|
Clinton Resists Court Order to Produce Memo
on Process that Led to Her Mass Email Deletions
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, 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 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
that seeks records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi
attack” (Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of State (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 the Obama White House. This JW FOIA lawsuit led
directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.
In December 2018, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered
discovery 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
that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to
government transparency.”
Clinton is resisting
producing even a portion of the “after-action” memo, despite an August
22, 2019, ruling
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,
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
to us, Samuelson admitted
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
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
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
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 opposing Clinton’s and Mills’ Writ
of Mandamus request to overturn this court order requiring their
testimonies.
Also, on April 10, we served
a subpoena on Google LLC, which was authorized
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
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 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. (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 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 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
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
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 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. (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 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. (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 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,
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024
|
|
| 202.646.5172 |
| |
|
© 2017 - 2020, All Rights Reserved
Manage
Email Subscriptions |
Unsubscribe |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
