VINDICATION: U.S. Senate Acquits President
Donald Trump in Baseless Impeachment Proceedings
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. President Trump rightly called
out 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, details about Schiff’s
misconduct as well the illegal spying
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 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
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 (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 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
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,
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 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, 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, 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 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 to
Moffa, Page and unidentified OGC officials a link to a PBS
interview 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 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),
we sent notice-of-violation
letters 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 a
massive voter roll clean up that resulted from our settlement of a federal
lawsuit with Ohio. California also settled 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 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 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 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 …
|
