September 06, 2019 Federal Judge Criticizes State and Justice Departments on Clinton Email Cover-Up ‘There is no FOIA exemption for political expedience, nor is there one for bureaucratic incompetence.’ ‘The court thinks Judicial Watch ought to shake this tree.’ ‘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.’ ‘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.’ (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch released the transcript today from their hearing on Thursday, August 22, 2019, where U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth granted significant new discovery to Judicial Watch on the Clinton email issue (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). During the hearing, Judge Lamberth specifically raised concerns about a Clinton email cache recently discussed in a letter to Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) and wants Judicial Watch to “shake this tree” on this issue. Just 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 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 Judicial Watch could no longer continue their discovery. The court stopped their arguments saying that Judicial Watch can continue to find more evidence in this case: 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 rejected DOJ and State 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 from a Clinton administration official. 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 Judicial Watch may have the ability to prove the they acted in “bad faith,” which would be entitle them 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 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 in their government, which may have been damaged because of the Clinton email investigation: 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 Judicial Watch 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 Judicial Watch’s 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. “Judicial Watch 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,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. The new discovery comes in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit 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 Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers and Clinton aides to be deposed or answer written questions under oath. The court ruled 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. This Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015. Judicial Watch’s 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 under 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 under 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 clintonemail.com server that Clinton used while serving as Secretary of State, testified he worked with Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, to create the non-government email system. In the interrogatory responses of 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 that 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 that Clinton was warned twice against using unsecure BlackBerry’s and personal emails to transmit classified material. https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...ustice-departments-on-clinton-email-cover-up/
This must mean that Hillary will be indicted any day now. Say, this any day now crap is turning out to be decades in the making. So, what gives? Wait a minute. I just realized that it's all due to the deep state, LOL.
US attorney recommends proceeding with charges against McCabe, as DOJ rejects last-ditch appeal By Jake Gibson | Fox News U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu has recommended moving forward with charges against Andrew McCabe, Fox News has learned, as the Justice Department rejects a last-ditch appeal from the former top FBI official. McCabe appealed the decision of the U.S. attorney for Washington all the way up to the deputy attorney general, but the department rejected that request, according to a person familiar with the situation. The potential charges relate to DOJ inspector general findings against him regarding misleading statements during the Hillary Clinton email investigation. A source close to McCabe’s legal team said they received an email from the Department of Justice which said, "The Department rejected your appeal of the United States Attorney’s Office’s decision in this matter. Any further inquiries should be directed to the United States Attorney’s Office."
Justice Dept. IG referred James Comey for criminal prosecution By Jeff Mordock - The Washington Times - Wednesday, September 18, 201 Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said Wednesday that he referred former FBI Director James B. Comey for criminal prosecution this year after concluding he leaked sensitive materials to a friend. And the Justice Department watchdog told Congress he would “assess” Republican allegations of inconsistent statements in Mr. Comey’s testimony before the Senate. Mr. Horowitz’s disclosure that he made the criminal referral marks his first public statement about the criticism lodged against Mr. Comey in a report released last summer. He told lawmakers it is standard practice to make a criminal referral when wrongdoing is suspected. “We are required by the [Inspector General] Act to send information that we’ve identified that could plausibly be criminal to the Department of Justice,” Mr. Horowitz said. The Justice Department ultimately decided not to prosecute Mr. Comey despite the conclusion by Mr. Horowitz’s team that he improperly leaked information to the news media. The documents leaked by Mr. Comey were sensitive but not classified. Mr. Comey in May 2017 asked a law professor friend to share with The New York Times a memo detailing his conversations with President Trump to pressure the Justice Department to open an investigation of the president. In a report released last month, Mr. Horowitz wrote that the former FBI director “set a dangerous example” when he shared the memos to push the Justice Department to act. Testifying before the House Oversight and Reform Committee, the Justice Department watchdog said Mr. Comey’s behavior was worrisome. “Our concern was empowering FBI directors or, frankly, any FBI employee with the authority to decide they are not going to follow established norms and procedures because, in their view, they’ve made a judgment that the individuals they are dealing with can’t be trusted,” he said. When asked if Mr. Comey’s holding the highest position in the bureau added to his concern, Mr. Horowitz confirmed it had. Rep. Jody Hice, Georgia Republican, called Mr. Horowitz’s revelation of the criminal referral of Mr. Comey “monumental.” Rep. Mark Meadows, North Carolina Republican, asked Mr. Horowitz if he would look into allegations Mr. Comey was inconsistent during Senate testimony. Mr. Meadows said he believes there were “a number” of times when the ex-FBI director’s testimony did not match revelations included in the inspector general report. For example, Mr. Meadows said the then-FBI director denied opening an obstruction of justice probe based on comments Mr. Trump made to him. But Mr. Horowitz’s team found Mr. Comey leaked memos of his conversations with the president to get a special counsel appointed. “I’m finding just a number of irregularities,” Mr. Meadows said. “So would it be appropriate if ranking member Jordan and I were to refer those inconsistencies to the IG and if we did that, would the IG look at those inconsistencies?” Mr. Horowitz said he would look into the matter. “It is certainly appropriate for us to get a referral about a then-employee of the department and then we would assess it,” he said. When asked if he knew of another FBI director referred for criminal prosecution, Mr. Horowitz said he did not. Mr. Horowitz also fielded a few questions about his upcoming investigation into alleged Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuses by the Justice Department and FBI. He revealed little about his findings, which are expected to be released this month. The FBI and Justice Department are reviewing his conclusions, Mr. Horowitz said, adding they will decide how much of his findings will be classified. “That is normal process,” he said.
McCabe memo indicates Rosenstein was serious about wearing White House wire By Gregg Re | Fox News A newly released two-page memo written by then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe outlined how former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein proposed wearing a wire in the White House "to collect additional evidence on the president’s true intentions," and thought the scheme was plausible because "he was not searched when he entered the White House." The contemporaneous memo, which the Justice Department released after a transparency lawsuit by Judicial Watch, provided the strongest documentary evidence to date to undercut previous claims by DOJ officials that Rosenstein was joking when he apparently made the suggestion. McCabe said in the partially redacted memo – written May 16, 2017, on the eve of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's appointment -- that Rosenstein offered to wear a recording device to gather evidence on the firing of former FBI Director James Comey and related matters. McCabe noted that he took Rosenstein's suggestion seriously enough that "I told him that I would discuss the opportunity with my investigative team and get back to him." The DOJ and White House have separately rejected McCabe's claims outright and called his credibility into question. "As our conversation continued, the DAG proposed that he could potentially wear a recording device into the Oval Office to collect additional evidence on the president’s true intentions," McCabe wrote in the memo. "He said he thought this might be possible because he was not searched when he entered the White House. Also in the memo, McCabe -- he'd just taken over as acting head of the FBI -- said he began the lunch-hour meeting by informing Rosenstein that he had opened an investigation into the president concerning possible collusion and obstruction. "I began by telling him that today I approved the opening of an investigation of President Donald Trump," McCabe wrote. "I explained that the purpose of the investigation was to investigate allegations of possible collusion between the president and the Russian government, possible obstruction of justice related to the firing of FBI Director James Corney, and possible conspiracy to obstruct justice." When Rosenstein pushed for specifics, McCabe cited a disputed NBC News interview in which Trump emphasized that he was not firing Comey to obstruct any investigation, but also acknowledged that Comey's handling of the Russia probe was on his mind at the time. In May 2017, then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe told Rod Rosenstein that he had opened a probe into the president -- based in part on a disputed Lester Holt interview. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File) In his interview with Holt, Trump stated, "And in fact, when I decided to just do it [fire Comey], I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.” However, conservative commentators argued that Trump's comments to Holt were, in context, seemingly exculpatory. For example, Trump also told Holt that he was aware that firing Comey might "even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people. He’s the wrong man for that position.” Trump additionally explicitly rejected Holt's suggestion that he was trying to send a message to future FBI directors that they should back off: “No, I’m not doing that. I think we have to get back to work. But I want to find out, I want to get to the bottom – if Russia hacked, if Russia did anything having to do with our election, I want to know about it." McCabe did not mention either of those Trump statements in his memo. Responding to the claim that Rosenstein may have sought to wear a wire, Trump told Fox News earlier this year that he had his doubts. "I'd much rather have you ask him that question," Trump said, referring to Rosenstein. "It sounds a little bit far-fetched, frankly, but a lot of things in this case are far-fetched." Rosenstein did not respond to multiple requests by Fox News for comment. In the main, McCabe's writings in the memo square with what he has said publicly about Holt's interview with Trump, as well as Rosenstein's actions. McCabe, speaking to CBS News' "60 Minutes" earlier this year, mentioned that Rosenstein was not joking when he floated the idea of wearing a wire to gather evidence, and had suggested Trump could be removed under the 25th Amendment. The memo's release comes as U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu earlier this month recommended moving forward with charges against McCabe. McCabe appealed the decision all the way up to Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, who ultimately rejected that request. The potential charges relate to DOJ inspector general findings against him regarding misleading statements concerning a Hillary Clinton-related investigation. A source close to McCabe’s legal team said they received an email from the Justice Department last week which said, “The department rejected your appeal of the United States Attorney’s Office’s decision in this matter. Any further inquiries should be directed to the United States Attorney’s Office.” McCabe's lawyers last week pushed for the criminal probe to end, calling it "fatally flawed." McCabe served at the FBI for 21 years. He became the acting director in May 2017 after Trump fired Comey. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe in March 2018 after the inspector general found he had repeatedly misstated his involvement in a leak to The Wall Street Journal regarding an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation. The IG report faulted McCabe for leaking information to then-Wall Street Journal reporter Devlin Barrett for an Oct. 30, 2016, story titled “FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe.” The story -- written just days before the presidential election – focused on the FBI announcing the reopening of the Clinton investigation after finding thousands of her emails on a laptop belonging to former Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, who was married to Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The Journal's account of the call said a senior Justice Department official expressed displeasure to McCabe that FBI agents were still looking into the Clinton Foundation, and that McCabe had defended the agent's authority to pursue the issue. That leak confirmed the existence of the probe, the report said, which Comey had up to that point refused to do. The report said that McCabe "lacked candor" in a conversation with Comey when he said he had not authorized the disclosure and didn't know who had done so. The IG also found that he lacked candor when questioned by FBI agents on multiple occasions since that conversation.
I don't want to hear any of these GOP people talking about Trump derangement of any kind. Hillary lives so far into their heads rent free it's borderline psychotic.
State Department stepped up Hillary Clinton email probe beginning in August The State Department reportedly has ramped up its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private server, potentially reviving an issue that dominated the 2016 presidential election campaign. The Washington Post, citing current and former U.S. officials, reported late Saturday that as many as 130 current and former officials whose emails found their way into Clinton's inbox have been contacted by investigators. According to The Post, those officials have received letters notifying them that their emails from years ago have been retroactively classified and their transmission could constitute security violations. STATE DEPARTMENT IDENTIFIES 23 VIOLATIONS, 'MULTIPLE SECURITY INCIDENTS' CONCERNING CLINTON EMAILS Those being investigated will not face criminal prosecution since the FBI investigation of the Clinton email case closed before the 2016 election. The FBI began investigating Clinton's use of a private email server in July 2015 based on a referral from the intelligence community inspector general. In July 2016, then-FBI director James Comey announced he was recommending the case be closed with no charges, saying Clinton and her aides' handling of classified information was "extremely careless" but not criminal.
