August 19, 2016: A sailor is denied a ‘Clinton Deal’ and gets one year in prison for six photos of submarine.

Kristian Saucier (Credit: public domain)

Kristian Saucier (Credit: public domain)

On May 27, 2016, US Naval Machinist Kristian Saucier pled guilty for taking photos inside the attack submarine he had been working on. The case attracts attention due to its similarity to the Clinton email controversy.

According to US News and World Report, Saucier is sentenced on August 19, 2016 by a “federal judge rebuffing a request for probation in light of authorities deciding not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information on a private email server as secretary of state.”

Saucier’s attorney Derrick Hogan argued in a court filing that Clinton had been “engaging in acts similar to Mr. Saucier with information of much higher classification.” Hogan also stated, “It would be unjust and unfair for Mr. Saucier to receive any sentence other than probation for a crime those more powerful than him will likely avoid.”

US District Judge Stefan R. Underhill (Credit: Hearst CT News)

US District Judge Stefan Underhill (Credit: Hearst CT News)

Saucier is sentenced by US District Judge Stefan Underhill to one year in prison and a $100 fine, along with six months home confinement, 100 hours of community service, and a ban on owning guns. Prosecutors had asked for six years in prison.

Greg Rinckey, another defense attorney for Saucier,   says he isn’t sure if the judge was affected by the media attention comparing Saucier’s case with Clinton’s email controversy. However, he states Underhill “cryptically made some comments about selective prosecution and how that didn’t play any factor. … Do I think it may have? Sure. But I think there was enough mitigation that the judge was able to depart from the sentencing guidelines [on that basis alone].” (US News & World Report, 08/19/16)

August 19, 2016: A judge rules that Clinton can respond to a deposition with written answers instead of being questioned in person.

Judge Emmet Sullivan, District Court for the District of Columbia, (Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / The National Law Journal)

Judge Emmet Sullivan, District Court for the District of Columbia, (Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / The National Law Journal)

Judicial Watch has been seeking to have Clinton deposed as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit involving her emails. However, US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan rules: “Judicial Watch’s argument that a deposition is preferable in this case because of the ability to ask follow-up questions is not persuasive. Given the extensive public record related to the clintonemail.com system, a record which Judicial Watch has acknowledged

Judicial Watch will be able to anticipate many follow-up questions. For those follow-up questions that Judicial Watch is unable to anticipate, it can move this Court for permission to serve additional interrogatories.”

Sullivan notes that due to legal precedents applicable to current and former Cabinet officials, he should only require Clinton to appear at a deposition if “exceptional circumstances” justify it.

Sullivan says he is still intent on finding out why Clinton’s private server was set up and whether there were other reasons beyond Clinton’s public claim of “convenience.” He also says it is important that she at least answer questions in writing about this because depositions of Clinton’s staff had shown that “her closest aides at the State Department do not have personal knowledge of her purpose in using the [server].”

Politico notes, “Technically, it is still possible one of several other judges considering similar cases could issue such an order [for Clinton to be deposed in person], but the clock may run out soon on efforts to force such an appearance in advance of the November [presidential] election.”

Judicial Watch also asked for the depositions of former State Department officials Clarence Finney and John Bentel.

Sullivan rejects the deposition of Finney, despite the fact that Finney’s job was to organize responses to FOIA requests. However, he does order the future deposition of Bentel. It has been reported that Bentel blocked other department employees from raising questions about Clinton’s use of her server. (Politico, 8/19/2016)