Judicial Watch has been one of several organizations that has not backed down from investigating Hillary Clinton’s misuse of a private email server.

While many organizations like the FBI were pressured into backing off the case, Judicial Watch has come incredibly close to cracking the scandal wide open.

In their latest push for justice against Hillary Clinton, Judicial Watch is asking a federal court for additional access to files pertaining to Clinton’s emails.

In addition to their requests for access to said documents, the Judicial Watch team is requesting depositions from many members of Clinton’s staff, as well as the criminal herself.

Judicial Watch reports:

Judicial Watch asked a federal court for additional discovery over the Clinton email issue.  In addition to document requests, the new Revised Discovery Proposal asks for depositions from Clinton, Clinton aide Cheryl Mills and eight other State Department officials in order to explore “evidence of wrongdoing or bad faith with respect to State Department’s response” to Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request as well as some earlier FOIA requests.

The request for information was filed earlier in January, and has only recently been reviewed by federal courts.

The push for documentation and access to all factors of the case is one reason why Judicial Watch may be incredibly close to compiling an incriminating enough case to put Hillary Clinton behind bars for her wrongdoings.

Judicial Watch has since been credited as the major push factor behind bringing the Clinton email scandal to the public eye in summer of 2015.

Now, Judicial Watch is arguing that there was a sense of “bad faith” in previous investigations, particularly when concerned with certain aspects of the email investigation.

Judicial Watch reports:

In March 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted “limited discovery” to Judicial Watch, ruling that “where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.” In May 2016, Judicial Watch filed an initial Proposed Order for Discovery seeking written and oral information. The State Department opposed Judicial Watch’s proposal, and in December, Judge Lamberth requested both parties to file new proposed orders in light of information discovered in various venues since last May.

In last week’s filing, Judicial Watch informed the court that despite repeated conferences with the State Department, they had been “unable to reach agreement on a discovery proposal” and that “Defendant [State Department] is unwilling to agree to any discovery at all in this action.”

Judicial Watch has since been concerned with bringing forth two main problems in previous investigations to both the public and to the judicial courts.

Judicial Watch reports:

Judicial Watch’s new discovery proposal focuses on “two main areas.”

These areas are: (i) evidence of wrongdoing or bad faith with respect to State Department’s response to Plaintiff’s FOIA request for records related to the talking points provided to U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice following the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack and (ii) potential remedies that may ensure a sufficient search for responsive records is undertaken…

Overall, the Clinton email scandal is being pursued by an organization that seems to have no other motivation than to bring justice against an incredibly corrupt individual.

What are your thoughts?

Do you think Judicial Watch may be the organization that can bring enough compelling evidence against Hillary to the table?

Leave us your thoughts in the comment section below.