Clinton Email Court Battle

[INSIDE JW]

SUPREME COURT NOMINATION FIGHT

[[link removed]]


We send our condolences to the family of Supreme Court Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg. She had a wonderful judicial temperament that will
always be remembered.

President Trump now has a historic opportunity to nominate yet another
constitutional conservative who will honor the Constitution and the
rule of law across the full spectrum of constitutional issues.

And the Senate should move quickly to work with President Trump to
consider and approve a new justice who will faithfully apply the U.S.
Constitution. There is no reason we cannot have a new justice by
Election Day.

Regarding the Supreme Court vacancy, my belief is that if Democrats
can impeach in an election year, Trump can certainly fill a seat on
the Court in an election year. President Trump is set to announce
his nomination this weekend. It is important that your share your
views about the confirmation battle with your senators at
202-225-3121. Don’t presume any outcome is preordained or that even
senators you don’t support won’t be pleased to hear from you! This
[[link removed]]
is what I wrote for Fox News.

When karma lands, it lands hard. This is the lesson Democrats are now
learning with the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, and the reality that President Trump will move
forward to fill her seat this week.

In years past, Democrats might have had the tools to stop the process
in its tracks, or the comity and goodwill to be able to reach a
compromise with Senate Republicans or the White House. But they have
squandered their goodwill and disarmed their senators, leaving them
with little to do but fume and threaten.

Democrats say they are angry about the precedent and propriety of a
hurry-up nomination process. They invoke Ginsburg’s supposed
“dying wish” she “not be replaced until a new president is
installed."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., threatened that
“nothing is off the table for next year” if Senate Republicans
move the process forward. And Massachusetts Rep. Joe Kennedy
III tweeted his contempt for the Supreme Court, saying: “If he
holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021. It’s that
simple.”

But this is a case of “coup karma.”

If the Left can unilaterally impeach and try to remove a president
during an election year, a Supreme Court justice can certainly be
appointed during an election year. Democrats can hardly stand on
principle regarding election year nominations when they were more than
willing to engage in a partisan, election-year impeachment fiasco
based on a contrived pretext that had no chance of prevailing.

The impeachment followed other failed attempts to sabotage Trump –
illicit spying, the “insurance policy,” seeking to invoke the
25th Amendment to remove him from office, and the Mueller “witch
hunt” investigation that harassed him despite almost everyone in
D.C. knowing that there was never any evidence of Russian collusion.

After the Mueller fiasco flamed out, Democrats weaponized the
whistleblower process to create a fake scandal out of a harmless July
25, 2019, conversation between President Trump and President Volodymyr
Zelensky of Ukraine. This became the basis for what George Washington
University Law Professor Jonathan Turley called “the shortest
proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest
grounds ever used to impeach a president.”

Recall that the impeachment moved out of the House based on an
unprecedented party-line vote!

The fact that the coup impeachment was occurring as an election was
looming made no impression on Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and her
minions, who were eager to leave Trump “impeached forever” (though
he was also acquitted forever).

Byron York called it “an election-year gambit” using the
impeachment as “the most audacious opposition research maneuver of
all time.” And Berkeley law professor John Yoo cautioned that the
Founding Fathers would have rejected the idea of an election-year
impeachment because they “expected that the American people would
hold a president accountable for any abuses of power at the ballot
box.”

So it is ironic to hear Democrats saying that the people should
decide who gets to choose the next Supreme Court justice when they
were more than willing to deny voters the opportunity to judge
President Trump’s fitness for office.

Defenders of the election-year impeachment also argued that the
timing was valid since the “crimes” under investigation might
affect the outcome of the election itself. A similar argument can be
made regarding filling Ginsburg’s vacant seat.

The Left has hired 600 hundred lawyers for the Biden campaign and
intends the Supreme Court to be an active participant in the 2020
election. The stakes going into November are frankly too high to have
a Supreme Court not at full strength.

Democrats have pushed for a mail-in election that virtually guarantees
fraud and chaos and subsequent urgent litigation. They have instructed
Democratic nominee Joe Biden not to concede under any circumstances
and have threatened violence if they do not win.

The country cannot afford to have an eight-member Supreme Court that
could deadlock on critical questions coming from these dangerous
circumstances. We are staring down the barrel of potentially the
greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War, and we need nine
justices on the bench. As then-President Obama tweeted in October
2016, “the need for a ninth justice is undeniably clear.”

There is plenty of time. Justice Ginsburg was confirmed only 42 days
after she was nominated by President Bill Clinton. President Trump’s
nominee should get the same speedy consideration by the Senate.

A confirmation vote by Oct. 30 is completely doable. Especially since
a cabal of corrupt politicians tried to ram through an election-year
impeachment and failed. Again, coup karma.

It is absurd to suggest a president whose party controls the Senate
should jointly decline to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat – ever.
Fill the seat.

JUDICIAL WATCH WILL APPEAL DECISION ON CLINTON EMAIL TESTIMONY

Anything to keep the full truth about Hillary Clinton’s emails
hidden …

The State Department just asked a judge to overturn a court order
authorizing additional discovery in our FOIA lawsuit that led directly
to the 2015 disclosure of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton personal email system.

We have now filed our opposition to this latest effort.

The State Department’s motion seeks to avoid the depositions of
Clinton’s former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills as well as current and
former State Department Information Technology Officials Brett
Gittleson and Yvette Jacks.

We argue that the State Department is wrong to try to expand an August
2020 appellate court ruling blocking Clinton’s deposition. The
ruling did not bar the deposition of Mills or any other witness. We
intend to seek further review of the ruling.

The lawsuit seeks records about the Obama administration’s public
statements regarding the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate
in Benghazi, Libya. In addition to exposing the Clinton email system,
the lawsuit uncovered “talking points” drafted by Obama
administration officials demonstrating that then-National Security
Advisor Susan Rice’s statements on the eve of the 2012 presidential
election were false (_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State_ (No.
1:14-cv-01242)).

On December 6, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered
that Rice and senior Obama State Department officials, lawyers and
Clinton aides be deposed or answer written questions under oath in the
lawsuit. Judge Lamberth called Clinton’s email system “one of the
gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

In May 2019, Rice admitted under oath that she emailed Clinton on
Clinton’s personal email account and “in rare instances”
received emails related to U.S. government business on her own
personal email account. Rice claimed she “took steps” to ensure
that official emails were “also on her government email account”
but did not identify those steps. Rice’s 2019 sworn answers are
available here.

On March 2, 2020, Judge Lamberth ordered us to depose Clinton and
Mills, under oath, regarding Clinton’s email system and the
existence of records about the Benghazi attack. Clinton and Mills
filed an emergency mandamus appeal to avoid testifying.

It is shameful that we still must battle Hillary Clinton, the DOJ, and
the State Department in court over the Clinton email scandal.
President Trump should demand answers about these efforts to avoid
accountability and the truth.

JUDICIAL WATCH IS SUING ILLINOIS FOR REFUSING TO DISCLOSE VOTER ROLL
DATA

A key issue this year (and, frankly, every year!) is clean voter
rolls. Toward this end, we filed a lawsuit against the state of
Illinois, the Illinois State Board of Elections, and its director for
failing to allow public access to its voter roll data in violation of
the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993
[[link removed]]
(NVRA).

State officials refused to allow the non-profit Illinois Conservative
Union and three lawfully registered Illinois voters to obtain a copy
of the state’s voter registration list, despite their lawful request
for those records under federal law. We filed the lawsuit on their
behalf in the United States District Court in the Northern District of
Illinois (_Illinois Conservative Union et al v. Illinois et al. _
[[link removed].
1:20-cv-05542)). Judicial Watch Attorney Robert Popper is the director
of our election integrity initiative. We are being assisted by
attorney David J. Shestokas of Orland Park, Illinois.

Federal law provides that states “shall make available for public
inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost,
all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities
conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of
official lists of eligible voters.”

On July 24, 2019, the Illinois Conservative Union sent a public
records request under this provision to the Illinois State Board of
Elections, requesting information about the maintenance of voter
rolls, including the most recent voter registration list for Illinois.
The request noted that the records “would be used solely for
purposes intended by federal law, namely, to ensure the accuracy and
currency of the official list of eligible voters,” the complaint
said.

The State Board of Elections denied the request, claiming that only
political committees or governmental bodies may receive copies of
records. The State Board did allow a few Illinois Conservative Union
members to travel to Springfield, Illinois during working hours and
afforded them the opportunity to review Illinois’ millions of voter
records one at a time on a computer terminal, with no ability to sort
or organize records. By this lawsuit the Illinois Conservative Union
seeks meaningful access to the records it requested.

As several federal courts have recognized, the public records
provisions of the National Voter Registration Act were intended to
enhance the ability of private groups to monitor whether states are
removing ineligible voters from their voter rolls. In April, a federal
court in Maryland noted that organizations “such as Judicial
Watch” have “the resources and expertise that few individuals can
marshal. By excluding these organizations from access to voter
registration lists,” the purpose of the federal law is undermined.
That court ordered Maryland
[[link removed]]
to produce complete voter registration records we requested.

In Illinois, our research found that 14 out of 102 counties (14% of
all counties) have more registered voters than citizens over 18, while
Illinois as a whole has 660,000 inactive registrants.

So our lawsuit aims to open up Illinois voting records so private
groups can tell whether they are dirty. Illinois voters and citizens
have a right to review election rolls under federal law and
Illinois’ refusal to make them available suggests the state knows
the rolls are a mess and won’t stand the light of the day.

Thanks to your support, we are a national leader for cleaner
elections.

Earlier this year, we sued Pennsylvania
[[link removed]]
and
North Carolina
[[link removed]]
for failing to make reasonable efforts to remove ineligible voters
from their rolls as required by federal law. The lawsuits allege that
the two states have nearly 2 million extra names on voter registration
rolls.

In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld a voter-roll cleanup program that
resulted from a Judicial Watch settlement of a federal lawsuit with
Ohio
[[link removed]].
California settled
[[link removed]]
a National Voter Registration Act 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
Judicial Watch lawsuit.

Our 2019 study 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.

FEDS CAN SHUT OFF DC CASH OVER BLM-DEFUND THE POLICE STREET PAINTING

I hope you’ve been following our challenge to the District of
Columbia government over it turning a prominent street into leftwing
propaganda.

Here’s the latest. We have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
suit against the U.S. Department of Transportation for records of
communication between the Federal Highway Administration and the
District of Columbia’s Department of Transportation about the
painting of “Black Lives Matter” on and the reopening of 16th
Street NW near the White House in Washington, DC (_Judicial Watch v.
U.S. Department of Transportation_
[[link removed]]
(No. 20-cv-02667)).

We sued after the Federal Highway Administration failed to respond to
an August 19, 2020, FOIA request asking for:

* Emails between the Federal Highway Administration and the District
Department of Transportation about the painting of “Black Lives
Matter” on 16th Street, N.W. between H and K Streets, N.W.
* Emails between the Federal Highway Administration and the District
Department of Transportation about the closure of 16th Street, N.W.
between H and K Streets, N.W.
* Records identifying policies or procedures for closing streets
deemed part of the District Evacuation Route.

On September 15, 2020, it was reported
[[link removed]]
that the Federal Highway Administration informed Washington, DC,
officials that it wanted them, “to remove the Black Lives Matter
plaza sign so that part of 16th street in downtown Washington could be
re-opened to traffic.” Further, there is “nothing in writing right
now because no one wants to come down on the side against … the
Black Lives Matter movement,” and there have been closed door
meetings between the Mayor’s office, the Federal Highway
Administration, and local businesses affected by the road closure.

On June 5, 2020, after days of protests and riots in Washington, DC,
led by the Black Lives Matter movement, a team of artists, residents,
District employees, and demonstrators painted “Black Lives Matter”
and the District’s crest, which resembles three stars above an
“equals” sign, on 16th Street NW. The following day, demonstrators
painted “Defund the Police,” a key demand of the Black Lives
Matter movement, alongside the “Black Lives Matter” message.

On July 1, we filed a civil rights lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against
Mayor Bowser and other officials for First Amendment violations over
their refusal to allow Judicial Watch to paint the message “Because
No One Is Above the Law!” on a DC street.

In August, we filed a FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against
Bowser, the District of Columbia Department of Transportation and the
District of Columbia Department of Public Works for records about the
painting of “Black Lives Matter” and “Defund the Police” on a
DC street in front of the White House.

DC Mayor Bowser shut down a major street near the White House to make
a political statement for the BLM/Defund the Police agenda. Our
lawsuit highlights how and why federal dollars should not be used to
subsidize this abuse.

NEW YORK TO DOCTORS: HAND OVER PRIVATE PATIENT INFORMATION

The various state government responses to coronavirus have undermined
and, in some cases, shredded our God-given liberties and
constitutional rights. Consider New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s
latest move, as our chief investigative reporter, Micah Morrison,
reports
[[link removed]]
in our _Investigative Bulletin_.

Big Brother wants more about you from your doctor—and fast.

Last month, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ordered health care
professionals across the state to provide the “full residential
address and phone number, occupation and employer name, full work
address and employer phone number as well as race and ethnicity” of
all patients tested for Covid-19.

On Monday, he upped the ante. The new order
[[link removed]],
obtained by Judicial Watch, mandates that doctors “collect and
report whether a patient attends or works in a school and if so, the
name and location of the school. This includes elementary, secondary,
and post-secondary/higher education. It is also critical to list the
patient’s local address if different from their permanent
address.”

Health care providers must report “within three hours.” Three
hours! The price of non-compliance? “Civil penalties of up to $2,000
per day.”

No mention in the advisory of privacy safeguards or limits on what can
be done with the information. Medical professionals in New York
understand the need for Covid-19 testing, but concerns are mounting
that Cuomo is using a March state of emergency declaration
[[link removed]]
to trample patient rights.

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]]