Big Clinton Email Hearing Update!

[WEEKLY UPDATE]

JUDICIAL WATCH TESTIFIES TO CONGRESS: SECURE THE VOTE!

[[link removed]]

I was pleased to represent you in providing testimony
[[link removed]]
to
the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties during a hearing
[[link removed]]
titled
“Protecting the Right to Vote During the COVID-19 Pandemic.”

I reminded the committee that Judicial Watch has “been involved for
almost a decade in ensuring the honesty and integrity of our electoral
processes” and “is now the nation’s premier enforcer, public or
private, of the election integrity provisions of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).”

“The American people see what they conclude are disingenuous fights
over electoral procedures and lose faith in the honesty of our
elections,” I said. “With this background in mind I turn to
measures proposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the
more common suggestions now is to require greater reliance on mail-in
ballots. For example, last month Governor Newsom issued an executive
order requiring that county elections officials transmit mail ballots
to every registered voter in the State. I view this as a real threat
to the integrity of American elections.

“It is now about five months until election day, and the
pandemic’s infection curve has flattened. Insisting now on all-mail
ballot elections seems less like a response to a health crisis and
more like a partisan application of the immortal words of Rahm
Emanuel: ‘Never allow a good crisis to go to waste.’”

For more than 25 years, Judicial Watch has been known for its
aggressive, leading edge use of public records laws and lawsuits, as
well as taxpayer, civil rights, and whistleblower protection
litigation to fight government corruption. In 2012, we launched a
nationwide effort to promote voting integrity and protect voting
rights. As part of this effort, we assembled a team of highly
experienced voting rights attorneys who have fought gerrymandering in
Maryland, stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up
voter rolls in Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements.

In 2018, California settled
[[link removed]]
a
federal lawsuit with Judicial Watch and began the process of removing
up to 1.6 million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s voter
rolls. In April, Judicial Watch sued North Carolina
[[link removed]]
and Pennsylvania
[[link removed]]
to
force them to clean up their voter rolls. We also just filed
a lawsuit
[[link removed]]
to
stop the special, statewide vote-by-mail mandate issued by California
Governor Gavin Newsom.

Other participants in the hearing included:

* Stacey Abrams, Chair, Fair Fight Action
* J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel, Public Interest
Legal Foundation
* Barbara Arnwine, President, Transformational Justice Coalition
* Jocelyn Benson, Secretary of State, State of Michigan
* Michelle Bishop, Disability Advocacy Specialist for Voting Rights,
National Disability Rights Network
* Dale Ho, Director, Voting Rights Project, American Civil Liberties
Union
* Myrna Pérez, Director, Voting Rights and Elections Program,
Brennan Center for Justice

I suspect the Left wasn’t terribly happy with my testimony, as I
called them out for using coronavirus to scare Americans from voting
in person. This is the real voter suppression.

Thank you to Subcommittee Chairman Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN) and
Ranking Member Congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA) for running the hearing
and allowing Judicial Watch the opportunity to make our case for more
secure elections.

My written testimony is available here
[[link removed]].
Video from the hearing is available here
[[link removed]].

COURT RULES CASH PAYMENTS TO ILLEGAL ALIENS LIKELY VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW

A federal court just ruled
[[link removed]]
that a Montgomery County, MD, program that provides $10 million in
cash payments to illegal aliens likely violates federal law and
irreparably harms county taxpayers.

The court ordered
[[link removed]]
the county to hold back 25% of any unspent funds until the court can
fully consider the merits of our taxpayer lawsuit (_Bauer, et al, v.
Elrich, et al._
[[link removed]]
(No. 20-cv-01212)). However, the court denied our request for a
temporary restraining order.

This action comes in our lawsuit
[[link removed]]
on behalf of Montgomery County taxpayers Sharon Bauer and Richard
Jurgena, originally filed on May 13 in Montgomery County Circuit
Court, which Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich and Raymond
Crowel, director of the county's Department of Health and Human
Services, subsequently removed to federal court
[[link removed]].
The lawsuit seeks to permanently enjoin Elrich and Crowel from
expending taxpayer money on the cash-benefits program known as the
“Emergency Assistance Relief Payment Program” (EARP). Payments
under EARP would amount to $500 per single adult, $1,000 per family
with one child and $150 per additional child, up to a maximum of
$1,450 per family.

Under federal law, certain categories of aliens, including unlawfully
present aliens, are ineligible for state or local public benefits.
Such benefits include direct, cash payments. If a state chooses to
provide such benefits to unlawfully present aliens, it must enact a
state law affirmatively providing for such eligibility.

We argue that EARP violates federal law because the Maryland State
Legislature has not authorized Montgomery County to provide these
benefits to unlawfully present aliens. Therefore, Elrich and the
County Council overstepped their authority when they created the
program. The Montgomery County DHHS has stated
[[link removed]]
that “unlawfully present aliens are eligible to apply for and
receive cash payments.”

The court agreed with us, ruling that:

Based on an analysis of the federal statute alone, the Court concludes
that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on
the merits.
Although the court denied a request for a temporary restraining order,
it did order that county retain at least 25% of any unspent funds
until the court could fully consider the merits of the case.

This ruling pushes back on the abuse by county officials who want to
send taxpayer coronavirus money to illegal aliens in violation of
federal law. The coronavirus challenge doesn’t give politicians a
pass to violate the law. If politicians want to use tax money from
law-abiding taxpayers and send cash payments to illegal aliens, they
must be accountable and transparent, and, as federal law requires,
pass a state law to do so.


APPEALS COURT WEIGHS WHETHER WE CAN DEPOSE HILLARY CLINTON

We participated in an appeals court hearing this week
by teleconference regarding former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton’s efforts to avoid testifying, under oath, about her emails.
Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, also seeks to avoid
giving testimony.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is
considering Clinton and Mills’ extraordinary request
[[link removed]],
known as a “petition for writ of mandamus,” to overturn an order
[[link removed]]
issued
by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth requiring them to
testify.

Hillary Clinton is essentially saying: “What difference does it
make!” She argues that she shouldn’t have to testify because she
is a former, high level government official and that the case is moot
because the FBI already tried to recover her emails from various
sources when it investigated allegations that classified information
was improperly stored or transmitted on the personal e-mail server she
used at State.

Our position
[[link removed]]
is that neither Clinton nor Mills has demonstrated that they should
not have to follow ordinary appellate rules to challenge the District
Court’s order and that the case is not moot. We argue that the
FBI’s effort was not exhaustive, as demonstrated by the discovery of
some 30 additional Clinton emails late last year, among other
developments, and that other emails may be recovered if State is
required to look for them.

This hearing came 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].
1:14-cv-01242)). In 2014, we uncovered “talking points” created
by
[[link removed]]
the
Obama White House showing that statements about the attack made on the
eve of the 2012 elections by then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice
were misleading, if not false. 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]]
us
discovery that includes taking testimony from Clinton and Mills, under
oath, regarding Clinton’s emails and the existence of records about
the Benghazi attack. In April, we and the State Department, which is
represented by Justice Department lawyers, filed responses
[[link removed]]
opposing
Clinton’s and Mills’ request
[[link removed]]
to
overturn the order requiring their testimony. The lower court found
that Clinton’s testimony was necessary and that it was time to hear
directly from Secretary Clinton.

In December 2018, Judge Lamberth ordered discovery
[[link removed]]
into
whether Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to
avoid 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
our request. The lower court also authorized discovery into whether
the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up of Clinton’s email.
It ruled
[[link removed]]
that
the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to
government transparency.”

Judicial Watch senior attorney Ramona Cotca did a fantastic job this
week against Mrs. Clinton's lawyer and some tough questioning by the
court.

The issue is now fully submitted and we await the panel’s ruling.
You can listen to the hearing here
[[link removed]].

FACEBOOK CENSORSHIP BOARD HAS TIES TO LEFTWING BILLIONAIRE GEORGE
SOROS

Social media has assumed a primary role in how Americans talk to
eachother and learn what is going on. And so, the censorship that is
choking the major platforms is a serious threat to online conservative
voices including, as we saw with Twitter’s recent censorship, the
President of the United States.

Consider the hard Left make-up of Facebook’s censorship board -- our
_Corruption Chronicles_ blog has the details
[[link removed]].


The recently appointed Facebook oversight board
[[link removed]]
that will decide which posts get blocked from the world’s most
popular social networking website is stacked with leftists, including
a close friend of leftwing billionaire George Soros who served on the
board of directors of his Open Society Foundations (OSF). Judicial
Watch conducted a deep dive into the new panel that will make content
rulings for the technology company that was slammed last year with a
$5 billion fine for privacy violations. The information uncovered by
Judicial Watch shows that the group of 20 is overwhelmingly leftist
and likely to restrict conservative views. More than half of the
members have ties to Soros, the philanthropist who dedicates huge sums
to spreading a radical left agenda that includes targeting
conservative politicians. Other Facebook oversight board members have
publicly expressed their disdain for President Donald Trump or made
political contributions to top Democrats such as Barack Obama, Hillary
Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. As one New York newspaper editorial
determined this month, the new Facebook board is a “recipe for
left-wing censorship
[[link removed]


Among the standouts is András Sajó, the founding Dean of Legal
Studies at Soros’ Central European University. Sajó was a judge at
the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for nearly a decade. He also
served on the board of directors of OSF’s Justice Initiative. Sajó
was one of the ECHR judges in an Italian case (Latusi v. Italy
[[link removed]])
that ruled unanimously that the display of a crucifix in public
schools in Italy violates the European Convention on Human Rights. The
decision was subsequently overturned. Sajó’s deep ties to Soros are
also concerning. Through his OSF Soros funds a multitude of projects
worldwide aimed at spreading a leftist agenda by, among other things,
destabilizing legitimate governments, erasing national borders and
identities, financing civil unrest and orchestrating refugee crises
for political gain. Incredibly, there is a financial and staffing
nexus between the U.S. government and Soros’ OSF. Read about it in a
Judicial Watch special report
[[link removed]]
documenting
how Soros advances his leftist agenda at U.S. taxpayer expense.

At least 10 other members of the Facebook oversight board are
connected to leftist groups tied to Soros that have benefitted from
his generous donations, according to Judicial Watch’s research. Alan
Rusbridger, a former British newspaper editor and principal at Oxford
University, serves on the board of directors of the Committee to
Protect Journalists, which received $750,000 from OSF in 2018.
Rusbridger also served as a governor at a global thinktank, Ditchley
Foundation, that co-hosted a conference with OSF on change in the
Middle East and North Africa as well as understanding political Islam.
Afia Asantewaa Sariyev, a human rights attorney, is the program
manager at Soros’ Open Society Initiative for West Africa. Her
research includes critical race feminism and socio-economic rights of
the poor. Sudhir Krishnaswamy, an Indian lawyer and civil society
activist, runs a progressive nonprofit called Centre for Law and
Policy Research that focuses on transgender rights, gender equality
and public health. The group is a grantee of a justice foundation that
received $1.4 million from OSF between 2016 and 2018. Krishnaswamy’s
Centre also received money from a radical pro-abortion group, Center
for Reproductive Rights, generously funded by the OSF.

The list of Facebook judges connected to Soros and the organized left
continues. Julie Owono is the executive director of a Paris-based
nonprofit, Internet Sans Frontieres, that advocates for privacy and
freedom of expression online. In 2018, Internet Sans Frontieres became
a member of the Global Network Initiative, an internet oversight and
policy consortium handsomely funded by Soros. Nighat Dad is a
Pakistani attorney and the founder of the Digital Rights Foundation, a
nonprofit organization based in Pakistan that has received $114,000 in
grants from OSF. Dad’s group also gets funding from Facebook
Ireland. Ronaldo Lemos, a Brazilian law professor, served on the board
of directors of the Mozilla Foundation, which collected $350,000 from
OSF in 2016 and was also a board member at another group, Access Now,
that also got thousands of dollars from Soros. Tawakkol Karman, a
journalist and civil rights activist, sits on the advisory board of
Transparency International, which gets significant funding from
Soros’ OSF.

Rounding out the Soros-affiliated field on the new Facebook censorship
board are Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Catalina Botero-Marino and Maina
Kiai. Thorning-Schmidt, Denmark’s former prime minister, sits on the
board of the European Council of Foreign Relations, which took in more
$3.6 million from OSF in 2016 and 2017. She is also a trustee at the
International Crisis Group which has collected over $8.2 million from
OSF and includes George and Alexander Soros on its board. The former
Danish prime minister is also a member of the Atlantic Council’s
International Advisory Board, which received approximately $325,000
from OSF in the last few years and the European Advisory Board of the
Center for Global Development, which got north of half a million
dollars from OSF in 2018. Botero-Marino is the dean of a Colombian law
school called Universidad de Los Andes that obtained more than $1.3
million from OSF between 2016 and 2018, the records obtained by
Judicial Watch show. Botero-Marino also sits on the panel of experts
at Columbia University’s Global Freedom Expression Project, which
gets funding from OSF, and she was a board member at Article 19, a
group that got about $1.7 million from OSF between 2016 and 2018. Kiai
is the director of the Global Alliances and Partnerships at Human
Rights Watch, which accepted $275,000 from OSF in 2018. He is also a
member of OSF’s Human Rights Initiative advisory board and was the
founding executive director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission,
which got $615,000 from Soros in the last two years.

Others on the Facebook board have slandered President Trump in social
media posts and donated money to high-profile Democrats. Taiwanese
communications professor Katherine Chen’s Twitter account includes
retweets of numerous anti-Trump and pro-Obama posts and articles.
Nicolas Suzor, a law professor in Australia, retweeted a column
implicitly comparing Trump to Hitler and Columbia University law
professor Jamal Greene has made campaign contributions to Obama,
Hillary Clinton and Warren. Pro-Trump impeachment Stanford law
professor Pamela Karlan, who took a cheap shot at President Trump’s
teenage son during the Brett Kavanaugh impeachment hearings, has also
contributed money to Obama, Hillary Clinton and Warren. The new board
has only a few token conservatives such as Stanford law professor
Michael McConnell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. The
overwhelming majority of those making Facebook’s “final and
binding decisions on whether specific content should be allowed or
removed,” are leftists. They represent a new model of content
moderation that will uphold “freedom of expression within the
framework of international norms of human rights.” Facebook’s
economic, political or reputational interests will not interfere in
the process, the company writes in its introduction
[[link removed]]
to the new board. Eventually the board, which will begin hearing cases
later this year, will double in size. “The cases we choose to hear
may be contentious, and we will not please everyone with our
decisions,” Facebook warns.

VIRUS UPDATE: DATA WARS RAGE OVER TRUMP-BOOSTED DRUG

It’s a sign of the times: medical advice has now been politicized.
How can ordinary people get to the truth when seemingly trusted
sources of information so blatantly spout untruths?

Our senior investigative reporter, Micah Morrison, continues to follow
the best-known example in his _Investigative Bulletin_. The latest
[[link removed]


Scientific fisticuffs are flying over hydroxychloroquine (HC), the
anti-malaria drug enthusiastically promoted by President Trump in the
war against the coronavirus. The president—backed by an array of
global reports, anecdotal evidence, and outside advisers—thinks HC
could be an effective preventative
[[link removed]],
a weapon for frontline medical personnel, and helpful when
administered in the early stage of the virus. On May 18, Trump doubled
down and made it personal, announcing
[[link removed]]
that he himself had been taking HC. Trump’s critics are aghast at
this exercise of the presidential bully pulpit, warning that HC has
serious side effects and possibly zero effectiveness in fighting the
virus.

But the president has had an impact. Medical studies are moving at
warp speed. Yesterday, the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine
published a University of Minnesota study that concluded HC did not
work as a preventative for the disease. The study, with more than 800
participants, “had an unusual design,” noted NPR in a report on
the findings
[[link removed]].


“It was all web-based,” a leader of the project told NPR.
“People would go to our website if they were interested in
enrolling.”

To qualify for the study, NPR reported, “people had to be within a
few days of their encounter with a Covid-19 patient and not have any
symptoms of the disease themselves. ‘Encounters’ meant being
within six feet of a sick person for more than ten minutes while
wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield, or while wearing a face
mask but no face shield. The volunteers received either a five-day
supply of hydroxychloroquine, or a placebo.” The study concluded
that HC was not effective in preventing healthy people from getting
the disease. Read more about it here
[[link removed]].


Meanwhile, an influential study published May 22 in another
high-profile medical journal, The Lancet, has come under fire. The
study
[[link removed]],
based on a more than 90,000 patient records from a little-known
hospital data company, concluded that patients taking HC were more
likely to develop abnormal heart rhythms and more likely to die.

The reaction to the Lancet report was swift. Trump was denounced.
France, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the World Health
Organization put holds on clinical trials investigating HC.

But questions soon emerged about the Lancet report. How much was known
about Surgisphere, the hospital database company behind the study?

Within a week, more than 100 scientists published an open letter
[[link removed]]
to the Lancet raising
questions about Surgisphere’s methods and the integrity of its data.
Yesterday, the WHO reversed course on HC and resumed clinical studies.


Judicial Watch readers have questions of their own about the Lancet
study.

“I really hate to go down this path,” writes one emergency
responder, requesting anonymity due to concerns about career
repercussions, “but we know damn well this whole thing has been
sucked into the blender of U.S. politics. This study almost seems
written by design to play into that.”

This reader notes that the Lancet report indicates that patients in
the study already were “very, very sick,” because only the very
sick in the past months have been admitted to U.S. hospitals. “So…
the patient is already fragile” and has “classically negative
co-morbidities and contra-indications for use.” The patient is then
given a heavy dose of drugs, which “by design, are toxic. Fragile +
over-dosed toxin = bad outcome.” And what do the authors of the
study do? “Blame the drug.”

Epidemiologist Andrew Bostom writes us to say that there are two
“truly enormous” HC-related studies getting underway, but won’t
be completed until year’s end. Meanwhile, Dr. Bostom suggests, the
Trump approach to HC is appropriate and compassionate.

“Above all, do no harm,” Dr. Bostom writes. “Both chloroquine
(CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), given short-term, are safe and
effective for malaria prophylaxis and treatment (ongoing, barring
areas of parasite resistance). HCQ, in particular, is also remarkably
safe for chronic treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus
(‘Lupus’) and other rheumatic (‘inflammatory’) diseases.
Accordingly, it was completely appropriate to try them as
compassionate-use drugs to treat even late-stage Covid-19…. The fact
that such patients might begin to experience ‘toxicities’ when
they are severely ill with Covid-19, often with multi-organ system
failure grossly impairing the ability to metabolize HCQ or CQ
normally—or many other drugs for that matter—is hardly a
revelation!”

Hastily published studies, Dr. Bostom suggests, leave us groping in
the dark. It’s a situation, he says, “made uniquely worse by the
anti-Trump Left, including the ‘academic’ Left, with their vicious
politicization of what should have been a purely investigative
clinical-science issue.”

Read more about the Lancet controversy here
[[link removed]].


Is something rotten at Surgisphere? Read about it here
[[link removed]].
Since this piece was published, the researchers behind the Lancet
study used to attack President Trump on hydroxychloroquine was
officially retracted
[[link removed]

Until next week,





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU02"
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]]