John R. Houk, Blog Editor
October 19, 2018
The revelations of Obama/Clinton/Deep State crimes only
matter if prosecutions begin!
JRH 10/19/18
In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider
chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.
*******************************
Judicial Watch: Federal Judge ‘Shocked’ Clinton Aide
Granted Immunity by Justice Department
Email Sent: Oct 17, 2018, 1:43 PM
Via Judicial
Watch
Court Criticizes State Department for Providing False
Statements on Clinton Emails
(Washington, DC) – Judicial
Watch announced today that in his opening remarks at a Friday, October 12
hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth strongly criticized the
U.S. Department of State, stating, “The information that I was provided was
clearly false regarding the adequacy of the [Clinton email] search and… what we
now know turned out to be the Secretary’s email system.”
Turning his attention to the Department of Justice, Judge Lamberth said that he was “dumbfounded” by the agency’s Inspector General report revealing that Cheryl Mills had been given immunity and was allowed to accompany former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to her FBI interview:
I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case. So I did not know that until I read the IG report and learned that and that she had accompanied the Secretary to her interview.
(In an April 28, 2008, ruling relating to Mills’ conduct as a White House official in responding to concerns about lost White House email records, Judge Lamberth called Mills’ participation in the matter “loathsome.” He further stated Mills was responsible for “the most critical error made in this entire fiasco … Mills’ actions were totally inadequate to address the problem.”)
Lamberth also complained that the Justice Department attorney representing the State Department was using “doublespeak,” and playing “word games.”
The hearing had been ordered by Judge Lamberth regarding a request from Judicial Watch for testimony under oath from Clinton, Mills and several other State Department officials regarding the State Department’s processing of Judicial Watch’s FOIA request and Clinton’s emails. The State Department still opposes all of Judicial Watch’s requests for additional discovery into the Clinton email scandal.
Judge Lamberth said he was relieved that he did not allow the case to be shut down prematurely, as the State Department had requested:
Turning his attention to the Department of Justice, Judge Lamberth said that he was “dumbfounded” by the agency’s Inspector General report revealing that Cheryl Mills had been given immunity and was allowed to accompany former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to her FBI interview:
I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case. So I did not know that until I read the IG report and learned that and that she had accompanied the Secretary to her interview.
(In an April 28, 2008, ruling relating to Mills’ conduct as a White House official in responding to concerns about lost White House email records, Judge Lamberth called Mills’ participation in the matter “loathsome.” He further stated Mills was responsible for “the most critical error made in this entire fiasco … Mills’ actions were totally inadequate to address the problem.”)
Lamberth also complained that the Justice Department attorney representing the State Department was using “doublespeak,” and playing “word games.”
The hearing had been ordered by Judge Lamberth regarding a request from Judicial Watch for testimony under oath from Clinton, Mills and several other State Department officials regarding the State Department’s processing of Judicial Watch’s FOIA request and Clinton’s emails. The State Department still opposes all of Judicial Watch’s requests for additional discovery into the Clinton email scandal.
Judge Lamberth said he was relieved that he did not allow the case to be shut down prematurely, as the State Department had requested:
The case started with a motion for
summary judgment [seeking to close the case] here and which I denied and
allowed limited discovery because it was clear to me that at the time that I
ruled initially, that false statements were made to me by career State
Department officials and it became more clear through discovery that the
information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the
search and this – what we now know turned out to be the Secretary’s email
system.
I don’t know the details of what kind of IG inquiry there was into why these career officials at the State Department would have filed false affidavits with me. I don’t know the details of why the Justice Department lawyers did not know false affidavits were being filed with me, but I was very relieved that I did not accept them and that I allowed limited discovery into what had happened.
Judge Lamberth also said the State Department was using
“doublespeak” and word games:
THE COURT: The State Department
told me that it had produced all records when it moved for summary judgment and
you filed that motion. That was not true when that motion was filed.
MR. PRINCE: At that time, we had produced all –
THE COURT: It was not true.
MR. PRINCE: Yes, it was – well, Your Honor, it might be that our search could be found to be inadequate, but that declaration was absolutely true.
THE COURT: It was not true. It was a lie.
MR. PRINCE: It was not a lie, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What – that’s doublespeak.
MR. PRINCE: At that time, we had produced all –
THE COURT: It was not true.
MR. PRINCE: Yes, it was – well, Your Honor, it might be that our search could be found to be inadequate, but that declaration was absolutely true.
THE COURT: It was not true. It was a lie.
MR. PRINCE: It was not a lie, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What – that’s doublespeak.
***
PRINCE: There’s strong precedent
saying that items not in the State’s possession do not need to be searched….
THE COURT: And that’s because
the Secretary was doing this on a private server? So it wasn’t in the
State’s possession?… So you’re playing the same word game she played?
In March 2016, Judge Lamberth granted “limited discovery” to Judicial Watch:
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.
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.
***
[Judicial Watch] is certainly
entitled to dispute the State Department’s position that it has no obligation
to produce these documents because it did not “possess” or “control” them at
the time the FOIA request was made. The State Department’s willingness to now
search documents voluntarily turned over to the Department by Secretary Clinton
and other officials hardly transforms such a search into an “adequate” or
“reasonable one. [Judicial Watch] is not relying on “speculation” or “surmise”
as the State Department claims. [Judicial Watch] is relying on constantly
shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials.
The development comes in Judicial Watch’s July 2014
FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of
State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No.
1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:
·
Copies of any updates
and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal
agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on
the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
·
Any and all records or
communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates
on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any
federal agency.
This Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the
disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.
In May 2016, Judicial Watch filed an initial Proposed Order for Discovery seeking additional information. The State Department opposed Judicial Watch’s proposal, and in December 2016 Judge Lamberth requested both parties to file new proposed orders in light of information discovered in various venues since the previous May.
The full transcript of the hearing is available here.
“President Trump should ask why his State Department is still refusing to answer basic questions about the Clinton email scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Hillary Clinton’s and the State Department’s email cover up abused the FOIA, the courts, and the American people’s right to know.”
Watch additional comments from Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here.
In May 2016, Judicial Watch filed an initial Proposed Order for Discovery seeking additional information. The State Department opposed Judicial Watch’s proposal, and in December 2016 Judge Lamberth requested both parties to file new proposed orders in light of information discovered in various venues since the previous May.
The full transcript of the hearing is available here.
“President Trump should ask why his State Department is still refusing to answer basic questions about the Clinton email scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Hillary Clinton’s and the State Department’s email cover up abused the FOIA, the courts, and the American people’s right to know.”
Watch additional comments from Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here.
###
Judicial Watch: FBI Documents Detail Weiner
Laptop/Clinton Email Find Just Before the 2016 Election
Email Sent: Oct 17, 2018 2:58 PM
Via Judicial
Watch
‘A significant number of these 340,000 emails appeared
to be between Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton …’
(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced
today that it has received 45 pages of FBI documents that reveal a
“significant number” of 340,000 emails on the laptop of disgraced former
Congressman Anthony Weiner were between the former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and her top aide Huma Abedin.
Judicial Watch obtained the documents as the result of a September 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the Justice Department did not act on two FOIA requests for Anthony Weiner laptop investigation documents, including any Clinton emails found on the laptop (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No.1:18-cv-02105)).
The new documents include an October 3, 2016, email to a FBI official in New York that reads:
Judicial Watch obtained the documents as the result of a September 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the Justice Department did not act on two FOIA requests for Anthony Weiner laptop investigation documents, including any Clinton emails found on the laptop (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No.1:18-cv-02105)).
The new documents include an October 3, 2016, email to a FBI official in New York that reads:
Just putting this on the record
because of the optics of this case.
During the course of my review of a computer seized from Anthony Weiner, a seizure and search of which was authorized by an SDNY [Southern District of New York] Search Warrant, I encountered approximately/at least 340,000 emails stored on the computer. The large number of emails appears to be a result of a mail client program installed on that computer (such as Outlook) that pulled emails from servers belonging to both Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin.
A significant number of these 340,000 emails appeared to be between Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton (the latter who appears to have used a number of different email addresses). This is based simply a review of the header information. I did not review content of these emails, as the warrant only authorized me to view items that would give me probable cause to believe that CP [child pornography] evidence may reside therein.
SDNY is comfortable with me continuing my review as I have, which is to NOT read any emails to/from Anthony Weiner to which his wife, or a possible attorney is a party. Even if there is a third party on those emails, I will not review their content out of an abundance of caution. Obviously, I will not review any emails to which Anthony Weiner is not a party (such as emails between Ms. Abedin and Mrs. Clinton). I just wanted to formally bring this to your attention due to the pending election, the ongoing Congressional investigation into the FBI’s own investigation into Ms. Clinton’s email activities, etc.
During the course of my review of a computer seized from Anthony Weiner, a seizure and search of which was authorized by an SDNY [Southern District of New York] Search Warrant, I encountered approximately/at least 340,000 emails stored on the computer. The large number of emails appears to be a result of a mail client program installed on that computer (such as Outlook) that pulled emails from servers belonging to both Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin.
A significant number of these 340,000 emails appeared to be between Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton (the latter who appears to have used a number of different email addresses). This is based simply a review of the header information. I did not review content of these emails, as the warrant only authorized me to view items that would give me probable cause to believe that CP [child pornography] evidence may reside therein.
SDNY is comfortable with me continuing my review as I have, which is to NOT read any emails to/from Anthony Weiner to which his wife, or a possible attorney is a party. Even if there is a third party on those emails, I will not review their content out of an abundance of caution. Obviously, I will not review any emails to which Anthony Weiner is not a party (such as emails between Ms. Abedin and Mrs. Clinton). I just wanted to formally bring this to your attention due to the pending election, the ongoing Congressional investigation into the FBI’s own investigation into Ms. Clinton’s email activities, etc.
The documents also include a September 29, 2016, FBI report indicating that after agents served
unidentified persons with a grand jury subpoena on September 22, “Discussions
immediately ensued between the US Attorneys’ Offices in the Southern District
of New York (SDNY) and [redacted], as well as the Department of Justice in
Washington, DC.”
RealClear Investigations’ reporter Paul Sperry reported that only 3,077 of the emails found on the Weiner laptop “were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.”
In a related case, Judicial Watch obtained an email revealing that fired FBI official Peter Strzok created the initial draft of the October 2016 letter then-FBI director James Comey sent to Congress notifying lawmakers of the discovery of Hillary Clinton emails on Weiner’s laptop.
The notification to Congress, according the DOJ IG, came a full month after the emails were discovered by the FBI on Weiner’s laptop. The delay, the IG suggests, may have been the result of anti-Trump bias by FBI official Peter Strzok and others:
RealClear Investigations’ reporter Paul Sperry reported that only 3,077 of the emails found on the Weiner laptop “were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.”
In a related case, Judicial Watch obtained an email revealing that fired FBI official Peter Strzok created the initial draft of the October 2016 letter then-FBI director James Comey sent to Congress notifying lawmakers of the discovery of Hillary Clinton emails on Weiner’s laptop.
The notification to Congress, according the DOJ IG, came a full month after the emails were discovered by the FBI on Weiner’s laptop. The delay, the IG suggests, may have been the result of anti-Trump bias by FBI official Peter Strzok and others:
In September 2016, the FBI’s New
York Field Office (NYO) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern
District of New York (SDNY) began investigating former Congressman Anthony
Weiner for his online relationship with a minor. A federal search warrant was
obtained on September 26, 2016, for Weiner’s iPhone, iPad, and laptop computer.
The FBI obtained these devices the same day. The search warrant authorized the
government to search for evidence relating to the following crimes:
transmitting obscene material to a minor, sexual exploitation of children, and
activities related to child pornography.
The Weiner case agent told the OIG that he began processing Weiner’s devices on September 26, and that he noticed “within hours” that there were “over 300,000 emails on the laptop.”
The Weiner case agent told the OIG that he began processing Weiner’s devices on September 26, and that he noticed “within hours” that there were “over 300,000 emails on the laptop.”
***
In assessing the decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop, we were particularly concerned about text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions they made were impacted by bias or improper considerations.
***
After October 4, we found no evidence that anyone associated with the Midyear investigation, including the entire leadership team at FBI Headquarters, took any action on the Weiner laptop issue until the week of October 24, and then did so only after SDNY raised concerns about the lack of action.
“These new documents show the FBI knowingly sat on the
Clinton emails for over a month before notifying Congress,” said Judicial Watch
President Tom Fitton. “And even worse, we now know the FBI didn’t even bother
to look at the emails, and then again only partially, for weeks. The Clinton
email scandal needs to be reviewed again and immediately by the Justice
Department.”
###
______________________
Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organization. Contributions
are received from individuals, foundations, and
corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.
425 Third Street SW, Suite
800
Washington, DC 20024
888-593-8442
Washington, DC 20024
888-593-8442
No comments:
Post a Comment