Dirty voting rolls in Iowa.

[WEEKLY UPDATE]

VINDICATION: U.S. SENATE ACQUITS PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP IN BASELESS
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS

[[link removed]]
Congratulations to President Trump on the overwhelming vote by the
U.S. Senate to acquit him and reject the baseless impeachment charges
against him. Thankfully, the U.S. Senate rejected this act of tyranny
by the Pelosi-Schiff coup cabal that controls the House of
Representatives. That was “Vindication Day” for the President, the
rule of law and the Constitution.

Senate Majority Leader McConnell and the president’s defense team
deserve thanks for limiting the damage to our republic by successfully
combating efforts to expand the trial to further abuse President Trump
and the rule of law.

I attended to President Trump’s celebration of his acquittal at the
White House this week
[[link removed]].
President Trump rightly called out
[[link removed]]
the corrupt coup cabal
that abused him and his family. This was great to see in person. I was
honored to represent Judicial Watch at this historic marking of the
vindication.

There must be accountability for this unprecedented abuse of power
that targeted not only President Trump but also the Constitution. We
have little doubt the president’s opponents will corruptly continue
to abuse and harass him.

That’s why Judicial Watch will continue to investigate and pursue
its dozens of lawsuits on the Biden-Ukraine scandal
[[link removed]],
details about Schiff’s misconduct
[[link removed]]
as well the illegal spying
[[link removed]]
on President Trump and other innocent Americans.

JUDICIAL WATCH UNCOVERS EMAILS SHOWING INVOLVEMENT OF PETER STRZOK AND
LISA PAGE IN LAUNCHING OF FBI’S OPERATION CROSSFIRE HURRICANE

We recently uncovered 144 pages
[[link removed]]
of emails between former FBI official Peter Strzok and former FBI
attorney Lisa Page that show their direct involvement in the opening
of Crossfire Hurricane, the bureau’s investigation of alleged
collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The records also show additional “confirmed classified emails”
were found on Hillary Clinton’s unsecure non-state.gov email server
“beyond the number presented” in then-FBI Director James Comey’s
statements; Strzok and Page questioning the access the Department of
Justice (DOJ) was granting Clinton’s lawyers; and Page revealing
that DOJ was making edits to FBI 302s (summaries of interviews)
related to the Clinton investigation, also known as Midyear Exam
(MYE). The emails detail a discussion about “squashing” an issue
related to the Seth Rich controversy.

The records were produced in response to a January 2018 Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
[[link removed]]
we filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 2017 request
for communications between Strzok and Page (_Judicial Watch v. U.S.
Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:18-cv-00154)).

The FBI is only processing the records at a rate of 500 pages per
month and has refused to process text messages. At this rate, the
production of these communications won’t be completed until late
2021.

Strzok and Page were key investigators in both the Clinton email and
Russia collusion investigations.

On July 31, 2016, the day that the Trump-Russia collusion
investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane was launched, Strzok sent
an email under the subject line “Opening EC” [presumably standing
for Opening Electronic Communication, which would have been needed to
launch the FBI investigation] to Johnathan Moffa, a deputy assistant
director in the bureau’s Counterintelligence Division, Page and an
unidentified FBI Office of General Counsel official.

STRZOK: Hey just realized I need a succinct statement for the Opening
EC. To open bidding I propose: [redacted]. Comments, please.
MOFFA: I would recommend: [redacted].
PAGE: I like Jon’s additions and subtraction.
STRZOK: Thanks. So: [redacted].[TF1]
In his December 2019 report
[[link removed]]
on the four
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) applications and other
aspects of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, DOJ Inspector
General Michael Horowitz noted that “[Bill] Priestap, Strzok’s
supervisor, told us that ultimately he was the official who made the
decision to open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and Strzok
then prepared and approved the formal documentation, as required by
the DIOG.”

Horowitz also noted: “We found that while she attended some of the
discussions, Lisa Page did not play a role in the decision to open
Crossfire Hurricane or the four individual cases.”

The new records show that on July 15, 2016, 10 days after Comey’s
statement recommending no criminal charges against Clinton in the
email investigation, Moffa emailed
[[link removed]]
Strzok and Page informing them that additional classified emails were
found among Clinton’s emails “beyond the number presented in the
Director’s statements.”

MOFFA: I just talked to [redacted]. Yesterday she reviewed some
additional USDS classification determinations (which I’m not sure
we’ve received via email) and identified additional confirmed emails
beyond the numbers presented in the Director’s statements.
[Redacted]

I assume you guys may want to get that info up the chain at some
point, but I would recommend waiting a couple of hours so we can
really lock down the details. This is going to be an ongoing thing I
guess since there are still determination requests out there …

STRZOK: Yeah I think that’s fine. We anticipated and I think
everyone is aware that number would shift as the process went forward.

In his July 5, 2016 statement
[[link removed]],
Comey said:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110
e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency
to contain classified information at the time they were sent or
received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top
Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret
information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information,
which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those,
about 2,000 additional e-mails were ‘up-classified’ to make them
Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the
time the e-mails were sent.
In a heavily redacted August 10, 2016, email exchange
[[link removed]]
Strzok sends Page a forwarded message from unidentified agents from
the FBI’s Washington Field Office (WFO) who discuss Seth Rich. Rich,
a Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer, was murdered in
Washington, D.C., on July 10, 2016. The case reportedly remains open.

A [redacted] official in the Public Affairs office of the WFO opens
the email chain, writing:

Various news outlets are reporting today that Julian Assange suggested
during a recent overseas interview that DNC Staffer, Seth Rich was a
Wikileaks source, and may have been killed because he leaked the DNC
e-mails to his organization, and that Wikileak’s was offering
$20,000 for information regarding Rich’s death last month. Based on
this news, we anticipate additional press coverage on this matter. I
hear that you are in class today; however, when you have a moment, can
you please give me a call to discuss what involvement the Bureau has
in the investigation.
An unidentified WFO agent responds: “I’m aware of this reporting
from earlier this week but not any specific involvement in any related
case.”

An unidentified WFO agent subsequently writes to Moffa and Strzok:
“Just FYSA. I squashed this with [redacted].”

Strzok then forwards the email chain to Page.

In a July 22, 2016, email exchange
[[link removed]],
Strzok and his boss, assistant director of the Counterintelligence
Division Bill Priestap, are critical of how deferential the DOJ is
being to Clinton’s legal team.

In the exchange, an associate at the law firm representing Clinton’s
aides, Hal Brewster of Wilkinson Walsh, asks DOJ officials in the
National Security Division (NSD) if they could schedule a meeting the
following week. An unidentified NSD official notes, “It is my
understanding that [deputy assistant attorney general George] Toscas
may have called over to Jim [presumably FBI General Counsel Jim Baker]
and Trisha [presumably FBI Office of General Counsel lawyer Trisha
Anderson] regarding some high-level participation for at least the
first few such calls.”

Later in the thread, an unidentified NSD official says:

In the meantime, I’ll tell Hal that we will certainly schedule a
call and will get back to him as to timing. Since he knows Beth
[presumably Clinton aides’ attorney Beth Wilkinson] personally, it
could be useful to have Jim [Baker] on the phone if she is going to be
haranguing us re: the laptops.
Strzok then writes to an unidentified FBI OGC official, Moffa and
Page:

You are perfectly competent to speak to the legal obligations and FBI
policies/procedures. We should NOT be treating opposing counsel this
way. We would not in any other case.
Priestap agrees, telling Strzok:

Thank you, and I agree with you on both fronts. My guess is that
George [Toscas] will not change his behavior, but thank you for
trying. Let me know if it continues, as I can always try to get the DD
to refer the issues to us.
In another July 22, 2016, email exchange
[[link removed]],
Strzok and Priestap seem to be critical of Baker’s handling of the
Clinton case. Baker tells colleagues:

Got it. George asked me to participate if possible, so maybe I can
join this one and then see where we are at.
Baker’s email is forwarded to Strzok, who tells Page, Moffa and
Priestap:

Lisa/Bill, can you talk to him [presumably Baker]? This is wrong.
Page responds:

I’m planning to. I agree, I find his participation wholly
unnecessary.
Priestap writes: “Lisa: When you speak to him, please tell him that
I also believe it is unnecessary, and please let me know the outcome
of your conversation.”

Page replies:

I spoke with Jim a little earlier, I explained [redacted]. Anyway, he
said he appreciated the call and would give it some thought. I also
offered that if he felt badly about backing down from what he told
George, Trisha would be acceptable, but still was entirely
unnecessary. Let me know if you have any questions.
A redacted FBI attorney then responds:

We spend entirely too much time in this case soothing [redacted’s]
hurt feelings. I cannot believe that a grown man, a professional
adult, continues to tattle. AND IT WORKS. Seriously … I am
completely bewildered that this goes on in a professional workplace.
And then he calls MY professionalism (and the FBI’s) into question.
[Emphasis in original]
Strzok responds:

I know; it’s very frustrating. I talked at length with [redacted]
and as best I can tell it was his feeling out of the loop (following a
week he was on leave, in an environment where a lot of new actors we
don’t control are participating), coupled with a strong desire not
to be yelled at by opposing counsel. Truly.
On August 5, 2016, an unidentified official from the DOJ’s Office of
the General Counsel, National Security Branch, emailed
[[link removed]]
Strzok,
Moffa, Page and others noting that:

Today [redacted] brought over additional 302s from WFO. Are those
supposed to go through the redaction process for production to DOJ on
Monday?
Page replies:

To the best of my knowledge, yes, they will. When Pete identified for
[redacted] the DOJ edits that needed to be made to the 302s [redacted]
discovered there were four (I think) 302s that had never been written.
What I don’t know is whose 302s they are, but unless Pete or Jon are
able to respond in short order, I would throw them on the pile for
redactions.
Strzok responds:

The new PRN 302s do not. All of the rest do need to be redacted.
On August 4, 2016, Strzok forwards
[[link removed]]
to
Moffa, Page and unidentified OGC officials a link to a PBS interview
[[link removed]]
with
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Strzok writes:

A lot of interesting quotes in here. Is Trisha’s write-up done?
Page replies:

Yes. She wanted [redacted] to have one more look, but there’s no
reason you couldn’t ask her for it.
Strzok responds:

Well, I want to serialize it to the file. Ideally before it breaks
publicly. It it’s not ready, it’s not ready. And we sure as hell
better try to get the AG brief done before this breaks.
On July 26, 2016, Strzok emails
[[link removed]]
Page
under the subject “AG defensive brief.” Strzok writes:

Hey has the AG defensive brief been scheduled? Probably smart to do
that soon in the event it leaks out via Wiki or others…. [Loretta
Lynch was attorney general at the time.]
These emails show that disgraced anti-Trump officials Strzok and Page
were directly involved in the launching of the abusive spying on
President Trump and his campaign. And, the emails reconfirm the urgent
need for Attorney General Barr to reopen the Clinton email
investigation, which was compromised by unprecedented bias for Clinton
by senior Obama FBI and DOJ officials.

JUDICIAL WATCH STUDY UNCOVERS DIRTY VOTING ROLLS IN IOWA

Judicial Watch stepped up this week to call attention to the issue of
dirty voting rolls in Iowa.

A Judicial Watch study found that eight Iowa counties have more voter
registrations than their eligible voting-age population. According to
their analysis of data released by the U.S. Election Assistance
Commission (EAC) in 2019 and U.S. Census Bureau’s five-year American
Community Survey (also released in 2019), eight Iowa counties are on
the list of 378 counties nationwide that have more voter registrations
than citizens living there who are old enough to vote, i.e., counties
where registration rates exceed 100%. These 378 counties combined had
about 2.5 million registrations over the 100%-registered mark. In
Iowa, there are at least 18,658 “extra names” on the voting rolls
in the eight counties at issue.

Under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA
[[link removed]]),
we
sent notice-of-violation letters
[[link removed]]
to
19 large counties in five states (California, Pennsylvania, North
Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado) that we intend to sue unless the
jurisdictions take steps to comply with the law and remove ineligible
voter registrations. Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act
requires jurisdictions to take reasonable efforts to remove ineligible
registrations from its rolls.

The chart below details our data on eight Iowa counties’
registration rate percentages:



Reg. Rate
Total Pop.

Dallas County 114.8
80,864

Johnson County
107.9
144,425

Lyon County
102.5
11,745

Madison County
102.5
15,720

Poweshiek County
102.1
18,428

Dickinson County
100.9
17,000

Scott County
100.8
171,493

Warren County
100.5
48,630

In addition to the eight counties listed above, Polk County, Iowa’s
largest, has an unusually high registration rate of 95.9% of total
eligible citizen voting-age population.

Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections, and Iowa needs to
undertake a serious effort to address its voting rolls.

Judicial Watch is the national leader in enforcing the National Voters
Registration Act, which requires states to take reasonable steps to
clean their voting rolls. In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld
[[link removed]]
a
massive voter roll clean up that resulted from our settlement of a
federal lawsuit with Ohio. California also settled
[[link removed]]
a
similar lawsuit we brought against the state that last year began the
process of removing up to 1.5 million “inactive” names from Los
Angeles County voting rolls. Kentucky
[[link removed]]
also
began a cleanup of up to 250,00 names last year after it entered into
a consent decree with us to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.

Despite our demonstrated expertise and court successes, after our
numbers were announced a key government official spread falsehoods
[[link removed]]
about Judicial Watch’s data, which was gleefully picked up by the
leftist media. To be clear, it is shameful that the secretary state of
Iowa would mislead Iowans and Americans about the accuracy of the
state’s registration rolls.

Again, our analysis
[[link removed]]
of
Iowa’s state registration rolls is based on official voter
registration data provided by Iowa to the federal Election Assistance
Commission (EAC) for publication in 2019. Data concerning such
registrations must be reported to the EAC by law under federal
regulation 11 C.F.R. § 9428.7. This is how we found the eight
counties with registration rates over 100% of the voting age
population. The next reliable report on Iowa’s registration rolls
won’t occur until after the November election, as the EAC’s next
report will be released in 2021.

The Iowa secretary of state’s release of interim voter registration
data further confirms our concerns and shows that five of the eight
counties we listed are still over 100%. Nearly three dozen counties
have a registration rate over 95% of the voter age population, which
is extraordinarily high. Our data has proven to be a strong indicator
of voter registration issues and a basis for further inquiry.

Iowa’s secretary of state and local officials need to clean up the
election rolls and reassure voters that the state’s election process
is being administered in compliance with federal law and common sense.

Until next week …





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU02"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2020, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]