Clinton Email Testimony Update

[WEEKLY UPDATE]

CORONAVIRUS AND THE KILLING OF THE U.S. ECONOMY

[[link removed]]


As I said in my recent video update
[[link removed]]
segment on the Coronavirus, you
can’t cure or end the pandemic by killing our economy – pure and
simple.

When it comes to the coronavirus, the best way to get people on their
feet is to get them back to work. While the “giant” stimulus
package will help many with immediate cash, the economic impact of the
country’s being shut down could leave us facing 20-30 million
unemployed, a very dangerous consequence of the panicked reactions by
governors across the country.

I have been critical of the almost nationwide lockdown from the
beginning. There’s got to be a way of moving forward while taking
care of people’s health. Shutting down the country cannot be the
solution, and as I have alluded to throughout the crisis, it will be a
huge detriment to the long-term public health of our communities.

To date, there’s nothing in the White House or CDC guidelines that
says shut down everything in your state. On the contrary, we’ve got
to care for the sick and make sure our economy is able to function.
Ultimately, we need to get America moving again, and not depend on the
CDC/FDA timeline, which left to their own devices would only figure
out the needed drugs months from now.

What’s more, with the FBI’s shutting down
[[link removed]]
all Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, there will be little
transparency during this key part of our country’s history. We’ve
also just learned from the State Department that they’ve shut down
their FOIA operation indefinitely as well. Instituting the indefinite
moratorium on FOIA processing, the FBI and State Department are
delaying Judicial Watch’s investigations into the Bidens, Spygate
and Hillary Clinton, to mention a few, making these agencies virtually
unaccountable by any practical means. The Deep State, unsurprisingly,
doesn’t consider following transparency law to be “essential”
government business.

You can be sure that Judicial Watch is investigating and monitoring
the responses of our government to the coronavirus threat. In the
meantime, please be sure to call your state and federal elected
officials to them know what you think about the shutdowns that are
destroying our economies and suppressing our liberties.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE/JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TELLS APPEALS COURT IT SHOULD
REJECT CLINTON EFFORT TO AVOID TESTIMONY

Hillary Clinton’s desperate appeal to avoid testifying in Judicial
Watch’s lawsuit is even too much for her defenders at the Department
of State
[[link removed]]
and the Justice Department, which represents the State Department in
court. This week, State/Justice sided with us in opposing Clinton’s
appeal for special privileges and singular treatment to avoid having
to testify in person and under oath to our legal team.

Here’s the backstory. On March 2, a federal district court rejected
[[link removed]]
Clinton’s and the Deep State’s attempts to shut down our inquiry
into her emails and agreed with us
[[link removed]]
– that it’s time to hear from Hillary Clinton. Clinton and her
former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills then filed an emergency appeal.

This week, our lawyers at Judicial Watch and the State Department,
through Justice Department lawyers, filed separate responses in
opposition to Clinton’s and Mills’ _Writ of Mandamus_
[[link removed]]
request
to overturn that U.S. District Court order
[[link removed]]
requiring
their testimony under oath before Judicial Watch regarding Clinton’s
emails and Benghazi attack records. At the same time, the government
argued in its response that it did not engage in “bad faith” in
failing to disclose the Clinton non-government email system to
Judicial Watch and the court. The briefs were filed on April 3 with
the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The filings come in the appeals court’s proceedings concerning our
lawsuit
[[link removed]]
seeking
records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi
attack” (_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State_
[[link removed]]
(No.
1:14-cv-01242)).

In our response, we argue that Clinton and Mills “must demonstrate
that they have no other adequate means of relief,” which they failed
to show. Also, Clinton and Mills do not demonstrate “that the
District Court’s order was a judicial usurpation of power or a clear
abuse of discretion, or that [Clinton and Mills] have a clear and
indisputable right to a writ.” In fact, “the District Court
reasonably concluded that Clinton’s previous explanations for using
a personal email server are cursory, incomplete, and seemingly at odds
with what discovery has yielded to date.”

We argue further that Clinton and Mills are trying to avoid their
deposition testimony by relying on, “their status
as former high-level government officials.” Clinton and Mills,
“do not offer a single case from this Court or any other, holding
that former high-level government officials should not be required
to follow regular appellate channels to challenge a discovery
order.” Particularly in Mills’ case, Judicial Watch notes that
they, “identify no case in which a court entertained a mandamus
petition to stop the deposition of even a sitting cabinet member’s
chief of staff.” [Emphasis in original]

We also argue against Clinton’s claim that she held the server under
“claim of right,” when it contained thousands of federal records.
Judicial Watch states that unlike other Secretaries of State, like
Henry Kissinger, Clinton did not obtain an opinion from State’s
Legal Adviser on whether she could take the federal records prior to
her departure from State. Clinton’s “claim of right” argument
over her server would be like a bank robbery:

> A bank robber who stuffs bills into a duffle bag during a robbery
> may own the bag, but has no “claim of right” to the stolen cash.
> Is Clinton claiming a legal right to the agency records stored on
> the server? If so, Petitioners [Clinton/Mills] offer no factual or
> legal support for such a claim. While the server may have been
> Clinton’s property, the agency records on the server plainly were
> not.

Although they repeatedly sought in earlier lower-court proceedings to
shut down any further inquiry into Clinton emails, the State and
Justice Departments also argued this week against Clinton and Mills’
appeal to overturn the order for their depositions:

> The government did not seek and thus does not support the
> extraordinary relief of mandamus due to the unique circumstances of
> this case.

***

> This is the rare situation in which discovery of a former Cabinet
> Secretary was not authorized for the impermissible purpose of
> probing internal government decision-making regarding official
> policy, but rather to focus on the impact on FOIA compliance of a
> former official’s unusual decision to use a private email server
> to systematically conduct large volumes of official business.

Our Judicial Watch lawyers went further:

> It is not even clear that Clinton’s decision to use a “personal
> email server” and the subsequent routing of her emails out of the
> agency when she left office can fairly be characterized as
> “official action” … It was more likely a violation of law.

The agencies again defend their alleged misconduct despite a federal
court finding that discovery can take place because of the strong
evidence of their bad faith. The lower court rejected their efforts
to end discovery and protect Clinton:

> [T]here is still more to learn. Even though many important questions
> remain unanswered, the Justice Department inexplicably still 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 Clinton emails. Instead, the Court will
> authorize a new round of discovery.

Your Judicial Watch famously uncovered in 2014 that the “talking
points” that provided the basis for Susan Rice’s false statements
were created by
[[link removed]]
the
Obama White House. This FOIA lawsuit led directly
[[link removed]]
to
the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

On March 2, 2020, Judge Lamberth granted
[[link removed]]
Judicial
Watch’s request to depose
[[link removed]]
Clinton
about her emails and Benghazi attack documents. The court also ordered
the deposition of Mills and two other State Department officials.
Additionally, the court granted Judicial Watch’s request to subpoena
Google for relevant documents and records associated with Clinton’s
emails during her tenure at the State Department.

In December 2018, Judge Lamberth first ordered discovery
[[link removed]]
into
whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was
intended to stymie FOIA; whether the State Department’s intent to
settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith;
and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records
responsive to Judicial Watch’s request. The court also authorized
discovery into whether the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up
of Clinton’s email. The court ruled
[[link removed]]
that
the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to
government transparency.” The State and Justice Departments
continued to defend Clinton’s and the agency’s email conduct.

In his order allowing the testimony under oath of Clinton and others,
Federal District Court Judge Lamberth noted:

> Discovery up until this point has brought to light a noteworthy
> amount of relevant information, but Judicial Watch requests an
> additional round of discovery, and understandably so. With each
> passing round of discovery, the Court is left with more questions
> than answers.

With respect to Clinton, Judge Lamberth found that her prior
testimony, mostly through written sworn answers, was not sufficient:

> 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. In a deposition, it is more likely that
> plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to
> attempt 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 closer 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. _The Court agrees with Judicial Watch – it
> is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton._ [Emphasis added.]

The appellate court should quickly reject Clinton’s latest gambit to
avoid testifying. We’ll be sure to keep you apprised as
circumstances warrant.

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES TO FORCE NORTH CAROLINA TO CLEAN ITS VOTER ROLLS

After months of investigating and trying to bring to the attention of
North Carolina officials their non-compliance with the law, your
Judicial Watch finally had to file a lawsuit against North Carolina
and two of its counties for failing to clean their voter rolls and
denying the public its right to obtain information about voter
registration list maintenance.

According to an analysis of voter registration data by our Judicial
Watch investigators, many of North Carolina’s 100 counties have
large numbers of ineligible voters on their rolls. We also allege in
our lawsuit that the States’ own data shows that North Carolina has
nearly one million inactive voters on its rolls (_Judicial Watch v.
North Carolina and North Carolina State Board of Elections, et al._
[[link removed]]
(No.
3:20-cv- 211)).

Our lawsuit argues that North Carolina, Mecklenburg County and
Guilford County failed to make reasonable efforts to remove ineligible
voters from their registration rolls as required by the federal
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The lawsuit also
claims these jurisdictions violated the NVRA by failing to make
available to Judicial Watch public records concerning efforts to
comply with the law.

The NVRA provides for the removal of the names of registrants who have
failed to respond to an address confirmation notice and then failed to
vote in the next two general federal elections. Federal law makes
these removals mandatory.

In June 2019, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
released data
[[link removed]]
showing
that voter registration rates in a significant proportion of North
Carolina’s 100 counties are close to, at or above 100% of their
age-eligible citizenry – statistics considered by the courts to be a
strong indication that a jurisdiction is not taking the steps required
by law to remove ineligible registrants. Judicial Watch’s analysis
also showed that at the time of the EAC report the entire State of
North Carolina had a registration rate close to 100% of its
age-eligible citizenry.

In our complaint, Judicial Watch lawyers also point out that North
Carolina’s abnormally high number of inactive registrations shows
that it is not removing these registrations after two general federal
elections, as the NVRA requires. According to data the State certified
to the EAC in 2019:

* About 17% of North Carolina’s registrations were inactive, which
was the fifth worst (highest) of the 40 states for which data were
available
* By way of comparison, the median state inactive rate was 9.6%
* In 19 North Carolina counties, 20% or more of the registrations
were inactive, and in three counties 25% or more were inactive North
Carolina’s inactive registrations remain high to this day
* As of March 2020, North Carolina’s own data shows it has nearly
one million inactive registrations
* A large proportion of these registrations have shown no voting
activity for more than five years – that is, since prior to November
2014

Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections, and we at Judicial Watch
must insist that North Carolina follows federal law to clean up its
voting rolls. We want cleaner elections, as the law requires, and we
expect this lawsuit will cause North Carolina to take the simple steps
necessary to clean from its rolls the names of voters who have moved
away or died.

Your Judicial Watch is the national leader in enforcing the NVRA. In
December 2019, we provided notice
[[link removed]]
to
19 large counties in five states that it intended to sue unless they
take steps to comply with the NVRA by removing ineligible
registrations from their rolls. In addition to North Carolina, we
sent letters to counties in California
[[link removed]],
Pennsylvania
[[link removed]],
Virginia
[[link removed]]
and Colorado
[[link removed]].

In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld
[[link removed]]
a
voter-roll cleanup program that resulted from our Judicial Watch
settlement of a federal lawsuit with Ohio. California settled
[[link removed]]
an
NVRA lawsuit with us and last year began the process of removing up to
1.6 million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s voter
rolls. Kentucky
[[link removed]]
also
began a cleanup of hundreds of thousands of old registrations last
year after it entered into a consent decree to end another one of our
Judicial Watch lawsuits.

Despite our track record of successful litigation to bring counties
and states into compliance with the NVRA, voter registration lists
across the country remain significantly out of date. In a 2019 study,
our Judicial Watch investigators found 378 counties nationwide that
had more voter registrations than citizens 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. This is a drop of about one million from our
previous analysis
[[link removed]]
of
voter registration data in 2017.

We are most fortunate to have Attorney Robert Popper as our director
of the Judicial Watch Election Integrity initiative. We are also being
assisted by Mark A. Jones of Bell, Davis & Pitt in Charlotte, North
Carolina; and by H. Christopher Coates of the Law Office of H.
Christopher Coates.

This is the first of what could be several additional lawsuits against
various states over this key issue of clean election rolls, so stay
tuned for more.

HAPPY EASTER!

Christians around the world are celebrating the resurrection of the
Christ this week. There are no more powerful symbols of hope than the
cross and the empty tomb. From me and mine, I wish you and yours all
the Joy of Easter! Passover happily coincides with Easter this year
– so, Happy Passover, as well! Ironically, even though it will be a
struggle this year to celebrate these glorious holidays as we normally
would, I expect the absence of some traditions will make our hearts
grower fonder for – and to more deeply consider – these special
days!

Until next week …



[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU01"
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]]