal team had hoped the country had moved on from the September 11, 2012, terrorist assault on the U.S. Embassy in Libya, which left four Americans — including Ambassador Christopher Stevens — dead.
But the legal watchdog Judicial Watch hasn’t forgotten and it all started with them.
Judicial Watch has asked a court to force Hillary Clinton to answer for her actions, under oath, in a legal deposition.
The group wants to ask Clinton and her top aide, Cheryl Mills, about their transmission of sensitive intelligence secrets over an unsecured, private email server—jeopardizing national security and flouting laws about government transparency.
Last March, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth — who was appointed to the bench once upon a time by President Ronald Reagan — granted Judicial Watch’s petition to grill Clinton in person. Lamberth pointed to the State Department’s profound “mishandling of the case,” which Judicial Watch brought to light under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
But then the Deep State came through with the save. An Obama-appointed judge struck down Judge Lamberth’s order.
Judicial Watch couldn’t be allowed to ask Clinton questions under oath, because it could lead to her “embarrassment”— and that might even be a form of “harassment,” wrote Judge Robert L. Wilkins, an Obama appointee, last August.
He also worried Judicial Watch would “stray into topics utterly unconnected with” Benghazi and her email server.
He didn’t specify which topics he was afraid Clinton would be forced to answer under oath, or why they should pose a threat to her.
Instead, Wilkins said his ruling should lead to America “turning the page on the issue.”
Trump-appointed judges on the D.C. Circuit refused to hear the case.
After the full Court of Appeals decided not to give Judicial Watch a hearing, the watchdog sued Clinton all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it just got shot down.
The High Court rejected the group’s petition in an unsigned order issued on Monday.
Even worse, there was no record of how justices voted; the case was listed as just another one of the dozens of cases marked “certiorari denied.”
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called the ruling outrageous.
“Hillary Clinton ignored the law but received special protection from both the courts and law enforcement,” Fitton said. “For countless Americans, this double standard of justice has destroyed confidence in the fair administration of justice.”
Throughout the case, courts have given “Clinton unwarranted special treatment that conflicts both with Supreme Court precedent and the precedents of other courts of appeal, including its own,” he added.
Fitton has reason to be proud, though. It was his FOIA lawsuit that alerted the country to the fact that, as Barack Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton sent top-secret information over the internet from a security-deficient email server, located in her own home.
“Americans would never have known about Hillary Clinton’s email and related pay for play scandals but for Judicial Watch’s diligence,” he said.
Fitton predicts that Hillary’s old friend, Joe Biden, will let her skate for four more years.
“We expect that the Biden State and Justice Departments will continue to protect her and cover up their own misconduct as we press for additional accountability through the courts,” he concluded.
That’s discouraging, but that’s not the end of the story.
Judicial Watch could still question Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Cheryl Mills, and two other State Department officials. And ugly facts could continue to come to the surface.
But, as usual, Hillary Clinton won’t be the one who has to sweat it out — or face the consequences of her actions.
Frank Holmes is a veteran journalist and an outspoken conservative that talks about the news that was in his weekly article, “On The Holmes Front.”