NEW Secret Service Secrets!



[INSIDE JW]

Biden Justice Department Asks Court to Keep the Names of Jack
Smith’s Top Staff Secret

[[link removed]]
“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure,
when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”
Patrick Henry wrote. That is the concern we face today with unlawful
government secrecy.

The U.S. Department of Justice is asking
[[link removed]]
a federal court to allow the agency to keep secret the names of top
staffers working in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office that is
targeting former President Donald Trump and other Americans.

We filed a FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
in May
2023 after the Justice Department rejected a December 9, 2022, FOIA
request
[[link removed]]
for
”staff rosters, phone lists, or similar records depicting all
employees hired by or detailed to office of Special Counsel Jack
Smith” (_Judicial Watch Inc. v U.S. Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:23-cv-01485)).

After months of delay, the Biden Justice Department finally
acknowledged on April 12, 2023, that it possessed two staff rosters
responsive to our request, but, citing a supposed “dearth of FOIA
public interest,” was withholding the rosters under privacy and law
enforcement exemptions. We explained in our motion that we were only
seeking the names of top-level staffers – those at the GS-14 level
and above – and did not seek email addresses or phone numbers.

In our motion, Judicial Watch quotes
[[link removed]]
President Joe Biden’s remarks at a November 9, 2022, White House
press conference and provide the background and justification for the
FOIA request:

> _“Well, we just have to demonstrate that [Donald Trump] will not
> take power – if we – if he does run. I’m making sure he, under
> legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next
> President again.” - President Joe Biden_

> On November 18, 2022, [three days
>
[[link removed]]
> after Trump announced he would run for president again in 2024],
> Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Special Counsel Jack
> Smith to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing by former
> President Donald J. Trump. The appointment came nine days after
> President Biden announced his effort to “mak[e] sure” Trump did
> not become president again. The unprecedented investigation – and
> now prosecutions – by an incumbent president of his immediate
> predecessor, opponent in the last election, and leading opponent in
> the upcoming election raises numerous questions about who Special
> Counsel Smith chose to assist him in this highly charged endeavor.
> Are these persons opponents or supporters of the former president,
> aligned with one of the two major political parties, or otherwise
> biased or conflicted, or are they unbiased, nonpartisan
> professionals?
Further, we cite the Fani Willis and the other anti-Trump
investigation scandals in explaining the public interest in knowing
who is involved in this unprecedented prosecution:

> Two recent examples highlight the importance of knowing the
> identities of the SCO’s staffers. Notorious FBI employees Peter
> Stzrok and Lisa Page were both members of Special Counsel Robert
> Mueller’s investigation of then-President Trump…. Stzrok was the
> lead FBI investigator assigned to the probe, and Page was a
> “general attorney” on Special Counsel Mueller’s staff….
> During the investigation, it was discovered that Strzok and Page had
> exchanged voluminous texts disparaging then-candidate Trump during
> the 2016 presidential campaign, commenting that “we’ll stop”
> Trump from becoming president, and citing having an “insurance
> policy” in case he did…. A subsequent report by the U.S.
> Department of Justice Inspector General was highly critical of the
> exchanges, noting with respect to the “we’ll stop it” text in
> particular:

> [W]hen one senior FBI official, Strzok, who was helping to lead the
> Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to
> another senior FBI official, Page, “No. No he won’t. We’ll
> stop it” in response to her question “[Trump’s] not ever going
> to become president, right? Right?!”, it is not only indicative of
> a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a
> willingness to take official action to impact the presidential
> candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core
> values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

> Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis, who also has
> brought criminal charges against the former president, is now
> reportedly under investigation herself for allegedly choosing her
> paramour, Nathan Wade, to lead the prosecution…. Although Wade’s
> identity was already known, it led to the discovery of new,
> previously unknown information that bears on the public perception
> of the prosecution. It helps the public to know “what their
> government is up to.” This case is no different.
In our motion, we further explain:

> Defendant’s argument that disclosing the more-than-one-year-old
> rosters could reasonably be expected to interfere with the SCO’s
> work because it could lead to the SCO’s staff being threatened and
> harassed is entirely conclusory, little more than speculation, and
> lacks meaningful evidentiary support. It also ignores the fact that
> the names of at least 23 SCO staffers are readily available from
> public sources, yet the public availability of these names and in
> some instances email addresses and a cell phone number does not seem
> to have had any discernable impact on the functioning of the SCO….
> Its prosecution of the former president and the two other
> individuals certainly appears to be proceeding apace, and Defendant
> has neither claimed nor demonstrated otherwise.
We conclude that the government’s exemption claims fail and that
the Justice Department’s request to close the case is “plainly
insufficient to satisfy its burden of proving that its withholdings
are lawful.”

Our motion includes a declaration
[[link removed]]
that lists 23 individuals working for Special Counsel Smith who were
identified using publicly available court filings; an additional four
names were located in media reports.

Special Counsel Jack Smith isn’t above the law, and the American
people have the right to know who is working on his unprecedented and
politicized anti-Trump investigation. Given the scandalous revelations
about the Fani Willis prosecution team targeting Trump, it is
especially urgent that Americans know just who the top people on Jack
Smith’s staff are.

We’re involved in other matters regarding President Trump.

Through the New York Freedom of Information Law, in July 2023, we
received the engagement letter
[[link removed]]
showing New York County District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg paid $900 per
hour for partners and $500 per hour for associates to the Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher law firm for the purpose of suing Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) in
an effort to shut down the House Judiciary Committee’s oversight
investigation into Bragg’s unprecedented indictment of former
President Donald Trump.

Through FOIA, we uncovered information
[[link removed]]
about Special Counsel’s Mueller’s budget and staff
[[link removed]].
We also sued for and obtained records
[[link removed]]
for the budget
of Special Counsel John Durham. A Judicial Watch lawsuit also
uncovered calendar entries of Mueller special counsel prosecutor
Andrew
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
showing he led the hiring effort for the investigation that targeted
President Trump.

In January 2024, we filed a lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against Fulton County,
Georgia for records regarding the hiring of Nathan Wade as a special
prosecutor by District Attorney Fani Willis. Wade was hired to pursue
unprecedented criminal investigations and prosecutions against former
President Trump and others over the 2020 election disputes.

Before his appointment to investigate and prosecute Trump, Jack Smith
previously was at the center of several other controversial issues,
the IRS scandal
[[link removed]]
among them.

In 2014, a Judicial Watch investigation
[[link removed]]
revealed that top IRS officials had been in communication with Jack
Smith’s then-Public Integrity Section about a plan to launch
criminal investigations into conservative tax-exempt groups.
Government officials were looking to step up a probe
[[link removed]]
into requests for tax-exemption from organizations with conservative
sounding names like “Tea Party” and other “political sounding
names,” according to a later report by the Treasury Department’s
inspector general. Jack Smith appears to have been a key player in
this attempt to silence conservative voices.

According to the documents we obtained, Jack Smith directed the head
of the Justice Department’s Election Crimes Branch, Richard Pilger,
to meet with the director of the IRS’s Tax-Exempt Organizations
division, Lois Lerner. In one email we obtained, Lerner discusses an
idea that the Justice Department could build “false-statement
cases” against tax-exempt conservative groups.

We later obtained additional documents detailing a planning meeting
between Justice Department, FBI and IRS officials about possible
criminal prosecutions. Thanks to our disclosures, House investigators
discovered that the IRS improperly turned over confidential tax
records of nonprofit organizations to the FBI—sparking a public
uproar and forcing the return of the records to the IRS. Read more
about the case here
[[link removed]].

MAYORKAS PERSONALLY DECLINED KENNEDY’S REQUEST FOR SECRET SERVICE
PROTECTION

President Biden has arrayed his cabinet against not only Republican
rival Trump but also against another rival, Robert Kennedy Jr.

We received 99 pages
[[link removed]]
of Secret Service records from the Department of Homeland Security in
a FOIA lawsuit that shows Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas personally
declined presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s request for
Secret Service protection.

We received the records through a September 26, 2023, lawsuit
[[link removed]]
filed after the Department of Homeland Security failed to respond to a
July 31, 2023, FOIA request for senior department officials’
communications regarding the provision of Secret Service protection
for Kennedy (_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:23-cv-02846)).

The newly obtained records include a July 21, 2023, two-sentence
letter
[[link removed]]
sent by Mayorkas to Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, advising
her:

> On May 26, 2023, Candidate for President Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
> submitted a request to the Department of Homeland Security for
> United States Secret Service protection. In accordance with the
> authority set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section
> 3056(a)(7), and in consultation with the Candidate Protection
> Advisory Committee, I decline to identify Candidate Kennedy for
> United States Secret Service protection at this time.
Mayorkas copied the letter to the members of the Candidate Protection
Advisory Committee: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy,
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Senate Sergeant at Arms
Karen Gibson.

As noted in a previous production
[[link removed]]
of records from this lawsuit, the Secretary of Homeland Security has
“broad discretion” when authorizing Secret Service protection to
presidential or vice-presidential candidates:

> Who receives protection?

> The Secret Service does not determine who qualifies for protection,
> nor is the Secret Service empowered to independently initiate
> candidate protection.

> Under 18 U.S.C.' 3056(a)(7), “[m]ajor Presidential and Vice
> Presidential candidates,” as identified by the Secretary of
> Homeland Security, are eligible for Secret Service protection.

> Title 18 U.S.C' 3056(a)(7) authorizes the U.S. Secret Service to
> provide protection for major presidential and vice presidential
> candidates:

> • Protection is authorized by the OHS Secretary after consultation
> with the Congressional Advisory Committee

> • The Congressional Advisory Committee includes: Speaker of the
> House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate
> Minority Leader, and one additional member selected by the others

> • Protection under these guidelines should only be granted within
> one year prior to the general election. Protection more than one
> year prior to the general election should only be granted in
> extraordinary, case by case circumstances in consultation with the
> committee, based on threat assessment and other factors.
Secret Service protection for presidential candidates began in 1968
after the assassination of Democrat candidate Robert F. Kennedy, the
father of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The new records also show the Kennedy 2024 presidential campaign sent
several requests to DHS seeking protection for the candidate, who
initially ran as a Democrat but switched to Independent after
realizing Democrats had no intention of allowing him to challenge Joe
Biden for the party’s 2024 nomination.

The Kennedy for President organization’s first request
[[link removed]]
for Secret Service protection was sent “Sensitive and
Confidential” on May 26, 2023, from an unidentified official in
Kennedy’s organization and reads: “As [redacted] for Robert F.
Kennedy, Jr.’s campaign for President of the United States, I am
writing to request United States Secret Service protection for Robert
F. Kennedy, Jr from this point forward pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
3056(a)(7), which authorizes the Secret Service to provide protection
to ‘Major Presidential Candidates.’ Robert F. Kennedy, Jr appears
to have met this standard and we ask that you and your Congressional
Protection Advisory Committee consider this request. If you authorize
the Secret Service to protect Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, he will accept
this protection as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made.
With respect for your time and process, the campaign commissioned an
expert risk assessment in advance of today’s request (attached). If
you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
me.” The accompanying 62-page attachment is entirely redacted under
FOIA exemptions relating to personal privacy and deliberative process.

On July 7, 2023, the Kennedy organization, “Team Kennedy,” sends a
letter
[[link removed]]
via email to Kristie Canegallo, acting deputy secretary and chief of
staff at DHS, with the subject line “Urgent Request for Sec.
Mayorkas Re Secret Service Protection of Presidential Candidate Robert
F. Kennedy, Jr.” along with an attachment titled "RFK Jr. Risk
Assessment Declaration May 24, 2023.” In their cover email to
Canegallo, Kennedy’s representatives write, “I am forwarding to
you for immediate action by Secretary Mayorkas the attached files in
the interest of protection by the United States Secret Service of
Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I can be reached at
anytime at [redacted] for confirmation, or to answer questions. Thank
you in advance for your assistance.” The attached “sensitive and
confidential” letter states:

> As [redacted] of the presidential campaign of Robert F. Kennedy,
> Jr., I am asking for an immediate response to my request for United
> States Secret Service protection Mr. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

> You may know that within 24-hours after the assassination of Senator
> Robert F. Kennedy, President Johnson directed the Secret Service to
> provide protection to presidential candidates. Just days later, the
> Secret Service became responsible for the safety of five candidates,
> and by the end of the 1968 campaign, twelve candidates were
> protected by the USSS. The new responsibility was undertaken to
> ensure the safety of candidates and others in their vicinity – and
> to protect the electoral process itself.

> Given Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s well-established risk as a
> presidential candidate, our campaign submitted a written request
> following the formal process. Our request was received at DHS on
> June 1, 2023. Presidential candidates traditionally hear back within
> 14 days; it has been more than 30-days since the formal request.

> As I write this today, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. remains at risk of
> being harmed in connection with his Presidential campaign – and
> that risk is escalating.

> Many weeks ago, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. met the criteria for a
> presidential candidate to receive Secret Service coverage, pursuant
> to Title 18 U.S.C. 3056(a)(7). He has polled above the threshold,
> has been actively campaigning on a national basis, operates a
> national campaign apparatus, has appeared before thousands of
> audience members at events in many states, regularly appears as a
> candidate on national network news programs, town halls, podcasts,
> interviews, is producing campaign materials, advertisements, and
> websites, is successfully fundraising, and has assembled a large
> campaign staff.

> Again, our campaign has not heard back from the DHS since submitting
> the request. The risk to Mr. Kennedy, and those around him, persists
> and increases during this waiting period.

> I have attached the first request and our initial threat assessment.
It is simply despicable that Secretary Mayorkas refused needed Secret
Service protection for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. That it took a federal
FOIA lawsuit to force out this information speaks volumes.

We also recently released
[[link removed]]
Secret
Service records under this lawsuit that showed Assistant Director
Michael Plati ordering his staff not to respond to a request for
information from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s head of security. The
documents also confirmed that Mayorkas and President Biden both have
the discretion to provide Secret Service protection to Kennedy at any
time.

In September 2023, we received Secret Service records
[[link removed]]
detailing
the denial of protection to presidential candidate Kennedy despite
having received numerous threats from “known subjects.”

JUDICIAL WATCH SUCCEEDS IN INTERRUPTING TEXAS A&M TIES WITH QATAR

The Texas A&M University System Board of Regents voted
[[link removed]]
on
February 8 to cancel its contract with the Qatar Foundation for
Education, Science and Community Development, which funded the campus,
ending the 20-year-old program. It reportedly will take four years to
finally close out the program.

The news follows disclosures from our lawsuit on behalf of the Zachor
Legal Institute that disclosed nearly half a billion in funding from
the Qatar regime for Texas A&M:

Texas A&M’s decision to close its Qatar campus is a recognition of
how reckless and dangerous it is for a taxpayer-supported institution
to take money from and partner with a known supporter of terrorism,
especially now that terrorism has raised its ugly head so dramatically
again in the Mideast. Texas A&M has more work to do to extract itself
from Qatar’s hooks. And Judicial Watch will continue to push for
transparency on Qatar influence operations here in America.

Judicial Watch and the Zachor Legal Institute – with the
assistance of Jennifer S. Riggs of Riggs & Ray, P.C. in Austin, Texas
– have spent more than five years successfully fighting the Qatar
Foundation in Texas courts for information about the funding of Texas
A&M. The records that have been produced so far have shown that over
$522 million was given by Qatar to the state university from January
1, 2013, to May 22, 2018, including more than $485 million
[[link removed]]
from the Qatar
Foundation. In addition, because of our court victory, Texas A&M
produced contracts that suggest
[[link removed]]
Texas A&M provided an assignment of sensitive intellectual property to
the Qatar Foundation.

In 2019 we intervened
[[link removed]]
under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) on behalf of Zachor
Legal Institute, which had made two requests for details of the Qatar
government’s funding of the campus but was denied. Zachor is a
U.S.-based advocacy group dedicated to combating the spread of
anti-Semitism.

In March 2023 Judge Amy Clark Meachum of the District Court of Texas
for Travis County ordered
[[link removed]]
the documents be made public.

In May 2023 we received records
[[link removed]]
from Texas A&M
indicating that it received $485,811,921.33 in grants and contracts
from the Qatar Foundation, which had fought the release in Texas
courts.

Qatar has aligned itself with Islamic terrorists and extremists
[[link removed]],
which has placed it at odds with the United States, Israel and other
U.S. allies in the Middle East. In October 2023, the U.S. Department
of the Treasury imposed
[[link removed]]
sanctions on
terrorist group members and financial facilitators in Qatar and other
nations. We argued in court that the Qatar government sponsors and
supports the Qatar Foundation for Education.

In October 2018 Qatar filed suit against the Texas attorney general to
prevent the disclosure of its funding information. On April 29, 2019,
we filed a petition
[[link removed]]
to intervene on behalf of Zachor.

We pointed out in its petition that the U.S. Congressional Research
Service has found serious issues worthy of investigation with
Qatar’s involvement in discrimination and terrorism:

> The Qatari government has been identified as a vocal purveyor of
> anti-Semitism and promoter of extremist terrorist groups. The merits
> of this case ask whether the Qatar Foundation (a private entity)
> will be allowed to use the (Texas Public Information Act) to
> preclude public scrutiny of its involvement with and influence on a
> public university.
We reported
[[link removed]]
in May 2019 that Qatar had given $1 billion to American universities
since 2011, with more than $830 million directed to three U.S.
universities—Georgetown, Northwestern, and Texas A&M. Each opened
satellite campuses in Qatar.

Zachor’s President Marc Greendorfer stated:

> First, we wouldn’t have been able to obtain this shocking
> information without the work of Judicial Watch. For small
> organizations like Zachor, partnering with Judicial Watch creates a
> veritable David standing against the Goliaths who would otherwise
> shut down public scrutiny of their harmful alliances. Second, we
> also intend to continue our work combating terror and hate that is
> fed by the deep pockets of countries like Qatar. While our focus is
> on fighting antisemitism, this issue is one that affects every
> American and we are grateful to have such a strong and effective
> partner.

HUGE SPIKE IN ILLEGALS ALONG NORTHERN BORDER, INCLUDING FROM TERRORIST
NATION

Our southern border is not the only path for terrorists wanting entry
into our country. Our border with Canada is also unsecure, as our
_Corruption Chronicles_ blog reports
[[link removed]].


> While most headlines focus on the southern border crisis, the United
> States is also seeing record-breaking numbers of illegal immigrants
> along the extensive northern border with one U.S. Border Patrol
> sector reporting more migrants in the last few months than in the
> last four fiscal years combined. Since October 1, 2023—the start
> of this fiscal year—agents in the Swanton Sector, which oversees
> parts of Vermont, New York, and New Hampshire, have apprehended
> 3,100 subjects from 55 countries, according to chief patrol agent
> Robert Garcia. In a social media post
>
[[link removed]],
> Garcia includes a recent photo of an early morning apprehension of
> four adult males from Bangladesh near Mooers, New York. “The
> record-breaking surge of illegal entries from Canada continues in
> Swanton Sector,” Garcia writes, adding that a “citizen’s
> report in Champlain, NY, led to the arrest of 10 Bangladesh
> citizens.”
>
> This is especially concerning because Bangladesh is a hotbed of
> terrorism. The South-Asian Islamic country is well known as a
> recruiting ground for terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda Indian
> Subcontinent (AQIS) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
> In the last few years there has been an alarming surge in
> Bangladeshi migrants trying to enter the U.S. via Mexico, reportedly
> to conduct attacks. A congressional probe
>
[[link removed]]
> made public a few years ago reveals that migrants from terrorist
> nations are trying to enter the United States through the southern
> border at record rates, including an astounding 300% increase in
> Bangladeshi nationals attempting to sneak into the country through
> Texas alone. Shortly after the congressional report was released,
> federal authorities arrested
>
[[link removed]]
> a Mexican-based Bangladeshi smuggler in Houston and charged him with
> bringing in 15 fellow countrymen through the Texas-Mexico border.
> His name is Milon Miah and he lives in Tapachula, in the southeast
> Mexican state of Chiapas bordering Guatemala. Now large numbers of
> Bangladeshis are coming in through Canada, which shares the
> world’s largest international border with the U.S.
>
> Last year more than 12,200 illegal immigrants were apprehended
> crossing into the U.S. from Canada, a stunning 241% spike from the
> previous year’s 3,578. The majority were Mexicans who are
> permitted to fly into Canada without a visa. “The phenomenon has
> transformed a 295-mile border area along northern New York, Vermont
> and New Hampshire into a hot spot of migration,” according to a
> mainstream newspaper story
>
[[link removed]]
>
[[link removed]
> a few days ago. Around 70% of the illegal crossings last year
> occurred on that stretch (known as the Swanton Sector), the article
> reveals. “Rather than deal with an arduous journey through the
> Darién Gap in Panama and a near-certain encounter with the Border
> Patrol, migrants from as far as Mexico, India and Venezuela who have
> the wherewithal have been flying to Canada — taking advantage of
> border crossings without any imposing walls or fences,” the story
> says.
>
> A Democrat New York legislator who represents the northeastern part
> of the state just south of the Canadian province of Quebec, is
> quoted in the article blasting the feds. “The northern border has
> been pretty much ignored,” according to Assemblyman Billy Jones.
> He also said the federal government is “failing on immigration,
> and they’re failing the people that live along the border.” The
> surge in illegal immigration is also overwhelming local officials in
> New York’s North Country, according to the report. Farmers and
> residents of small towns in the area are increasingly spotting
> illegal immigrants on their property after crossing from Canada.
> “The illegal crossings are sometimes facilitated by new human
> smuggling operations, often based outside New York, which advertise
> their services on social media and charge migrants thousands of
> dollars to get them into the country from Canada, often leaving them
> indebted to the smugglers,” the news article states.
>
> The northern border has long been neglected by the government even
> as serious national security issues prevail in the region. Nearly a
> decade and a half ago, a federal audit
>
[[link removed]]
revealed that less than
> 1% of the U.S.-Canada border is adequately secured by the U.S.
> Around the same time, another federal investigation found that the
> Border Patrol was not adequately guarding
>
[[link removed]]
> a rural and dangerous stretch of the Canadian border that runs from
> Washington to Montana and is rife with drug smuggling and potential
> terrorism and gang threats. The area is considered an important
> entry point for aircraft that smuggle drugs from Canada, the probe
> found. A Montana senator requested the investigation to assess drug
> trafficking and terrorist threats along the mostly unmanned,
> 1,000-mile stretch of federal land adjacent to Canada.

Until next week,






[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%;height:auto;" alt="advertisement"></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 - 2024, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]