Flynn Dismissal Order ‘Thoroughly Demolishes’ Dissenting Judge’s Opinion


ZeroHedge reports on DC Appeals Judge Neomi Rao wrote the majority opinion that shreds the dissenting od Judge Robert Wilkins. The Majority tells Deep State Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss case against framed Michael Flynn.

 

JRH 6/26/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.

*************************************

Flynn Dismissal Order ‘Thoroughly Demolishes’ Dissenting Judge’s Opinion

 

By Tyler Durden

06/25/2020 – 04:12

ZeroHedge

 

Update (2135ET): Missouri appellate attorney John Reeves has weighed in on today’s decision by the US Court of Appeals for DC ordering Judge Emmett Sullivan to grant a DOJ request to drop the case against Michael Flynn.

 

The opinion, authored by one of the three judges on the panel, Neomi J. Rao, “thoroughly demolishes” a dissenting opinion by Judge Robert Wilkins – who Reeves thinks was so off-base that he “shot himself in the foot” when it comes to any chance of an ‘en-banc review’ in which the Flynn decision would be kicked back for a full review by the DC appellate court.

 

Neomi Rao testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearing to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, on Tuesday, February 5, 2019. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM (via law.com)

 

Reeves, who has written filings for US Supreme Court cases, unpacks Rao’s “outstanding opinion” in the below Twitter thread, conveniently adding which page you can find what he’s referring to (condensed below after the first tweet, emphasis ours):

 

 

In all my years of appellate practice, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a non-US Supreme Court appellate opinion that so thoroughly demolishes a dissenting opinion as this one. Judge Rao could not have done better in writing the opinion, and it should be required law school rdg.

 

In addition, Judge Wilkins’ dissenting opinion is so off-the-mark that I believe he has shot himself in the foot for purposes of en banc review–in other words, he has ensured that otherwise-sympathetic judges on the DC Circuit will vote against en banc review.

 

Judge Rao comes out swinging by holding that its earlier opinion in Fokker “foreclose[s] the district court’s proposed scrutiny of the government’s motion to dismiss the Flynn prosecution.” p. 7.

 

In relying on Fokker, Judge Rao explicitly rejects Judge Wilkinson’s argument that Fokker’s holding is dicta (that is, non-binding). She holds Fokker “is directly controlling here.” p. 14.

 

Keep in mind that Fokker was written by Chief Judge Srinivasan, an OBAMA appointee. Judge Srinivasan does NOT want Fokker’s legitimacy undermined, no matter his politics.

 

Judge Wilkins’ dissent implies that Fokker was wrongly decided, and that it conflicts with other federal appellate courts. See p. 23 of 28. Judge Srinivasan will NOT be impressed by this argument in deciding whether to grant en banc rehearing. Fokker does not create a split.

 

Judge Rao goes on to emphasize that while judicial inquiry MAY be justified in some circumstances, Flynn’s situation “is plainly not the rare case where further judicial inquiry is warranted.” p. 6.

 

Rao notes that Flynn agrees with the Govt.’s dismissal motion, so there’s no risk of his rights being violated. In addition, the Government has stated insufficient evidence exists to convict Flynn. p. 6.

 

Rao also holds that “a hearing cannot be used as an occasion to superintend the prosecution’s charging decisions.” p. 7.

 

But by appointing amicus and attempting to hold a hearing on these matters, the district court is inflicting irreparable harm on the Govt. because it is subjecting its prosecutorial decisions to outside inquiry. p. 8

 

Thus, Judge Rao holds, it is NOT true that the district court has “yet to act” in this matter, contrary to Judge Wilkins’ assertions. p. 16.

 

[T]he district court HAS acted here….[by appointing] one private citizen to argue that another citizen should be deprived of his liberty regardless of whether the Executive Branch is willing to pursue the charges.” p. 16. This justified mandamus being issued NOW.

 

Judge Rao also makes short work of Judge Wilkins’ argument that the court may not consider the harm to the Government in deciding whether to grant mandamus bc the Government never filed a petition for mandamus. p. 17.

 

Judge Rao notes “[o]ur court has squarely rejected this argument,” and follows with a plethora of supporting citations. p. 17.

 

Judge Rao also notes–contrary to what many legal commentators have misled the public to believe–that it is “black letter law” that the Govt. can seek dismissal even after a guilty plea is made. This does not justify greater scrutiny by the district court. p. 6, footnote 1.

 

As to Judge Wilkins’ argument that a district court may conduct greater scrutiny where, as here, the Govt. reverses its position in prosecuting a case, Judge Rao points out that “the government NECESSARILY reverses its position whenever it moves to dismiss charges….” p. 13

 

“Given the absence of any legitimate basis to question the presumption of regularity, there is no justification to appoint a private citizen to oppose the government’s motion to dismiss Flynn’s prosecution.” p. 13.

 

But Judge Rao saves her most stinging and brutal takedown of Judge Wilkins’ dissent for the end…..(cont)

 

Judge Rao writes that “the dissent swings for the fences–and misses–by analogizing a Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss with a selective prosecution claim.” p. 17. (cont)

 

While it is true that the Executive cannot selectively prosecute certain individuals “based on impermissible considerations,” p. 18, “the equal protection remedy is to dismiss the prosecution, NOT to compel the Executive to bring another prosecution.” p. 18 (emph. added).

 

And Judge Rao is just getting warmed up here….She then notes that “unwarranted judicial scrutiny of a prosecutor’s motion to dismiss puts the court in an entirely different position [than selective prosecution caselaw assigns the court].” p. 18 (cont)

 

“Rather than allow the Executive Branch to dismiss a problematic prosecution, the court [as Judge Wilkins and Judge Sullivan would have it] assumes the role of inquisitor, prolonging a prosecution deemed illegitimate by the Executive.” p. 18 (cont).

 

And now for Judge Rao’s KO to Judge Wilkins and Judge Sullivan: “Judges assume that role in some countries, but Article III gives no prosecutorial or inquisitional power to federal judges.” p. 18. (cont)

 

In other words, Judge Rao is likening Judge Wilkins’ arguments, and Judge Sullivan’s actions, to what is done in non-democratic, third world countries. p. 18. Outstanding opinion. No mercy. END

 

Judge Robert Wilkins of the District of Columbia Circuit (Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / NLJ)

 

*  *  *

Like a liquid-metal terminator with half its head blown apart, the case against Michael Flynn just won’t die.

 

Hours after the US Court of Appeals for DC ordered Judge Emmett Sullivan to grant the DOJ’s request to drop the case, the retired ‘resistance’ judge hired to defend Sullivan’s actions has filed a motion requesting an extension to file his findings against Flynn.

 

 

*  *  *

 

In a major victory for Michael Flynn, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ordered Judge Emmet Sullivan to grant the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the case against the former Trump National Security Adviser.

 

Mike Flynn – lawyer Sidney Powell on right

 

“Upon consideration of the emergency petition for a writ of mandamus, the responses thereto, and the reply, the briefs of amici curiae in support of the parties, and the argument by counsel, it is ORDERED that Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus be granted in part; the District Court is directed to grant the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss; nd the District Court’s order appointing an amicus is hereby vacated as moot, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date,” reads the order.

 

In their decision, the appeals court wrote: “Decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges – no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring – lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.

 

“The Judiciary’s role under Rule 48 is thus confined to “extremely limited circumstances in extraordinary cases.””

 

Hence, no dice for Judge Sullivan.

 

 

Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI about his conversations with former Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak, during the presidential transition following the 2016 US election. He later withdrew his plea after securing new legal counsel, while evidence emerged which revealed the FBI had laid a ‘perjury trap– despite the fact that the agents who interviewed him in January, 2017 said they thought he was telling the truth. Agents persisted hunting Flynn despite the FBI’s recommendation to close the case.

 

Once the FBI’s malfeasance was uncovered, the Justice Department moved to dismiss the case after Attorney General William Barr tapped an outside prosecutor to examine the FBI’s conduct. Judge Sullivan rejected the DOJ’s request – instead calling on an outside lawyer to make arguments against the DOJ’s move to drop the case.

 

In their Wednesday decision, the Appeals court noted that “the government’s motion includes an extensive discussion of newly discovered evidence casting Flynn’s guilt into doubt.”

 

Specifically, the government points to evidence that the FBI interview at which Flynn allegedly made false statements was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn.” -US Court of Appeals

 

Shortly before the DOJ move to dismiss, former Mueller prosecutor Brandon Van Grack suddenly withdrew from the case (and others). Flynn’s new attorney, Sidney Powell, said that government documents revealed “further evidence of misconduct by Mr. Van Grack specifically.”

 

Sullivan urged the federal appeals court to also reject Flynn’s bid to bring an end to the case, which has now ruled against the judge.

 

Meanwhile…

 

Read the full decision below:

 

(Scribd link: https://www.scribd.com/document/466802669/Appeals-Court-Orders-Charges-Against-Michael-Flynn-To-Be-Dismissed)

 

_________________________________

Copyright ©2009-2020 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD

 

JW Weekly Update: A New Clinton Computer Scandal?


Hillary Clinton is a liar. She uses the old Nazi Joseph Goebbels adage:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

When it comes to the FBI probe of criminality in relation to classified material on her unsecured email server, Hillary sticks to the line I did nothing wrong because anything marked classified was done retroactively. Only an idiot or a Democrat would believe that lie. (Begin about 2:33 mark)

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton 100% Confident Nothing Will Come From FBI Email Investigation – Special Report

Posted by Tech News | IT World

Published on Feb 6, 2016

Hillary Clinton defiantly claimed at Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate that she is “100 percent confident” nothing will come of the FBI’s investigation of her email practices and has no concerns about the controversy’s impact on her chances in the race.

“I have absolutely no concerns about it whatsoever,” the former secretary of state said at the MSNBC-hosted debate in New Hampshire.

If wasn’t for Judicial Watch the Hillary lie about classified material would undoubtedly disappear into history for historians to tell the truth when the Clinton/Obama cabal of transforming America into something our Founding Fathers would not have recognized. Below is an email I received from Judicial Watch yesterday that highlights the obvious. Hillary is hiding something. What she is hiding has nothing to do with National Security. Rather her hiding and erasing has more to do with covering her butt so the Teflon keeps letting crimes slip away.

JRH 2/6/16

Please Support NCCR

************************

Weekly Update: A New Clinton Computer Scandal?

Sent by Tim Fitton

Sent: 2/5/2016 4:51 PM

Email from: Judicial Watch

JW Uncovers another Hillary Clinton Computer Scandal

This is unbelievable. We have just received records from the Department of State disclosing plans by senior State Department officials to set up a “stand-alone PC” so that Clinton could check her emails in an office “across the hall” through a separate, non-State Department computer network system. Referencing the special Clinton computer system, Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, writes Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, “The stand-alone separate network PC is a great idea.” The emails are from January 23-24, 2009, a few days after Clinton was sworn in as Secretary of State.

The new emails were obtained by Judicial Watch in response to a court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for State Department records about Hillary Clinton’s separate email system.

In the email chain, Lewis Lukens, former deputy assistant secretary of state and executive director of the secretariat, responds to a request from Mills by informing her, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and Kennedy that the new personal computer “in the secretary’s office” would be “connected to the internet (but not through our system).” Abedin responds, “We are hoping for that if possible.”

The email exchange discussing plans to provide Clinton a separate computer to skirt the internal State Department computer network begins with a message from Mills to Lukens in which she requests Clinton being able to access her emails through “a non-DOS computer.” The email discusses how the stand-alone computer can be set up and why it is “a great idea’ and “the best solution”:

From: Cheryl Mills
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 6:45 AM
To: Lukens, Lewis A
Subject: Re: Series of questions

Lew – who can I talk to about:

1.Can our email be accessed remotely through the web using a non-DOS computer like my laptop?

2.I am traveling to the M-E – will my DOS bb work there and is there a cell phone attached?

3.Spoke to Dan [Daniel B. Smith, former DOS executive secretary] re: bb for HRC (and reports that POTUS is able to use a super encrypted one)

4.Spoke to Dan re: setting up Counselor office for HRC so she can go across hall regularly to check her email

From: Lukens, Lewis A
To: cmills [REDACTED]
Cc: Habedin [REDACTED]; Kennedy, Patrick F; Smith, Daniel B
Sent: Saturday, Jan. 24, 19:10:33 2009
Subject: Re: series of questions

We have already started checking into the NSA bb. Will set up the office across the hall as requested. Also, I think we should go ahead (but will await your green light) and set up a stand-alone PC in the Secretary’s office, connect to the internet (but not through our system) to enable her to check her emails from her desk. Lew.

From: Kennedy, Patrick F KennedyPF
To: Lukens, Lewis A <LukensLA>; Cheryl Mills
Cc: Huma Abedin; Smith, Daniel B <SmithD2>
Sent: Sat, Jan 24 19:48:25 2009
Subject: Re: Series of questions

Cheryl
The stand-alone separate network PC is [a] great idea
Regards
Pat

From: Huma Abedin
To: Kennedy, Patrick F; Lukens, Lewis A; Cheryl Mills
Cc: Huma Abedin; Smith, Daniel B
Sent: Sat Jan 24 19:48:27 2009
Subject: Re: Series of questions

Yes we were hoping for that if possible so she can check her email in her office.

***

From: Lukens, Lewis A
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:26 PM
To: Kennedy, Patrick F
Subject: Re: Series of questions

I talked to Cheryl about this. She says a problem is hrc does not know how to use a computer to do email – only bb [Blackberry]. But, I said would not take much training to get her up to speed.

In separate litigation, the State Department told Judicial Watch and federal courts that Hillary Clinton was never issued secure State Department computing devices.

These emails are shocking. They show the Obama State Department’s plan to set up non-government computers and a computer network for Hillary Clinton to bypass the State Department network. The fact that these records were withheld from the American people until now is scandalous and shows the criminal probe of Hillary Clinton’s email system should include current and former officials of the Obama administration.

Our legal team filed these new emails with U.S. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan, who is now considering whether to grant discovery in a lawsuit seeking information on the “special government employee” status of Abedin. In our filing, we state:

[Judicial Watch] just recently received additional evidence that demonstrates that senior management at the State Department was well aware that Mrs. Clinton was using a “non-state.gov” system to conduct official government business. This evidence also shows that the senior management at the State Department knowingly aided Mrs. Clinton in establishing and using a “non-state.gov” system.

[T]his newly discovered email demonstrates that there is at least a “reasonable suspicion” that the State Department and Mrs. Clinton deliberately thwarted FOIA by creating, using, and concealing the “clintonemail.com” record system for six years.

The media took up this story (which was reported first by Fox News.) The Obama gang responded with careful word parsing. The State Department spokesman John Kirby told CBS News:

“I will say, a computer was not set up for Secretary Clinton,” he said in an email to CBS News State Department Correspondent Margaret Brennan.

Because “these matters are under review generally,” Kirby declined to comment further.

Was a computer set up for Cheryl Mills (who evidently had the Counselor’s office across the hall)? It will take another lawsuit or court-ordered discovery to get past this obfuscation.

We will continue our investigation – we hope with the support of the courts. In the meantime, you can see that email isn’t the only Clinton computer scandal.

Hillary Clinton Discussed Prosecuting Republicans for Classification Violations

There are a lot of twists and turns in this one, but pay close attention to what a Hillary Clinton confidant advised her to do in response to some of the actions by congressional Republicans. When you have Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary Clinton, Eric Cantor and David Petraeus mentioned in one government document, it’s time to pay close attention.

Back on January 7, 2016, we obtained a new batch of documents from the Department of State, including a “Confidential” memo from Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal to the former secretary of state suggesting that a grand jury and the Senate Judiciary Committee should investigate whether former Rep. Eric Cantor or his staff violated the Espionage Act by disclosing classified information related to the FBI investigation of former CIA Director David Petraeus.

According to the Blumenthal-to-Clinton email, if classified information was discussed by Cantor, his staff, or anyone “inside or outside the bureau,” it “is a felony” in violation of the Espionage Act. Blumenthal’s fantasy prosecution of Cantor aside, it is for sure true that if Clinton kept classified information on her non-state.gov server, that also may be a criminal violation of the Espionage Act. (And, of course, Petraeus eventually was forced to plead guilty in a slap-on-the-wrist plea deal.)

The documents also contain an email to Clinton in which Blumenthal sent a copy of a “Confidential” memo to top Obama 2012 presidential debate advisor Ron Klain warning that GOP candidate Mitt Romney would “falsify, distort, and mangle facts” in the final campaign debate. The Blumenthal memo was sent to Klain and copied to Clinton just four days before the final debate.

The documents include an email sent after the Benghazi attack in which Blumenthal informs Clinton of his “Latest Libya intel” regarding the turmoil in that country. Though barred by the Obama administration from being an official State Department advisor to Clinton, Blumenthal – who at the time was also employed by the Clinton Foundation – claimed to have “a very sensitive source” providing him “internal govt discussions high level” concerning Libyan internal security.

The new emails, also available on the State Department website, were obtained by Judicial Watch in response to a court order. The Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on May 6, 2015, asked for the following:

• Communications between officials, officers, or employees of the Department of State and members of Congress, Congressional staff members, or Congressional members or staff members of the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi concerning the use of non-“state.gov” email addresses by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

• Emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton regarding the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The timeframe for this request is September 11, 2012, to January 31, 2013.

The State Department’s records include the November 13, 2012, email from Blumenthal to Clinton in which he speculates about former Rep. Eric Cantor’s dealings with then-FBI Director Robert Mueller concerning the agency’s investigation of former CIA Director David Petraeus. In the email, Blumenthal raises the possible need for both a grand jury and a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of possible violations of the Espionage Act by Cantor and his staff if classified information was made public:

From: Sidney Blumenthal
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2012 9:13 AM
Subject: More questions. Sid

Who else in the Congress besides congressmen Reichert and Cantor knew of the Petraeus investigation before it became public? How many congressional staffers were informed? What roles did they play in deciding who to inform about it? What were their communications among themselves and with others outside their offices if any? Did any of them discuss the matter with anyone in the Romney-Ryan campaign?

Why was Cantor intent on informing FBI Director Mueller of the existence of an FBI investigation that was already resolved?…

What were the internal discussions between Cantor and his staff on his referral to Mueller?…

Was the supposedly rogue FBI agent, described in the Washington Post as motivated by his “worldview,” acting alone? Did he discuss the investigation with any individual either inside or outside the bureau before he went to Reichert and Cantor?

Disclosure of an espionage investigation is a felony. Will a grand jury be empaneled by the Justice Department?

When will Senator Patrick Leahy, chair of the Judiciary Committee and a former FBI agent, begin an investigation of this matter?

Clinton, the United States Secretary of State, responded not with a “you are crazy, why are you writing this to me” but with a request for more info:

What was his “worldview” and why would he think hurting P furthered it? Why would Cantor want to hurt P (beloved by Rs)?

The other major find is an another unhinged October 19, 2012, email from Blumenthal to Clinton in which he sends a copy of a lengthy “Confidential” memo to Klain expounding upon how to defeat Mitt Romney in the third and final 2012 presidential debate:

From: Sidney Blumenthal
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 10:32 AM
To: H
Subject: H: fyi, see especially point about bush. Sid

1.Romney will inevitably falsify, distort and mangle facts on a range of subjects from Libya to the defense budget. But why is this debate different from all other debates? In the dedicated foreign policy debate, the stakes are higher-America’s role in the world. That makes Romney’s errors even more consequential and potentially threatening. And that must be an essential predicate of Obama’s point when he exposes Romney’s falsehoods. When Romney lies on domestic policy it’s shameful, but when he lies on foreign policy it’s dangerous.

3.Romney’s attack line on Libya is not only false, as exposed in the last debate. (Obama here can joke that Romney apparently wants to rerun the last debate but this time without Candy Crowley present to call him out. Romney will become angry and nonplussed.) His attack line is a reheated leftover of the Bush era attacks on Democrats designed by Karl Rove as weak on terrorism, which were themselves repackaged old Republican attacks from the Cold War. It’s all nostalgia….

Then, really stick in the shiv by having Obama say that he was somewhat surprised that Romney in the last debate did not give President George W. Bush credit where credit is due-for example, breaking with the neoconservatives around Vice President Cheney by adopting the surge in Iraq led by current CIA director David Petraeus that prepared the groundwork for Obama’s own policy in Iraq.

An email from Blumenthal to Clinton contains a lengthy “Confidential” memo in which he provides his “latest Libya intel” from “internal govt discussions high level.” The memo, later forwarded by Clinton to then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, reveals that more than a year after the Obama/Clinton assisted overthrow of Qaddafi, ostensibly intended to bring about a peaceful transition, the country remained at the mercy of the same terrorist groups that attacked the Benghazi consulate. Claiming that his information comes from a “very sensitive source,” Blumenthal informed Clinton of the following:

From: Sidney Blumenthal
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:20 AM
To: H
Subject: H: latest Libya intel; internal govt discussions high level. Sid

1. On the morning of January 15, 2013 Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zidan was informed by Interior Minister Ashour Shuwail and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Mohamed Abdulaziz that Italy plan to close its consulate in Benghazi and reduce the size of its embassy in Tripoli following attacks on the consulate itself and the Italian consul general. Shuwail reported that the attacks were carried out by Eastern militia forces associated with Ansar al Islam, which, although put under pressure by the National Libyan Army (NLA) following the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in September 2012, continues to operate in and around that city.

***

6. According to a very sensitive source, General Hassi disagrees with the NLA analysis that the Sabha attack was not aimed at Magariaf specifically, noting that there were five prior assassination attempts against Magariaf in 2012, and that he is a target for a diverse collection of enemies, including former Qaddafi forces, groups like Ansar al Sharia, and even his political adversaries in the GNC. Accordingly, Hassi intends to establish new programs to train a detachment of presidential bodyguards, and his own anti-terrorism personnel.

It is beyond ironic that Hillary Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal, her secret Clinton Foundation adviser at the State Department, discuss criminal prosecutions of Republicans for the handling of classified information over the Petraeus scandal. And it is disturbing that then-Secretary of State Clinton was involved in advising the Obama reelection campaign on how to continue lying about the Benghazi attack. No wonder Hillary Clinton tried to hide these email records rather than disclose them years ago as required by law.

Federal Judge Orders State Department Answers on New Clinton Documents

The Obama administration continues to provide cover for Hillary Clinton, but some in the judiciary are running out of patience with the gamesmanship. We are pleased to report to you this week that Judge Rudolph Contreras ordered the State Department to explain how and when new records from the office of Hillary Clinton were located and why they were not identified previously.

The court order comes in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking records about the State Department vetting of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s potential conflicts of interest. The explanation was initially due on Monday, but Judge Contreras granted the State Department an extension to Friday, February 5, 2015, due to the federal government shutdown because of the recent blizzard. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00688)).

Last month, we learned that the Obama State Department recently found “thousands” of new records from Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. According to information provided to Judicial Watch by various Justice Department attorneys, the new documents appear be “working” records in electronic format located on both “shared” and “individual” drives accessible to or used by persons identified as being relevant to our various FOIA lawsuits on the Benghazi scandal and controversies from Clinton’s term at State. The State Department admitted to Judge Contreras on January 14 that the new records include the files of two of Clinton’s top aides:

The newly identified files that need to be searched in this case consist of office files that were available to employees within the Office of the Secretary during former Secretary Clinton’s tenure as well as individual files belonging to Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills.

Judge Contreras responded with a January 15 order that states:

Defendant [State Department] shall complete its additional search and file a status report (1) disclosing the volume of potentially responsive documents that must be reviewed, (2) containing a detailed description of how and when these files were located and why they had not been previously identified, and (3) proposing a revised schedule for the production of the non-exempt portions of responsive documents subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

At a July 9, 2015, hearing the judge was “concerned” about the preservation of Clinton’s records and warned that the State Department will “have to answer for” any destruction of Hillary Clinton email records.

The lawsuit stems from a Judicial Watch FOIA request on March 17, 2015, and a subsequent lawsuit filed on May 6, 2015, seeking:

• Records that identify the policies and/or procedures in place to ensure that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal or charitable financial relationships with foreign leaders, foreign governments, and business entities posed no conflict of interest to her role as Secretary of State; and

• Records concerning the State Department’s review of donations to the Clinton Foundation for potential conflicts of interest with former Secretary Clinton’s role as Secretary of State.

The State Department is protecting Hillary Clinton and has a history of illegally hiding documents from the courts and the public about her record. These newly found Hillary Clinton records show the State Department needs special policing from the courts, federal investigators, and Congress.

A separate and ongoing Judicial Watch lawsuit, one of nearly 23 active Judicial Watch lawsuits in which the Clinton email system is at issue, forced the disclosure last year of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflict-of-interest rulings that led to $48 million for the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton-connected entities during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China and Iran, among others.

I wish I could tell you the State Department’s explanation has arrived, but it has not. I expect it will come after hours in order to keep the new scandal out of the news. But we will spread the details far and wide, so be sure to check back here next week.

Until next week…

Tom Fitton
President

_____________________

JudicialWatch.org
425 3rd St, SW Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20024

About Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach.

The motto of Judicial Watch is “Because no one is above the law”. To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities.

Litigation and the civil discovery process not only uncover information for the education of the American people on anti-corruption issues, but can also provide a basis for civil authorities to criminally prosecute corrupt officials. Judicial Watch seeks to ensure high ethical standards in the judiciary through monitoring activities and the use of the judicial ethics process to hold judges to account.

Judicial Watch’s investigation, legal, and judicial activities provide the basis for strong educational outreach to the American people. Judicial Watch’s public education programs include READ THE REST