It’s a caveat we’ve brought up often in our reporting here on Twitchy, but sometimes it’s hard to keep track of. Yes, there were congressional investigations into both the Benghazi scandal (where a bespectacled Hillary Clinton threw up her hands and yelled, “What difference, at this point, does it make?) and the Clinton email scandal, but Judicial Watch was the little train that kept on rolling, filing its own lawsuits and FOIA requests independent of the government’s investigation.

So while the government’s investigation into Clinton’s email scandal has withered and died, Judicial Watch is getting ready for its questions to be answered under oath by such Obama administration luminaries as Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes.

IT HAS BEGUN: @JudicialWatch has begun court-ordered discovery on Clinton emails/Benghazi scandal. Mrs. Clinton's lawyer will testify under oath. Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes will have to answer written questions under oath on Benghazi. https://t.co/kka1QCEWtG … pic.twitter.com/JHh90vs7qT — Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) January 31, 2019

Judicial Watch reports that its discovery will seek answers to the following questions:

Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system; whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

We can answer all three of those questions right now, but it will be great fun to see them answered under oath.

We’d caution readers not to expect too much, though; if you’ll remember, Judicial Watch won a court battle that ended in Hillary Clinton herself having to answer Judicial Watch’s written questions under oath in writing. Here’s how that went:

40 times Clinton "objects to" a line of questioning; 20 times Clinton "does not recall" details on email server — Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) October 13, 2016

Like we said, don’t get your hopes up.

This is awesome but at the same time sucks. Because nothing will come of it. All you'll hear is "I don't recall" or "I'm going to invoke my 5th amendment right…" Same thing with congressional hearings. Nothing ever comes of it. — Suspended In Dusk (@BloodAndFire206) January 31, 2019

Yeah, well, nothing will come from it?Hillary will never have to be held accountable. — DVFalke (@2serve) January 31, 2019

Due to the slowness of this process, it will be necessary to get Trump re-elected this next go round. An independent liberal running will surely help. — samuel russell (@sambeaux3) January 31, 2019

What does “under oath” mean anymore. Truth is subjective nowadays… they will go before Congress and give their “truth” — COURTNEY STORY (@COURTNEYSTORY13) February 1, 2019

They will continue to lie as usual — PutinTheGreatOne (@PutinDaGreat1) February 1, 2019

Excuse me if I don't get excited, nothing ever seems to go anywhere with this. Completely lost all hope. — Mary (@Mary98399116) February 1, 2019

Believe us, we know the feeling. Whatever happened to the guy who — Oops! — accidentally ran BleachBit on Clinton’s email server while it was under subpoena? Nothing, that’s what.

But still, kudos to Judicial Watch for not letting this go. Maybe it’s become a joke to liberals, but Benghazi was no joke — though Ana Navarro would probably roll her eyes and start filing her nails if you brought it up on cable TV.

Keep going. America needs to know that those who committed federal crimes in government positions need to be held accountable! — Kevin Jerome (@SUNsetHEAVEN59) February 1, 2019

God bless you. We haven’t forgotten that good men were unprotected, left to die, and then there was a false narrative to win an election (in my opinion). You truly give hope that one can take on the deep state and get justice especially for the families lied to at Dover.⚖️?? — Michele IronCastle ? (@MrsIronCastle) February 1, 2019

I can only pray the truth will come to light @RealDeanCain There was so much NOT going on behind the scenes to save lives because it would “look bad diring an election”. That actually is immoral. — Sam McAlexander (@McalexanderSam) February 1, 2019

Finally something going to happen. — Judith Martin (@JudithM41536075) February 2, 2019

This is a fantastic turn of events. Thank you for maybe finally getting to the truth. — Irateobserver (@Irateobserver) February 1, 2019

Related: