Clinton Resists Email Court Order

[WEEKLY UPDATE]

CLINTON RESISTS COURT ORDER TO PRODUCE MEMO ON PROCESS THAT LED TO HER
MASS EMAIL DELETIONS

[[link removed]]

Perhaps Hillary Clinton thinks she can run out the clock on our
efforts to get to the bottom of her scandalous email schemes. Recall
that she is resisting, through an emergency appeal
[[link removed]],
a court order to us about her emails. (The appellate hearing on her
testimony, btw, has been officially set for June 2.)

Now our Judicial Watch attorneys are to file a motion
[[link removed]]
in federal court to compel her to produce a December 2014 after action
memorandum created by her personal attorney, Heather Samuelson, that
memorializes the search for and processing of Clinton emails in 2014.

It was Samuelson who reviewed Clinton’s State Department emails, and
about half of them were deleted.

The filing comes in our FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
that seeks 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)). We famously uncovered in 2014 that the
“talking points,” which provided the basis for false statements by
then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice, were created by
[[link removed]]
the Obama White House. This JW FOIA lawsuit led directly
[[link removed]]
to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

In December 2018, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered discovery
[[link removed]]
into whether 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.”

Clinton is resisting
[[link removed]]
producing even a portion of the “after-action” memo, despite an
August 22, 2019, ruling
[[link removed]]
by Judge Lamberth that we may ask for the memorandum in our discovery.
Clinton alleges that the memo is fully exempt from disclosure under
the “attorney work product doctrine.” In an earlier ruling on a
similar issue in this litigation, the Court held that “any
contemporaneous documents shedding light on the three narrow discovery
topics – even documents evincing attorney impressions, conclusions,
opinions, and theories – constitute fact work-product” and should
be produced.

We explain to the court: “After repeated attempts to resolve this
dispute have proven unsuccessful, [Judicial Watch] respectfully
requests an order from the Court to compel Secretary Clinton to
produce the document … within short order.”

We point out:

> This is a rare Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case in which the
> Court determined that civil discovery is appropriate. On March 29,
> 2016, the Court granted [Judicial Watch’s] motion for discovery
>
[[link removed]],
> holding that “[w] here there is evidence of government wrong-doing
> and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even
> though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.”
In our motion we refute Clinton’s claim that the memo is protected
by the “attorney work product doctrine.”

> Secretary Clinton claims that the after action memo is subject to
> the attorney work product privilege and exempt from disclosure, but
> she fails to explain that the memorandum was created in reasonable
> anticipation of litigation. ... She does not assert that it was
> created due to the litigation here. Neither does she claim that it
> was created in anticipation of any other specific litigation. Simply
> put, she does not demonstrate that the after action memo was not
> created in the normal course of the search and review process …

> Second, … the after action memo falls within the category of
> “contemporaneous documents shedding light on the three narrow
> discovery topics.” … According to Samuelson’s testimony, the
> after action memo plainly contains factual information memorializing
> searches and techniques for retrieving Secretary Clinton’s
> governmental records.
Clinton’s attorneys also do not explain why her emails were deleted
despite the “reasonable anticipation of litigation,” rather than
preserved.

In a June 2019 court-ordered deposition
[[link removed]]
to us, Samuelson admitted
[[link removed]]
under oath that she was granted immunity by the U.S. Department of
Justice in June 2016. She also revealed that, contrary to what she
told
[[link removed]]
the FBI in 2016, she was, in fact, aware that Clinton used a private
email account while secretary of state. Samuel’s admission to us
that she became aware of Clinton’s non-State.gov emails during her
service in the Clinton State Department White House Liaison Office
contradicts the notation
[[link removed]]
in the FBI’s May 24, 2016, “302” report on Samuelson’s
interview with FBI agents:

> Samuelson did not become aware of Clinton’s use of a private email
> account and server until she was serving as Clinton’s personal
> attorney.
In 2014, after Clinton left the State Department, Samuelson became
Clinton’s personal attorney and was primarily responsible for
conducting the review of Clinton emails and sorting out “personal”
emails from government emails, which were provided to the State
Department under the direction of Cheryl Mills and Clinton lawyer
David Kendall. After the emails were provided to State, Clinton,
through her lawyers and Platte River Networks, deleted the rest of the
“personal” emails from her server, wiping it clean. Samuelson
conducted the review of emails on her laptop, using Clinton server
files downloaded from Platte River Networks, which housed the Clinton
email server.

Clinton clearly doesn’t want the Court and the American people to
know the full truth about her destruction of 33,000 emails. The
evidence shows that she knew exactly what she was doing when she hid
her emails, took them from the State Department and deleted them. So
it is no surprise she is desperate to avoid testifying and turning
over what must be a smoking-gun memo on her email deletions.

This is only one facet of our pursuit of the truth about Hillary
Clinton’s activities while secretary of state.

On March 2, 2020, Judge Lamberth granted
[[link removed]]
us additional discovery that includes testimony under oath by Clinton
and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills regarding Clinton’s
emails and Benghazi attack records. In April, we and the State
Department, which is represented by Justice Department lawyers, filed
responses
[[link removed]]
opposing Clinton’s and Mills’ _Writ of Mandamus
[[link removed]
request to overturn this court order requiring their testimonies.

Also, on April 10, we served a subpoena
[[link removed]]
on Google LLC, which was authorized
[[link removed]]
by the court, demanding that it produce all emails, including
metadata, from a Google account believed to contain former Secretary
of State Clinton's emails. Google just produced data to us this week
and I’ll be sure to report back to you as soon as our expert team
analyzes it, so stay tuned!

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES TO STOP MARYLAND COUNTY GIVING $5 MILLION TO
ILLEGAL ALIENS

The Left is using our national health crisis to fulfill its agenda on
the sly.

Last month we sued
[[link removed]]
the Governor of California on behalf of two California taxpayers for
overstepping his authority and violating federal law when he attempted
to go around the California State Legislature by executive action and
spend $78 million to provide direct case payments to illegal aliens.

Now we’re taking a similar step in Maryland. We have filed a lawsuit
and asked for a temporary restraining order
[[link removed]]
against Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich and Raymond L. Crowel,
director of the county’s Department of Health and Human Services, on
behalf of two Montgomery County taxpayers, Sharon Bauer and Richard
Jurgena.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland set a
hearing for Friday, May 15, on our petition.

We have asked the court to stop the county from expending $5 million
of taxpayer funds to provide direct cash assistance to unlawfully
present aliens (_Bauer, et al, v. Elrich, et al._
[[link removed]]
(No. 482061V)).

We argue that the county council overstepped its authority and
violated federal law when, without affirmative state legislative
approval, it created the “Emergency Assistance Relief Payment
Program” (EARP) to provide cash payments to people who otherwise are
ineligible for unemployment insurance due to their unlawful presence
in the United States.

On April 15, 2020, County Executive Elrich referred to a
soon-to-be-announced initiative to provide at least $5 million in cash
payments to illegal aliens. On April 27, Montgomery County announced
in a press statement
[[link removed]]
that “[a]pproximately $2.5 million will be disbursed to residents
[by the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS)] and another $2.5 million will be targeted to individuals and
families served by nonprofit organizations in the community.”

On April 30, the County Council released a press statement
[[link removed]]
that the program would be paid for out of the Montgomery County
General Fund, which, according the County Operating Budget, is
comprised entirely of taxpayer monies. The DHHS website
[[link removed]]
specifies that the payments would consist of $500 for single adults,
and up to $1,450 per family.

In our complaint we argue:

> Under federal law [8 U.S.C. § 1621(a)], unlawfully present aliens
> generally are ineligible for State or local public benefits.

***

> However, a “State may provide that an alien who is not lawfully
> present in the United States is eligible for any State or local
> public benefit … ONLY THROUGH THE ENACTMENT OF A STATE LAW …
> which affirmatively provides for such eligibility” [Emphasis
> added]

***

> …The Maryland General Assembly has not enacted a State law
> affirmatively granting [Montgomery County officials] the authority
> to provide cash payments to unlawfully present aliens.
The program targets the payments to illegal aliens:

> The Montgomery County DHHS has stated that unlawfully present aliens
> are ‘eligible to apply for and receive cash payments,’ [and]
> based on the narrow set of eligibility criteria, unlawfully present
> aliens will be the primary – if not exclusive – recipients of
> EARP’s cash payments.
In arguing for a temporary restraining order, we point out:

> Based on the face of the Complaint as well as the facts identified
> above, it is likely [Judicial Watch’s clients] will prevail on the
> merits. The Maryland General Assembly has not affirmatively enacted
> a law authorizing Defendants [Montgomery County officials] to
> provide cash benefits to unlawfully present aliens as part of EARP,
> as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1621. Nonetheless, Defendants intend
> to provide such benefits to unlawfully present aliens starting in
> May 2020. Plaintiffs also can demonstrate that they and all
> Montgomery County taxpayers will suffer immediate, substantial, and
> irreparable pecuniary harm as soon as Defendants illegally spend the
> $5 million of taxpayer monies.
Montgomery County Executive Elrich and the Montgomery County Council
have no legal authority on their own to spend taxpayer money for cash
payments to illegal aliens. The coronavirus challenge doesn’t give
politicians a pass to violate the law. If they want to give cash
payments to illegal aliens, they must be accountable and transparent,
and, as federal law requires, pass a state law to do so.

I attended the tele-hearing with the Court the morning. The Court
suggested he would rule on the TRO request by the middle of next week.
We’ll be sure to let you know what happens next!

NEW JUDICIAL WATCH COURT ACTION TO BLOCK NEWSOME FROM PROVIDING
ILLEGAL CASH TO ILLEGAL ALIENS IN CALIFORNIA

Last week I reported
[[link removed]]
to you that we were seeking a restraining order to keep California
Governor Gavin Newsom from handing out $75 million in cash to illegal
aliens.

As I noted, that judge issued a bizarre ruling: the governor can go
ahead, even though it’s likely illegal.

We’ve taken that to the appeals court in California.

We have filed a petition for Writ of Mandate
[[link removed]]
that
would require the trial court to issue a temporary restraining order
on Newsom’s plan. Though the lower court said that Judicial Watch
taxpayer clients are likely to succeed on the merits (that Governor
Newsom has no authority under law to spend the money), there’s more
harm to illegal aliens during the coronavirus crisis than there is to
California’s 40 million taxpayers and citizens. For those of you
interested in the detail, Judicial Watch filed the writ petition in
the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, in order to
overturn a May 5, 2020 Superior Court of Los Angeles County ruling
denying a temporary restraining order sought by Judicial Watch in the
case (_Crest et al. v. Newsom et al._
[[link removed]]
(No.
20STCV16321)).

Our filing asks the Court of Appeal to command the Superior Court to
issue the restraining order against California Governor Gavin Newsom
and his Director of the California Department of Social Services Kim
Johnson, enjoining them from making what is now an imminent, May 18,
2020 illegal expenditure of $79.8 million of taxpayers’ funds to
illegal aliens pending the final determination of the taxpayer action
brought by Judicial Watch in the lower court.

On April 29, we filed a lawsuit
[[link removed]]
in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf
of two California taxpayers, Robin Crest and Howard Myers, asking the
court to stop the state from illegally expending more than $75 million
of taxpayer funds as direct cash assistance to unlawfully present
aliens (_Crest et al. v. Newsom et al._
[[link removed]]
(No.
20STCV16321)).

The lawsuit alleges California Governor Gavin Newsom overstepped his
authority and violated federal law when, without affirmative state
legislative approval, he took executive action to create the
“Disaster Relief Assistance for Immigrants Project” and to provide
cash benefits to illegal aliens who otherwise are ineligible for state
or federal insurance or other benefits due to their unlawful presence
in the United States. On May 5, we filed an application for
a temporary restraining order
[[link removed]]
in
the case to prevent Newsom and Johnson from unlawfully spending any of
the $75 million slated for direct cash benefits or the $4.8 million
earmarked for the administrative costs of having community based
organizations distribute the money to unlawfully present aliens under
guarantees of privacy and state secrecy.

It is astonishing that any court would allow government officials to
ignore the law and spend tax money with no legal authority. The lower
court essentially acknowledged Governor Newsom has no legal authority
to spend state taxpayer money for cash payments to illegal aliens. And
the circumstances are very troubling. The Court of Appeal should
overturn the lower court’s manifest error.

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]]