Time is quickly running out, but those of you who have followed my posts saw me speculate that JW may be likely to push back on the answers they received in the interrogatories from the Clinton attorneys (I don't for a minute believe Clinton put pen to paper other than to sign the thing) and from their deposition with John Bentel where the ONLY answer he gave to ANYTHING was that he wasn't saying squat. In the Clinton interrogatories, she claimed she didn't recall 20 times and refused to answer questions based on rules her team set as parameters (including no discussion of cyber security and no mention of anything which transpired after she left office, leaving out of bounds the State Department request to have her emails turned over to them).

Yesterday, we saw that Judicial Watch filled a Motion To Compel Bental to answer at least some of the questions.

Today, they've posted in their Press Room web page a link to an article from Circa indicating that a leaked email shows Clinton lied not in the interrogatories but when she made a statement in August 2015 about what she had turned over to the State Department (so, I was correct about Bentel, and off about the Clinton prediction...)

At this point, Judicial Watch will not be able to call for an in-person deposition ahead of Election Day, but, it does appear that JW may have grounds to keep the issue alive after voting is complete:

A leaked email raises questions about Hillary Clinton’s veracity in sworn court document

On the same day Hillary Clinton swore to a judge that she believed all of her State Department emails had been turned over in a federal lawsuit, her private attorney wrote to the presidential candidate's inner circle acknowledging the possible existence of additional messages that had not yet been produced, according to a leaked email message.

The Aug. 8, 2015 late-night email message from attorney David Kendall could have implications in a federal open records lawsuit that is still pending.

snip

The Kendall email was written just hours after Clinton sought to convince a federal judge in a carefully worded sworn declaration that the thousands of State Department-related emails she turned over in late 2014 from her personal email account covering the period March 18, 2009 through Feb. 1, 2013 were all she could produce to the court overseeing a FOIA case brought by the conservative group Judicial Watch.

Here is the statement Clinton made on 8/8/15 (pdf 2 pages):

The date used in the Circa piece doesn't quite match this one, but this is the text they use (they have a space for a link to a Wikileaks email, but someone forgot to insert the link, it appears), so I believe this is the email they rely upon:

From:DKendall@wc.com
To: hsamuelson@cdmillsgroup.com, jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com, cheryl.mills@gmail.com, bfallon@hillaryclinton.com, ha16@hillaryclinton.com, KTurner@wc.com more
Date: 2015-08-09 00:24
Subject: Re: Updated Website Factsheet

Two things:

1) As to the server turn over, I think we decided to say something like "the server that was used during her tenure as Secretary of State."

2) I would prefer not to use the "March 18, 2009" date, because we know there were other emails using the her clintonemail.com address prior to that date. Could we make this more vague, like "early in her term as SOS"? Or would this change provide a "gotcha" target--if so, not worth it, since this is the date of the earliest email in the PST of her emails, as I understand it.

(Kendall is responding to an email from Heather Samuelson who has been spinning a tale of how new revelations about the emails are not inconsistent with previous statements from the Clinton camp - for those interested in digging, there are a flurry of emails on this subject over several days.)

So, again from Circa, here's where it gets tricky for the Clinton camp:

the FBI reported in June that Clinton and her legal team never turned over any emails prior to March 18 2009.

So, she swore to have turned over 'all the emails in my custody" while they are speaking in private about early emails not being produced. Looks like we've got another question about what the definition of 'is' is. Lovely. My Clinton fatigue is getting quite thick. Stay tuned for Judicial Watch's next moves...

The Daily Caller takes this theme in an additional direction:

Clinton Aides: ‘Definitely’ Not Releasing Some HRC Emails

A senior adviser to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign told top aides there were “definitely” emails not being released as part of the 55,000 pages initially handed over to the Department of State.

“If there is a release of the 55K, are there others that are not being released?” Clinton adviser Jim Margolis wrote to top aides on March 4, 2015, to which Clinton’s chief strategist Joel Benenson replied, “Definitely.”

The email chain came two days after The New York Times broke news the House panel investigating Clinton’s handling of Benghazi discovered she was using a personal email server to conduct government business.

Same story as told by Fox News: