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.

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

  1. Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system;
  2. whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and
  3. 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:

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

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.