Judicial Watch

Federal judge orders Hillary Clinton deposition to address private emails: ‘Still more to learn’

A federal judge Monday granted a request from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sit for a sworn deposition to answer questions about her use of a private email server to conduct government business. Clinton has argued that she has already answered questions about this and should not have to do so again — the matter did not result in any charges for the then-presidential candidate in 2016 after a high-profile investigation — but D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said in his ruling that her past responses left much to be desired. “As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business,” Lamberth said. The judge went on to recognize that while Clinton responded to written questions in a separate case, “those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. Simply put her responses left many more questions than answers.” Lamberth said that using written questions this time “will only muddle any understanding of Secretary Clinton’s state of mind and fail to capture the full picture, thus delaying the final disposition of this case even further.” Lamberth even gave some examples of lingering questions about Clinton’s emails, such as how did she come to believe that her private emails would be preserved under normal State Department processes, who told her this and when, at what point did she learn department records management officials did not know about the server, “[a]nd why did she think that using a private server to conduct State Department business was permissible under the law in the first place?” The ruling comes after Judicial Watch revealed at a December 2019 status conference that the FBI released “approximately thirty previously undisclosed Clinton emails,” and that the State Department “failed to fully explain” where they came from. The State Department has been pushing for the discovery phase of the case to come to a close, but Lamberth said he is not ready to do so, saying that “there is still more to learn.” Judicial Watch, which initiated this case in 2014, is looking for information regarding whether Clinton used her private email server to intentionally get around the Freedom of Information Act, whether the State Department acted in bad faith when they tried to settle the case years ago, and whether the department had adequately looked for records in response to Judicial Watch’s initial FOIA request. Given that the settlement attempts and records search took place after Clinton left office, the judge ruled that the deposition should focus on whether she intentionally tried to use her private server to evade FOIA and her understanding of the State Department’s record management requirements. Lamberth also granted Judicial Watch’s request to depose former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, IT specialist Paul Combetta who was involved in deleting Clinton’s emails, as well as Brett Gittleson and Yvette Jacks, who were State Department officials familiar with Clinton’s private email server. Judicial Watch also wanted to question Clinton and Mills about government talking points in the aftermath of the 2012 Benghazi attack. Lamberth said that while they “cannot be questioned about the underlying actions taken after the Benghazi attack,” they can face questions regarding “their knowledge of the existence of any emails, documents, or text messages related to the Benghazi attack.”

Well, it’s about time!!  FINALLY, Hillary is being forced to answer these questions.  All of us would spend the rest of our lives in federal prison for what she did with that email server.  She’s, of course, a Clinton..  So, she won’t spend a day in jail, unfortunately.  But, at least she is being forced to address her brazen corruption.  It’ll be fun to see how she dances around all of this.  Kudos to Judicial Watch for their efforts here.  Excellent!!    🙂

Federal judge orders Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes to answer written Benghazi questions in Clinton email lawsuit

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice and former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes must answer written questions about the State Department’s response to the deadly 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, as part of an ongoing legal battle over whether Hillary Clinton sought to deliberately evade public record laws by using a private email server while secretary of state. U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth denied a request by the conservative group Judicial Watch to make Rice and Rhodes sit for depositions, but agreed to have them answer written questions. He also agreed to Judicial Watch’s request to depose the State Department about the preparation of talking points for Rice, then President Barack Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, ahead of appearances on political talk shows the Sunday following the attack. That deposition is part of Judicial Watch’s inquiry into whether the State Department acted in bad faith by not telling a court for months that they had asked in mid-2014 for missing emails to be returned. Rice initially claimed on several talk shows that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was triggered by protests over an anti-Islam video. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. “Rice’s talking points and State’s understanding of the attack play an unavoidably central role in this case,” Lamberth wrote in a 16-page order. Lamberth added that “State’s role in the [talking] points’ content and development could shed light on Clinton’s motives for shielding her emails from [Freedom of Information Act] requesters or on State’s reluctance to search her emails.” Lamberth also allowed Judicial Watch to seek written answers from Bill Priestap, the former assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. Priestap, who supervised the bureau’s investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server, retired from government service at the end of last year. “In a major victory for accountability, Judge Lamberth today authorized Judicial Watch to take discovery on whether the Clinton email system evaded FOIA and whether the Benghazi scandal was one reason for keeping Mrs. Clinton’s email secret,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Today, Judicial Watch issued document requests and other discovery to the State Department about the Clinton email scandal. Next up, we will begin questioning key witnesses under oath.” The judge’s order amounts to approval of a discovery plan he ordered last month. In that ruling, Lamberth wrote that Clinton’s use of a private email account was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency” and said the response of the State and Justice Departments “smacks of outrageous misconduct.” As part of the discovery, Judicial Watch can depose Jacob Sullivan, Clinton’s former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, and Justin Cooper, a longtime Bill Clinton aide who helped arrange the setup of Hillary Clinton’s private email address and server. Judicial Watch said the discovery period will conclude within 120 days. A post-discovery hearing will then be held to determine whether additional witnesses, including Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, may be deposed.

Drip drip drip…  With each new day, we continue to learn more about Susan Rice’s and Hillary’s lies to we-the-people as they tried to cover up their poor decisions and incompetence that led to the tragedy in Benghazi.  Ben Rhodes was just a Dem political hack, a “useful idiot,” who just repeated the talking point lie that the riots were a result of a reaction to an online video (that nobody saw).  Kudos to Judicial Watch for pushing this issue and using the courts to get answers we should have had years ago.

Los Angeles County agrees to purge up to 1.5 million voters from its rolls in settlement

Los Angeles County has agreed to conduct a purge of its voting rolls, in a move that could strip perhaps 1.5 million inactive voters from the lists of those eligible to cast ballots. The county made the deal in a settlement last week with Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest firm, saying that under a recent Supreme Court ruling, it has a duty to remove names of people who appear to have either died, moved from the county or lost interest in voting. The county committed to mailing hundreds of thousands of voters already deemed inactive to see whether they are still eligible voters, and to removing names of people who don’t respond to notices and who miss two subsequent federal elections. The county also agreed to try to weed out dead people still on the rolls. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who was also part of the settlement, committed to send notices to all registrars informing them that they, too, must take steps to cancel voters who miss voting in repeated elections and fail to respond to follow-up notices. Judicial Watch called the settlement, involving both the nation’s biggest state and the biggest county, a significant win for conservatives who have been trying to harness the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, better known as “Motor-Voter,” to try to clean up voter rolls even as Democrats use the law to expand voter access. “This is a major NVRA victory — probably the biggest in the history,” said Robert Popper, the Judicial Watch lawyer who fought the case. He said he expects most of the more than 1.5 million names on the county’s inactive voter list will end up being removed.

11 Counties Have More Voters than Voting-Age Citizens

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog organization, has sent a letter to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla on behalf of the Election Integrity Project, noting that there are 11 counties in the state with more registered voters, and alleging that the state may be out of compliance with Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The letter reads, in part: “NVRA Section 8 requires states to conduct reasonable list maintenance so as to maintain an accurate record of eligible voters for use in conducting federal elections.1 As you may know, Congress enacted Section 8 of the NVRA to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Allowing the names of ineligible voters to remain on the voting rolls harms the integrity of the electoral process and undermines voter confidence in the legitimacy of elections. As the top election official in California, it is your responsibility under federal law to coordinate California’s statewide effort to conduct a program that reasonably ensures the lists of eligible voters are accurate.” Judicial Watch lays out the specifics: “[T]here were more total registered voters than there were adults over the age of 18 living in each of the following eleven (11) counties: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%).” The letter notes that the percentage in L.A. Country may be as high as 144%. The letter contains a threat to sue the Secretary of State if Padilla does not remove from the rolls “persons who have become ineligible to vote by reason of death, change in residence, or a disqualifying criminal conviction, and to remove noncitizens who have registered to vote unlawfully.” It gives Padilla 14 days to respond, and 90 days to correct alleged violations of the law. Padilla has been one of the main voices in opposition to President Donald Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, refusing to share voter data with it on the argument that doing so would “legitimize false claims of massive election cheating last fall.” President Trump has claimed that he would have won the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election if not for illegal voting, and his administration has singled out California as a possible contributor to that margin. The Election Integrity Project is a California-based volunteer organization that monitors voting irregularities.

Judicial Watch Seeks Docs on Obama White House Spying Scandal

With the news last week of the unprecedented spying on Americans by the National Security Agency under President Obama’s direction, it has become even more critical that we get to the truth about any Obama administration surveillance of Donald Trump and his campaign and the subsequent illegal leaking of classified information in an effort to undermine the Trump administration. We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Security Agency (NSA) for information about Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice’s communications with the two agencies concerning the alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election, the hacking of DNC computers, the suspected communications between Russia and Trump campaign/transition officials, and the unmasking of the identities of any U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition team who were identified pursuant to intelligence collection activities (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice and National Security Administration (No. 1:17-cv-01002)). You can see our FOIA request forms the basis for the new lawsuit and is comprehensive:

Click on the text above to read the rest of this article by Tom Fitton.

Watchdog group sues for FBI records on Obama

A watchdog group on Thursday announced it was suing the federal government to obtain records on President Obama held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The lawsuit from Judicial Watch, filed against the Justice Department in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, follows a 2011 Freedom of Information Act request in which the group sought information the bureau obtained from 2008 interviews with associates of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Those included meetings with Obama, his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett. Blagojevich was later convicted on 17 charges of public corruption related to an attempt to profit from filling the Senate seat left vacant when Obama was elected president. He is currently scheduled for release from prison in 2024. The FBI has denied Judicial Watch’s request for information on multiple occasions, and says releasing what it learned from interviewing the president and his advisers could “reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.” There are no enforcement proceedings related to the case known to be pending, leading critics to charge that the agency’s denial is politically motivated. “This lawsuit highlights the personal corruption issues of Barack Obama,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “Barack Obama and his closest aides were interviewed by the FBI in a criminal investigation and his administration doesn’t want Americans to have the details. The Chicago way shouldn’t trump the American people’s right to know.”

Agreed..

Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal

Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)). The lawsuit sought the same documents unsuccessfully subpoenaed by a House committee. Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress. Judicial Watch sued the Department of Commerce after the agency failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on October 30, 2015 – NOAA is a component of the Department of Commerce.

Good on Judicial Watch for pushing this issue!  To read the rest of this article, click on the text above.  Outstanding!!  🙂

White House sticks by story that IRS scandal was local matter, not coordinated in D.C.

White House sticks by story that IRS scandal was local matter, not coordinated in D.C.

Wow..  Well, thank God Judicial Watch was able to get some of these documents released/exposed through their lawsuit.  Its clear the White House doesn’t want the public to know the facts surrounding this scandal.  And, Obama had the nerve to tell Bill O. in his interview on SuperBowl Sunday, on national tv, that there was “not even a smidgeon of corruption” at the IRS.  Really.  Then why did he fight the release of these emails?  Why did it take a private law firm using the Freedom of Information Act, and a lawsuit, to get them released?  If there is no corruption, then there isn’t anything to hide, is there Mr. President?    And now Jay Carney is saying he hasn’t read any of these reports.  Hes the White House Press Secretary.  Of course hes read anything, and everything, regarding this.  Its his job to protect, and spin for, the President.  Liars and losers..