We just released the transcript of a major court hearing (held last
week) in which U.S. District Court Judge Royce C.
Lamberth granted significant new discovery to us on the Clinton
email issue (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No.
1:14-cv-01242)).

[WEEKLY UPDATE]

JUDGE SLAMS STATE/DOJ ON CLINTON EMAIL COVER-UP!

[JW]
[[link removed]]

We just released the transcript
[[link removed]]
of
a major court hearing
[[link removed]]
(held last week) in which U.S. District Court Judge Royce C.
Lamberth granted
[[link removed]]
significant
new discovery to us on the Clinton email issue (_Judicial Watch v.
U.S. Department of State_
[[link removed]]
(No.
1:14-cv-01242)).

During the hearing, Judge Lamberth specifically raised concerns about
a Clinton email cache
[[link removed]]
recently
discussed in a letter to Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) and wants us
to “shake this tree
[[link removed]
on this issue.

> [J]ust last week, the Senate’s – Senate Finance and Homeland
> Security Committees released documents revealing that Clinton IT
> aide Paul Combetta copied all but four of the missing emails to a
> Gmail account that does not appear to have ever been reconstructed
> and searched. The court thinks Judicial Watch ought to shake this
> tree.

Judge Lamberth also criticized
[[link removed]]
the
State Department’s handling and production of Clinton’s emails in
this case stating, “There is no FOIA [Freedom of Information Act]
exemption for political expedience, nor is there one for bureaucratic
incompetence.”

In the beginning of their oral arguments, lawyers for the State
Department wrongfully stated that we could no longer continue their
discovery. The court stopped their arguments
[[link removed]]
stone
cold:

> STATE DEPARTMENT: … it is, of course, Judicial Watch’s burden to
> explain to Your Honor why there has been good cause to reopen
> discovery now that discovery has closed in this case.

> THE COURT: Well, I didn’t close discovery. So your premise is
> wrong.

> STATE DEPARTMENT: Fair enough, Your Honor. Whether you want to call
> it closed or not, it is still —
>
>
> THE COURT: I didn’t close it. I said I would have a status after
> they took this initial discovery, and that’s what I’m doing
> today. I didn’t close discovery.
>
>
> STATE DEPARTMENT: That’s right, Your Honor, but it is still
> Judicial Watch’s —
>
>
> THE COURT: So they don’t need any good cause —
>
>
> STATE DEPARTMENT: Whether
>
>
> THE COURT: — Today the good cause continues from whether or not
> State was acting in good faith, and I’ll tell you everything
> they’ve discovered in this period raises serious questions about
> what the hell the State Department’s doing here.

The Court also rejected DOJ and State’s efforts to derail further
Judicial Watch discovery. Judge Lamberth called their arguments
“preposterous” and cited a prior Judicial Watch FOIA case in which
he ordered U.S. Marshals to seize records
[[link removed]]
from
a Clinton administration official in a separate Judicial Watch
lawsuit:

> I’ll tell you another thing. I didn’t like in your brief. I’ll
> tell you right now upfront. You put in your brief the most
> preposterous thing, I thought, in your brief was the very idea that
> — let me read you the line. Competitive Enterprise Institute was a
> case of first impression and that some District Judge bought that
> and the Court of Appeals reversed it. Now, that wasn’t a case of
> first impression at all. The first impression with me was a case I
> had involving Ron Brown and the travel records of whether or not, in
> the Commerce Department — and it was a Judicial Watch case —
> whether or not the Commerce Department was selling seats on trade
> missions, and I had a Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce who took a
> box of records home and then they gave a no-records response and, in
> the course of that, I found out he had taken the records home and
> they said they had no records. I sent marshals over and they got
> the box at his house, and I ordered them – the marshals — to
> seize the records. That was the first case.

The judge also stated that the government has mishandled this case and
the discovery of information including former Secretary Clinton’s
emails so poorly that we may have the ability to prove the they acted
in “bad faith,” which would entitle Judicial Watch to attorney’s
fees.


Judge Lamberth detailed how the State Department “spent three months
from November 2014 trying to make this case disappear,” and that
after discovering the State Department’s actions and omissions,
“Now we know more, but we have even more questions
[[link removed]]
than
answers. So I won’t hold it against Judicial Watch for expanding
their initial discovery request now.”


Judge Lamberth stated his goal was to restore the public’s faith
[[link removed]]
in
their government:

> When I authorized discovery back in December, I described my goal:
> to rule out egregious government misconduct and vindicate the
> public’s faith in the State and Justice Departments. That’s
> still my goal today. This isn’t a case I relish, but it’s the
> case before me now, and it’s a case of the government’s
> making.”

The court granted
[[link removed]]
us
seven additional depositions, three interrogatories and four document
requests related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use
of a private email server. Hillary Clinton and her former top aide and
current lawyer Cheryl Mills were given 30 days to oppose being deposed
by Judicial Watch.


Below is the court’s ruling from the bench granting us significant
new discovery:

> First, let me clarify the Government’s misunderstanding. We’re
> not reopening discovery here. Discovery never closed. Back in
> January, I said, quote, The Government will — the Court will hold
> a post-discovery hearing to ascertain the adequacy of State’s
> searches; to determine if Judicial Watch needs to depose additional
> witnesses, including Hillary Clinton or her former Chief of Staff,
> Cheryl Mills; and to schedule dispositive motions, unquote. So June
> 19th was a checkpoint, not a finish line. And whether Judicial Watch
> previously knew about some of the other individuals it now wants to
> depose is beside the point. They tailored their initial discovery
> request to the facts and questions then before the Court.

> Now we know more, but we have even more questions than answers. So I
> won’t hold it against Judicial Watch for expanding their initial
> discovery request now.

> Remember what got us started down this path in the first place. In
> late 2014 and early 2015, at least some State Department officials
> knew Secretary Clinton’s emails were missing; they knew Judicial
> Watch didn’t know that; they knew the Court didn’t know that,
> but the Department pressed forward trying to settle this case. So, I
> authorized discovery into whether these settlement efforts amounted
> to bad faith.

> Now, the Government says, quote, there is simply no factual basis to
> justify any further discovery on that subject, unquote, but Judicial
> Watch’s most recent submission lays out the following:
>
>
> It appears that in the middle of 2013, State’s Office of
> Information and Program Services launched an inquiry into
> Clinton’s email practices.
>
>
> It appears that in August 2013, that office directed FOIA responders
> to stop issuing, quote, no record located, unquote, responses to
> FOIA requests for Clinton’s emails.
>
>
> It appears that by the summer of 2014, State knew a large volume of
> Clinton’s emails had never been searched, potentially violating
> FOIA and record management obligations. It turns out State had a
> standing meeting every Wednesday afternoon during the summer of 2014
> to discuss Clinton-related FOIA inquiries. Attendees included
> Secretary Kerry’s Chief of Staff; his Deputy Chief of Staff; the
> Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources; the Assistant
> Secretary for Legislative Affairs; several attorneys; and Patrick
> Kennedy, the Under Secretary for Management. That’s every
> Wednesday afternoon.
>
>
> It appears that in August 2014, State began planning for media
> investigations into Clinton’s emails.
>
>
> It appears that in November 2014, State told Judicial Watch it
> performed a legally adequate search and tried to settle. In fact, I
> think, in my original opinion on authorizing discovery, I noted that
> State had given a draft Vaughn index to Judicial Watch at that time.
> I don’t think I have ever seen that, but I think it was given to I
> think, in my opinion, I said that it had been given to Judicial
> Watch. Indeed, State spent the next three months from November 2014
> trying to make this case disappear. They kept doing it even after
> they came into the possession of Clinton’s emails.
>
>
> Judicial Watch wants to follow up with the State attorney assigned
> to this FOIA request to participate in settlement discussions and
> negotiations. That seems reasonable to me.
>
>
> [Judicial Watch] wants to ask the Department official responsible
> for overseeing FOIA requests more about why he directed his office
> to stop using “no record located” responses to FOIA requests
> relating to Clinton’s emails if that, in fact, is what happened.
> I’m curious, too.
>
>
> They want to ask the current Department FOIA overseer more about
> what went on in those weekly 2014 meetings. I look forward to
> hearing what he says.
>
>
> They want to ask the Justice Department attorney who led the
> settlement negotiations to divulge when he learned Clinton’s
> emails were missing. He must answer.
>
>
> Another reason we had this initial discovery was to see if Secretary
> Clinton intentionally attempted to evade FOIA by using a private
> email. When Judicial Watch deposed the Deputy Director who oversaw
> State’s FOIA responses, he recalled an instance when in — his
> office found an email from Clinton’s private account and the
> Public Affairs team said, Remember, you’re not supposed to use
> that email. How can you spin that?
>
>
> I agree with Judicial Watch that it’s worth deposing the State
> Department records officer who personally reviewed archiving
> procedures with Secretary Clinton and her departing staff to see
> what they discussed.
>
>
> I also think Judicial Watch is justified to seek more information
> about how Secretary Clinton ultimately determined which emails were
> public records and which were private.
>
>
> The final reason I authorized discovery was to determine whether
> State adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial
> Watch’s FOIA request. Now the Government seeks to duck behind an
> unpublished D.C. Circuit opinion from 2018 holding the Government
> has already taken every reasonable action under the Federal Records
> Act to retrieve Clinton’s 30,000 missing emails and no imaginable
> enforcement action could recover any more.
>
>
> But just last week, the Senate’s — Senate Finance and Homeland
> Security Committees released documents revealing Clinton IT aide
> Paul Combetta copied all but four of the missing emails to a Gmail
> account that does not appear to have ever been reconstructed and
> searched. The Court thinks Judicial Watch ought to shake this tree.
>
>
> And the Court agrees with Judicial Watch that it should talk to
> three never-before-deposed State officials who raised concerns about
> Clinton’s private email use all the way back to 2009.
>
>
> There is no FOIA exemption for political expedience, nor is there
> one for bureaucratic incompetence.
>
>
> The Government also tries to say this Court [sic] is — no longer
> — or no longer presents a live controversy. This is wrong.
> Judicial Watch can still obtain fees if they prove agency bad faith.
>
>
> I’ll close with this. When I authorized discovery back in
> December, I described my goal: to rule out egregious government
> misconduct and vindicate the public’s faith in the State and
> Justice Departments. That’s still my goal today. This isn’t a
> case I relish, but it’s the case before me now, and it’s a case
> of the government’s making.
>
>
> The Court authorizes Judicial Watch to take the additional discovery
> described in its status report, except for deposing Secretary
> Clinton and her Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills. I will give their
> attorneys 30 days to file any additional opposition to their
> depositions and 10 days thereafter for Judicial Watch to file any
> reply, and I’ll issue a separate ruling on that. Otherwise, the
> discovery should go forward and all of it should be completed by
> December 13th. A status will be held on December 19th at 10:00 a.m.
> to set a further schedule in this case.

We uncovered new information about the Clinton email scandal that a
federal court agrees requires more answers. We share the court’s
annoyance with DOJ lawyers who continue to defend the indefensible. It
is beyond disturbing that the State and Justice Departments would
continue to try to protect Hillary Clinton and cover up her email
scandal. President Trump should order the agencies to cooperate in
uncovering the truth.


The new discovery comes in our July 2014 FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
filed
after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13,
2014, request for:

* Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador
Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding,
or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in
Benghazi, Libya.
* Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or
relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to
Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.

On December 6, 2018, Judge Lamberth ordered
[[link removed]]
Obama
administration senior State Department officials, lawyers and Clinton
aides to be deposed or answer written questions under oath. The
court ruled
[[link removed]]
that
the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to
government transparency.”


The court ordered discovery into three specific areas: whether
Secretary 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.


Our FOIA lawsuit led directly
[[link removed]]
to
the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.


Our discovery over the last several months found many more details
about the scope of the Clinton email scandal and cover-up:

* John Hackett, former Director of Information Programs and Services
(IPS) testified
[[link removed]
oath that he had raised concerns that former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton’s staff may have “culled out 30,000” of the
secretary’s “personal” emails without following strict National
Archives standards. He also revealed that he believed there was
interference with the formal FOIA review process related to the
classification of Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails.
* Heather Samuelson, Clinton’s White House liaison at the State
Department, and later Clinton’s personal lawyer, admitted
[[link removed]
oath that she was granted immunity by the Department of Justice in
June 2016.
* Justin Cooper, former aide to President Bill Clinton and Clinton
Foundation employee who registered the domain name of the
unsecure com
[[link removed]
that Clinton used while
serving as Secretary of State, testified
[[link removed]]
he
worked with Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, to create
the non-government email system.
* In the interrogatory responses
[[link removed]
E.W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI
Counterintelligence Division, he stated that the agency found Clinton
email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive
Office of the President.
* Jacob “Jake” Sullivan, Clinton’s senior advisor and deputy
chief of staff when she was secretary of state, testified
[[link removed]
both he and Clinton used her unsecure non-government email system to
conduct official State Department business.
* Eric Boswell, former assistant secretary of state for diplomatic
security during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, testified
[[link removed]
Clinton was warned twice against using unsecure BlackBerry’s and
personal emails to transmit classified material.

We are, of course, grateful that a federal judge sees through the
charade perpetrated by these high-ranking officials. I’ll be sure to
update as the case continues to progress.

VIRGINIA’S LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR CLAMS UP ON ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS


Politicians like to retreat inside their shells when they’re accused
of wrongdoing but the law, thankfully, requires transparency to help
ensure the truth comes out.


We filed a Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against
Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax and his office for documents about rape
allegations against Fairfax (_Judicial Watch et al. v. Justin E.
Fairfax et al._
[[link removed]
_(No.
2019 11833)).


We asked for the records in June 2019, but the Lt. Governor’s office
refused to release them, describing them as “working papers” and
“personnel records” exempt from disclosure.


In February 2019, two women accused Lt. Governor Fairfax of sexual
assault and rape. Dr. Vanessa C. Tyson, a professor at Scripps
College, accused
[[link removed]]
Fairfax
of sexually assaulting her at the 2004 Democratic National Convention
in Boston, and Meredith Watson accused
[[link removed]]
Fairfax
of raping her while attending Duke University with him in 2000.


After the women came forward, Fairfax’s policy director Adele
McClure resigned
[[link removed]],
and
Fairfax himself stepped down
[[link removed]]
from
his position at the international law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP..


It speaks volumes that Lt. Governor Fairfax refuses to produce even
one document about his handling of the rape allegations against him.

ILHAN OMAR DECLARES SUPPORT FOR TERRORIST FINANCIER


Ilhan Omar, a freshman Democrat congressman from Minnesota, has been
in the news recently – for all the wrong reasons. Our _Corruption
Chronicles_ blog has the latest astonishing details
[/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#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].

> A controversial Minnesota congresswoman known for racially
> inflammatory anti-Semitic views has publicly declared her support
> for a terrorist organization in her native Somalia. Democrat Ilhan
> Omar is demanding that a telecommunications company founded and
> operated by a renowned terrorist financier, receive protection from
> that country’s government and peacekeeping forces. An
> Israeli-based newspaper broke the story a few days ago, but the
> American mainstream media has been notably silent on the matter.
>
>
> The company, Hormuud Telecommunications, was created and is operated
> by Ahmed Nur Ali Jim’ale, a chief financier of al–Shabaab, an
> east African-based jihadist group that serves as Al Qaeda’s
> affiliate in Somalia. In her social media account, Omar writes that
> Somalia’s government and peacekeeping forces need to protect
> Hormuud and the Somali telecom industry as they make enormous
> contributions to the economy and provide vital services. “During
> my visit to Somalia in 2011, I was surprised by the quick evolution
> of technology in Somalia,” Omar posts, indirectly praising the
> telecom firm with terrorist ties. The Israeli article includes the
> links to a pair of United Nations Security Council reports
> documenting Hormuud’s direct support for al-Shabaab.
>
>
> According to the first U.N. report:
>
[[link removed]]
“Ali
> Ahmed Nur Jim’ale (Jim’ale) has served in leadership roles with
> the former Somali Council of Islamic Courts, also known as the
> Somali Islamic Courts Union, which was a radical-Islamist element.
> The most radical elements of the Somali Islamic Courts
> Union eventually formed the group known as al–Shabaab.” The
> document also identifies Jim’ale, a prominent businessman who
> controls Hormuud, as one of al-Shabab’s chief financiers.
> “Hormuud Telecommunications is a company identified as being one
> of the single largest financiers of al-Shabaab, which includes
> large lump sum payments to al-Shabaab in the hundreds of thousands
> of dollars and these payments toal-Shabaab were facilitated
> by Jim’ale,” the U.N. report says, adding that “Hormuud
> Telecommunications has provided key material and logistical support
> to al-Shabaab to include weapons, private fighters, and
> ammunition.”
>
>
> The second U.N. Security Council report
>
[[link removed]],
> published last year, links a terror attack that killed hundreds in
> 2017 to Hormuud. The event is described as the deadliest terror
> attack in Somalia’s history, carried out with a large
> vehicle-borne improvised explosive device. “Two employees of the
> principal Somali telecommunications provider, Hormuud Telecom
> Somalia Inc., were also prosecuted in connection with the attack,
> for facilitating the entry of the large vehicle-borne improvised
> explosive device through the Sinka Dheere checkpoint on the
> outskirts of Mogadishu,” according to the U.N. report.
>
>
> Considering this documented history of terrorist activity, it’s
> outrageous that Hormuud is endorsed by a member of the United States
> Congress. Omar has been plagued by controversy since becoming one of
> the first—along with Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib—Muslim
> women elected to Congress. The mainstream media has praised the
> legislators for being part of a “historic freshmen class with more
> women and minorities than ever
>
[[link removed]
> The reality is that there is more than enough credible information
> for the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security
> (DHS) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to open criminal
> investigations into Omar. Back in July Judicial Watch filed
> an ethics complaint
>
[[link removed]]
with
> the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics
> calling for a full investigation into potential crimes tied to
> allegations that Omar may have married her biological brother.
>
>
> In the complaint Judicial Watch documents substantial, compelling
> and unrefuted evidence that Omar may have committed the following
> crimes in violation of both federal law and Minnesota state law:
> perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax
> fraud and federal student loan fraud. At the very least, such
> violations constitute a breach of the Code of Ethics for Government
> Service which subject officeholders to a higher standard.

I encourage you to share your views in Rep. Omar’s ethics issues
with your congressmen. You can reach them at 202-225-3121.



Until next week …

[Fittton]
Tom Fitton



[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



©2017-2019, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]