Remember when Hillary Clinton told the American public that she deleted nearly 30,000 emails from her private email server because they were about “yoga routines” and family matters. Well, Judicial Watch says it is working overtime to find out what kind of damning evidence those emails really contain.

The State Department has already released about 55,000 pages of documents that Clinton and the aides that wiped her server (no with a cloth) deemed work-related. As journalists continue to dig through the information contained in those emails, we’ve learned all kinds of interesting things about Clinton’s skeezy dealings while at State.

But Clinton deleted some 30,000 emails, claiming that they only consisted of love notes to Bill, stuff about “family vacations,” details about her exercise routines and other mundane correspondence.

Privacy advocates, understandably, remain unconvinced.

Judicial Watch head Tom Fitton has been trying to figure out how to make those emails public– or at least make sure they get reviewed by the appropriate government authorities.

Last week, a federal judge handed the watchdog a major victory by granting a motion for discovery ” into whether the State Department and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton deliberately thwarted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for six years.”

District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has asked Judicial Watch to propose a “narrowly tailored” information gathering plan.

Fitton acknowledges that it’ll take months– but he says the motion gives the organization the tools it needs to find the wiped information.

“They’re all going to get reviewed eventually, despite Mrs. Clinton’s resistance,” he recently told The Hill.

Even information Clinton may have tried to destroy completely is likely still retrievable. Fitton contends that talking to Clinton’s IT handlers could explain how.

“We believe they’re out there,” Fitton said. “That’s one of the things we’re going to be asking.”

“Ultimately, all the records on her system will be reviewed and released to the public, as the law requires,” he continued. “Some things may not be turned over because they truly are something that we can’t see, because they’re classified or private or something else.”