Judicial Watch Sues to Expose Full Truth
Behind Obama Unmasking/Spy Abuses
The term “unmasking” refers to the practice of political appointees
obtaining the identities of American citizens referenced in intelligence
surveillance of foreign nationals.
Unmasking has a legitimate purpose, but in the final months of the Obama
administration his lieutenants were abusing the process as they frantically
looked for dirt on the Trump campaign.
Reportedly, one of the worst abusers was Obama’s U.N. Ambassador,
Samantha Power. In 2017, it was reported
that Power unmasked over 260 persons in her last year as Ambassador in an
attempt to uncover associates of President Trump. She “was
‘unmasking’ at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama
administration that she averaged more than one request for every working
day in 2016,” even seeking “information in the days leading up to
President Trump’s inauguration.”
We have now filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against the State Department
over requests by Power to unmask the identities of U.S. citizens whose
names appear in intelligence reports concerning Russian interference in the
2016 presidential election (Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:20-cv-01729)).
We sued after the Justice Department failed to respond to a May 29, 2019,
FOIA request for:
All requests for information submitted to any Intelligence Community member
agency by former United States Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha
Power concerning:
- Any actual or suspected effort by the Russian government or any
individual acting on behalf of the Russian government to influence the 2016
presidential election.
- The alleged hacking of computer systems utilized by the Democratic
National Committee and/or the Clinton presidential campaign.
- Any actual or suspected communication between any member of the Trump
presidential campaign or transition team and any official or employee of
the Russian government or any individual acting on behalf of the Russian
government.
- The identities of U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential
campaign or transition team who were identified pursuant to intelligence
collection activities.
- All records or responses received by former United States Ambassador
to the United Nations Samantha Power and/or any representative of United
States Mission to the United Nations in response to any request described
in part 1 of this request.
- All records of communication between any representative of any
Intelligence Community member agency and former United States Ambassador to
the United Nation Samantha Power and/or any representative of the United
States Mission to the United Nations concerning any request described in
part 1 of this request.
Our FOIA request and this lawsuit
were filed after a similar 2018 lawsuit filed in 2018 (Judicial
Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 18-0300)), which
derived from an October 31, 2017 FOIA request, was closed on March 3, 2019.
The court upheld the Department of State’s response that it need not
disclose whether or not responsive records existed for national security
reasons. This new lawsuit argues that the State Department’s earlier
Glomar response (that it could neither confirm nor deny whether records
existed) was no longer sustainable:
On May 13, 2020, the Director of National Intelligence released a newly
declassified memorandum and accompanying list identifying officials who
submitted requests to the National Security Agency (“NSA”) to
“unmask” the identity of former National Security Advisor Michael T.
Flynn in NSA foreign intelligence reports. The list demonstrates that,
between November 30, 2016 and January 11, 2017, Ambassador Power submitted
seven requests to “unmask” Flynn’s identity in such NSA foreign
intelligence reports and that all seven requests were approved.
The entire world now knows the Obama administration went on an
unprecedented fishing expedition that involved unmasking General Flynn but
almost certainly others tied to the Trump campaign, including the President
and his family. For almost three years, the State Department has been
stonewalling our request for information for this basic Obamagate
information. We hope the court tears down this stonewall around the worst
corruption scandal in American history.
We argue that at least some of Ambassador Power’s unmasking requests
likely concerned intelligence reports about Russian interference in the
2016 presidential election and therefore relate to the subject matter of
our May 29, 2019, FOIA request.
There is a long history related to Samantha Power’s and “unmasking”
activities that lend credence to this argument.
On October 13, 2017, Power testified behind closed doors about this matter
to the House Intelligence Committee. House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, who also sits on the Intelligence Committee,
stated
that, “Her testimony is they [the unmasking requests] may be under my
name, but I did not make those requests.”
In 2019, Power’s political
bias came into question because of her harsh comments about President
Trump found in her official government emails.
Then in May of this year, Power’s name appears on the unmasking list for
General Flynn seven
times, even though she testified under oath before Congress that she
had “no
recollection” of ever making such a request.
Our intelligence agencies have vast powers, and Obama used them illegally
to spy on political opponents. This can’t be allowed to stand. And we aim
to uncover the truth about this terrible corruption.
Judicial Watch Files First Amendment Lawsuit Against DC – Because
No One Is Above the Law!
As you may know, we asked District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser and
other officials for permission to paint our motto – “Because No One Is
Above the Law!” – on a DC street. They of course have played games and
have yet to grant us our request.
So, we just filed a civil rights lawsuit for First Amendment violations
over their refusal. (Judicial
Watch. v. Muriel Bowser, et al. (No. 1:20-cv-01789)).
Here’s the background. On June 5, 2020, after days of protests and riots
in Washington, DC, led by the Black Lives Matter organization, Mayor Bowser
authorized the painting of “Black Lives Matter” on 16th Street NW, and
later authorized or allowed “Defund the Police” to be painted alongside
it.
On June 10, 2020, we sent a letter
requesting permission to paint “Because No One is Above the Law!” in
the identical size and coloring of the “Black Lives Matter” painting on
another DC street near its headquarters near Capitol Hill. We offered to
pay for the cost of the painting and, citing the timely nature of the
issue, asked for a response in three days.
Instead, after three weeks of emails with the Mayor’s office, we have yet
to receive a substantive response to its street painting request.
Our lawsuit argues that DC officials denied timely, access to Judicial
Watch to paint its own expressive message and violated federal civil rights
law in:
(a) allowing District streets to be used for the painting of expressive
messages, which constitutes protected, First Amendment activity, but
denying Plaintiff (Judicial Watch) the timely opportunity to paint its
expressive message on a District street for reasons that are not narrowly
drawn to achieve a compelling government interest; (b) failing to provide a
reasonable basis for denying Plaintiff the timely opportunity to paint is
expressive message on a District street; (c) favoring the expressive
messages painted on 16th Street NW and/or creating the appearance of
endorsing those messages to the exclusion of Plaintiff’s message on a
related subject matter; and/or (d) failing to provide reasonable,
non-arbitrary processes and procedures for timely consideration of
Plaintiff’s request to paint an expressive message on District
streets.
Mayor Bowser gave us the runaround rather than access, as the First
Amendment requires, to a DC street to paint our timely message and motto.
Our message is especially relevant today because it applies equally to law
enforcement and public officials, as well as to protesters, looters, and
rioters.
Meanwhile in New York …
On Tuesday, June 30, in response New York Mayor de Blasio’s announcement
that “Black Lives Matter” is to be painted on prominent streets in all
five boroughs, we formally
asked the mayor for permission to paint “Because No One Is Above the
Law” on a street, preferably Fifth Avenue between 81st and 83rd
Streets.
Here is our letter to Mayor de Blasio:
Re: Request to Paint Message Along Fifth Avenue Between 81st and 83rd
Streets
Dear Mayor de Blasio:
On June 9, 2020, the City’s press office issued a press release
stating that your administration will work with community activists to
paint five streets, one in each borough, to commemorate the Black Lives
Matter movement. During a press conference 10 days later, you announced the
five locations to include Center Street, in Manhattan; Richmond Terrace, in
Staten Island; Joralemon Street, in Brooklyn; 153rd Street in Queens; and
Morris Avenue in the Bronx. On June 26th, you also confirmed that “Black
Lives Matter” would be painted along Fifth Avenue between 56th and 57th
Streets. These paintings are expressive activity.
Judicial Watch, Inc. is a Washington, DC-based, non-profit organization.
For more than twenty-five years, Judicial Watch, Inc. has promoted
transparency, accountability and integrity in government and fidelity to
the rule of law. Our motto is “Because No One Is Above the Law!” – a
message that is particularly relevant today because it applies equally to
law enforcement and public officials as well as to protesters, looters, and
rioters.
Because City streets are now being used as public fora for expressive
activity, we would like to have our motto painted along a street,
preferably Fifth Avenue between 81st and 83rd Streets. The lettering would
be identical in size and color to the lettering used to paint “Black
Lives Matter” in the six above-referenced locations. We would pay the
cost of the painting, but we would likely need the assistance of the City
to aid in traffic diversion and parking restrictions while the painting is
completed. Of course, the painting could be completed in the same manner as
the other locations.
As the timeliness of our message is important, please respond within 3
working days. If our desired location is not possible, we are open to
considering alternative locations.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Tom Fitton
President, Judicial Watch
The Left claims public thoroughfares as its rightful place for protesting,
marching, rioting and painting. We have a right to equal expression and
we’re in court to vindicate our rights and the Constitution!
Supreme Court Allows the Abortion Industry to Set Abortion
Policy
The Supreme Court ruled against the Louisiana law requiring doctors who
perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
It is a rogue Supreme Court that allows this, despite the resulting risk to
“women’s health.” This is another sad day for the rule of law and the
Constitution. By a bare majority the court violated the Constitution by
changing the rules and granting the abortion industry a special veto power
over laws seeking to promote and protect the health of women and their
unborn children. The Supreme Court should have put a stop to the misuse of
the courts by special interests that seek to overturn laws passed by the
people’s representatives.
Instead, Chief Justice Roberts, in another political move, bent the rule of
law to accommodate and protect the radical political position that the
Constitution prevents the states from taking steps to protect innocent
life. The Chief Justice has repeatedly broken his promise to be a neutral
“umpire” and instead too often acts as a “politician in robes.”
As Justice Thomas writes in dissent, “Today a majority of the Court
perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly
legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction.”
We filed an amicus
curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Dr.
Rebecca Gee v. June Medical Services, et al. (No. 18-1460), in
which we opposed abortion providers’ efforts to overturn Louisiana’s Unsafe
Abortion Protection Act. In our brief we argued that abortion providers
petitioning the court to overturn the law lacked a legally protectable
interest in the outcome, otherwise known as “standing.”
We pointed out that plaintiffs generally may file a lawsuit only to protect
their own rights, not the rights of others. In this litigation, the lower
courts allowed third party abortion interests to challenge the law on the
theory they represent the interests of women. As the brief points out,
expanding health and safety requirements for abortionists can be argued to
be in the best interests of women.
The one silver lining is that no member of the Supreme Court was willing
today to defend the Supreme Court’s abominable Roe decision. And the
march for life will go on.
Happy Independence Day!
As our nation faces a communist insurrection that is targeting our history
and founding, it is more important than ever that we remind ourselves of
the glorious revolution for liberty behind our nation’s founding. The
Left is the enemy of history and memory and hates our nation’s founding
principles. To that end, to celebrate Independence Day, here is the
Declaration of Independence in full:
In Congress, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When
in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath
shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they
are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has
been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the
necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of
Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history
of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let
Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for
the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing
importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be
obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to
them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large
districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of
Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and
formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for
the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with
manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others
to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation,
have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State
remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from
without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that
purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to
pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the
conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent
to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their
offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of
Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the
Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to
the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to
their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders
which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring
Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its
Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for
introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and
altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested
with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection
and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and
destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to
compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with
circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most
barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to
bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their
friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to
bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages,
whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages,
sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in
the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by
repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which
may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have
warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an
unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to
their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties
of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably
interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to
the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in
the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold
the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in
General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of
the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these
United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;
that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that
all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is
and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States,
they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances,
establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent
States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a
firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to
each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Have a safe and wonderful Independence Day and God Bless the United States
of America!
Until next week …
 |
