Kim Strassel has read the transcript of the deposition of Cheryl Mills in the case brought by Judicial Watch against the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act. Although the transcript runs to 270 pages, it can’t have taken long to review. It also can’t have been a pleasant experience. Strassel reports:
The entire 270-page transcript of the deposition, which Judicial Watch released Tuesday, has an almost eye-glazing repetition about it.
A persistent Judicial Watch attorney attempts to ask Ms. Mills a straightforward question. Before she even finishes, Ms. Mills’s army of attorneys falls all over itself to object, to insist that the query is outside the “scope” of the inquiry or too vague, and to instruct the witness not to answer.
On the rare occasions that they do allow Ms. Mills to open her mouth, it is only after coaching her on what is a permissible response. Not that they need to worry, as Ms. Mills appears to have lived on a distant planet the past several decades.
She doesn’t “know” or can’t “recall” even basic facts or conversations. “I don’t recall having such discussions.” “I can’t speak” to that. “I don’t have a recollection of doing so.” “I don’t know the answer to that question.”
She can’t, or won’t, make a direct statement even about her own honesty. “Are there any reasons why you would not be able to answer truthfully here today?” asks the Judicial Watch attorney. “Not that I know of,” Ms. Mills responds, suggesting that there may be reasons she’s lying, but that she probably won’t recall them until later.
Reading Strassel’s column I inferred that Judicial Watch must have placed the transcript online. Indeed, it has.