Under the Radar Blog Archives Select Date… August, 2020 July, 2020 June, 2020 May, 2020 April, 2020 March, 2020 February, 2020 January, 2020 December, 2019 November, 2019 October, 2019 September, 2019

Lawyers for Cheryl Mills and State said the judge's brief order in May that put the videos under wraps made no mention of the election. | Getty Mills, State Department oppose video release in Clinton email case

Lawyers for the State Department and two of Hillary Clinton's top aides are opposing a conservative group's move to unseal videos of depositions taken in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit relating to Clinton's use of a private email account.

Attorneys for State, former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and her former deputy Huma Abedin are urging U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan not to disturb a prior order barring publication of videos of the depositions taken in the case brought by watchdog group Judicial Watch. Transcripts of the depositions were made public shortly after they took place.

Judicial Watch argued in a motion filed earlier this month that the ban on distribution of the videos should be lifted since the presidential election has passed, diminishing the chances the videos will become fodder for election-related ads.

However, lawyers for Mills, Abedin and State said the judge's brief order in May that put the videos under wraps made no mention of the election.

"The Court’s order did not reference the presidential election, but instead held that the availability of the deposition transcripts obviated the need for public disclosure of the audiovisual recordings," Justice Department lawyers wrote on behalf of State. "Those reasons remain entirely valid today, and indeed Plaintiff does not even address the reasons actually adopted by the Court."

The government lawyers said release of the transcripts "fully accommodates any remaining public interest in the depositions, and there is

accordingly no basis for disturbing the Court’s May 26, 2016 sealing order."

Mills' lawyers Beth Wilkinson and Alexandra Walsh said there were many reasons to keep the videos sealed, not simply the ongoing campaign.

"Potential political manipulation of Ms. Mills’ recording was but one of the reasons motivating the initial request for relief. On behalf of Ms. Mills, we were just as concerned about protecting the privacy of our client, a private citizen and non-party to this case. Release of the recordings would now — just as it would have in May — cause Ms. Mills undue burden," Wilkinson and Walsh wrote.

Mills' lawyers also note that because of the sealing order and because she was not a party to the FOIA case, they have never seen the video. They also assert that Judicial Watch's lawyer asked numerous questions that Mills' lawyers thought were beyond what the judge permitted.

"The recording is filled with information that we — and the Department of State — objected to as inadmissible or outside the scope of permissible discovery in this case. And most importantly, Ms. Mills has neither been charged with, or accused of, any wrongdoing," Wilkinson and Walsh added. "The release of her recording will serve only to further sensationalize a topic that has already been exhaustively covered for almost two years."

Abedin filed a brief notice with the court Monday endorsing Mills' arguments for keeping the videos from public view. The filing was made public Wednesday.

After Mills asked for the video of her deposition session to be put under seal, Sullivan ordered that the videos of all depositions in the case be kept under wraps. That includes seven other current or former officials, such as Abedin, former State information technology manager John Bentel, computer technician Bryan Pagliano, and Deputy Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy.

During the campaign, a consortium of media outlets asked Sullivan to reconsider his sealing order. He took no action on the request.

UPDATE (Wednesday, 9:28 A.M.): This post has been updated to reflect Abedin's filing.