‘Weiner Timeline': How the FBI Gave Hillary Cover During the Election



 

RIDS employees have been designated as not mission-critical and sent home as of March 17, 2020. Only a limited number of managers are being permitted to report to the office, but no FOIA processing is occurring as of March 17, 2020. While RIDS currently anticipates that its staff will return to work on March 30, 2020, this situation remains fluid and will be regularly re-assessed as circumstances change. As of March 17,2020, no further production of records pursuant to FOIA will be made, whether those productions are in relation to requests in litigation or at the administrative stage.

• All records of contact or communication, including but not limited to emails, text messages, and instant chats between Bruce Ohr and any of the following individuals/entities: former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele; owner of Fusion GPS Glenn Simpson; and any other employees or representatives of Fusion GPS.

• All travel requests, authorizations and expense reports for Bruce Ohr.

• All calendar entries for Bruce Ohr.

Life continues to unfold, even in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. That includes—flying mostly under the media and legal radar—the most consequential freedom of information battle in a generation: Judicial Watch’s long fight for records related to Hillary Clinton’s emails and the Benghazi affair. In a landmark ruling earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted Judicial Watch’s request to depose Mrs. Clinton in the case. Mrs. Clinton is directed to appear under oath and answer questions from Judicial Watch attorneys.

It’s a big case. Lamberth called the issues in the lawsuit “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

That was Lamberth in a 2018 ruling, four years after Judicial Watch first filed a lawsuit in the case. The Lamberth memorandum is a fierce defense of the Freedom of Information Act that should be required reading for every law school FOIA seminar. It details the government’s “outrageous misconduct” in the case and notes President Obama himself defended FOIA as “the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open government.” The ruling outlined the discovery Judicial Watch would be permitted to take in the case.

The heart of the matter, Lamberth wrote in 2018, is that “faced with one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency, [Obama’s] State and Justice Departments fell far short. Did Hillary Clinton use her private email as Secretary of State to thwart [FOIA]? Was the State Department’s attempt to settle [a Judicial Watch] FOIA case in 2014 an effort to avoid searching—and disclosing the existence of—Clinton’s missing emails? And has State ever adequately searched for records in the case?”

But government foot-dragging and stonewalling continued. Meanwhile, Judicial Watch discovered new emails (read about it here and here) and Mrs. Clinton’s written responses proved insufficient to answer the questions raised by the court and in discovery. Earlier this month—nearly six years after the case commenced—Lamberth’s patience finally ran out. “The court agrees with Judicial Watch,” he wrote, “it is time to hear directly from Mrs. Clinton.”

Lamberth’s 2020 order is stinging and concise. The State Department wants the matter closed and the Justice Department supports that position. “But there is still more to learn,” Lamberth notes. “Even though many important questions remain unanswered, the Justice Department inexplicably takes the position that the court should close discovery and rule on dispositive motions. The court is especially troubled by this. To argue that the court now has enough information to determine whether State conducted an adequate search is preposterous, especially when considering State’s deficient representations regarding the existence of additional emails.”

Lamberth noted earlier decisions that high-ranking government officials should not be dragged into court to account for official actions unless there were “extraordinary circumstances.” But the Judicial Watch case clears that bar, he ruled.

“The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers,” Lamberth wrote. “In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them.”

What did Secretary Clinton know about her private email server, FOIA, and Benghazi communications, and when did she know it? Lamberth spells out some of the key questions.

“For example,” Lamberth writes, “how did she arrive at her belief that her private emails would be preserved by normal State Department processes for email retention? Who told her that—if anyone—and when? Did she realize State was giving a ‘no records’ response to FOIA requests for her emails? If so, did she suspect that she had any obligation to disclose the existence of her private server to those at State handling the FOIA requests? When did she learn that State’s records management employees were unaware of the existence of her private server? And why did she think that using a private server to conduct State Department business was permissible under the law in the first place? Again, who told her that—if anyone—and when?”

Mrs. Clinton’s legal team has fired back with an 83-page petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals asking it to throw out Judge Lamberth’s order. The deposition order is “inappropriate, unnecessary, and a clear abuse of discretion,” the Clinton lawyers wrote.

But of course the real abuse here is a six-year stonewall and an assault on the Freedom of Information Act. Corrupt and secretive players throw roadblocks, stonewalls and legal obstacles in the way of transparency, accountability and reform. Bad actors drown the opposition in delays and expensive legal actions. It is instructive that this fight has taken six years. Most individuals and organizations do not have the money and legal firepower to fight the government for months or years, so the government wins. The critical message in the Lamberth rulings is that FOIA, an essential tool in holding the powerful to account, is under siege. Let’s hope the Court of Appeals recognizes that the real fight here is about transparency and accountability, and allows the deposition of Hillary Clinton to proceed.

Although there have been no confirmed cases of Coronavirus disease in federal immigration detention facilities, open borders groups are taking advantage of the health crisis to demand that all illegal aliens be immediately released from custody and into communities throughout the United States. The movement, known as FreeThemAll, was launched this month by a coalition of leftist nonprofits long critical of the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policies. “The immigrant community is at grave risk,” according to one of the groups leading the effort, Texas-based Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES). The public is encouraged to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to demand that the agency “release all immigrants in detention, because detention is no place for a family, and no place for a family to be during a pandemic.”

In a letter to ICE San Antonio Field Director Daniel Bible, RAICES Executive Officer Jonathan D. Ryan asks for the immediate release of detained illegal immigrant families and individuals due to COVID-19. He also urges ICE to suspend all deportation activity, citing unsubstantiated reports that illegal aliens deported from the U.S. have presented the first cases of COVID-19 in their countries of origin. “ICE should not participate in the spread of this dangerous virus around the world,” Ryan writes. “This is a public health emergency. It is critical that ICE detention centers and jails be prepared to respond appropriately to the crisis.” He continues to blast the agency by asserting that the U.S. government has a woeful history of addressing pandemics in ICE detention. “We are concerned about the health and safety of our clients who, with their liberty restricted in detention, cannot practice recommended social distancing from other detained persons or from detention center staff,” the RAICES chief writes.

The group is part of a broader movement in the U.S. to release all illegal immigrants housed in federal detention centers throughout the country. Hundreds of immigrant rights advocates, human and civil rights groups and other leftist organizations are also pressuring federal authorities to release illegal aliens in federal custody via the Detention Watch Network, which aims to abolish immigration detention in the United States. “Detention Watch Network imagines a world where every individual lives and moves freely and a society in which racial equity is the norm and immigration is not criminalized,” according to the group’s website. “The abolition of immigration detention is part and parcel of struggles against racism, xenophobia, discriminatory policing, and mass incarceration and our aims coincide with these broader struggles against racialized oppression.”

In a letter signed by 763 like-minded groups, Detention Watch Network orders ICE Director Matthew T. Albence to immediately release all people currently detained in immigration detention, cease all local enforcement operations and eliminate ICE check-ins and mandatory court appearances. The coalition also requests that the federal government make phone and video calls free for detainees and that fees be waived for all costs associated with soap, sanitizer and other hygiene products. If the government doesn’t release all detainees, the letter asks for a “commitment that at no point will a facility be locked down or closed off to outsiders or be considered in its entirety as a place of quarantine” so that family members and attorneys maintain access to the incarcerated. “Jails, prisons and detention centers are sites where people are acutely vulnerable to health complications and the impact of outbreaks,” the letter states. “Choosing to deprive people of their freedom contributes to the already lethal conditions of mass confinement.” Signatories include: Abolish ICE Denver, Allies to End Detention, Asians 4 Black Lives Portland, California Sanctuary Campaign, CASA-Maryland and Compañeros Inmigrantes de las Montañas en Acción.

ICE currently has 37,311 illegal immigrants in detention facilities, according to the latest agency figures. More than half—19,526—have criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, the records show. As of March 14, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, determined that 5,867 of the illegal aliens in ICE custody have an established persecution or torture claim.