Judicial Watch FOIA Exposés of Obama Administration Criminality


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

October 19, 2018

The revelations of Obama/Clinton/Deep State crimes only matter if prosecutions begin!

 

JRH 10/19/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

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

Judicial Watch: Federal Judge ‘Shocked’ Clinton Aide Granted Immunity by Justice Department

 

Press Release

Email Sent: Oct 17, 2018, 1:43 PM

Via Judicial Watch

 

Court Criticizes State Department for Providing False Statements on Clinton Emails

 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that in his opening remarks at a Friday, October 12 hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth strongly criticized the U.S. Department of State, stating, “The information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the [Clinton email] search and… what we now know turned out to be the Secretary’s email system.”

Turning his attention to the Department of Justice, Judge Lamberth said that he was “dumbfounded” by the agency’s Inspector General report revealing that Cheryl Mills had been given immunity and was allowed to accompany former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to her FBI interview:

I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case. So I did not know that until I read the IG report and learned that and that she had accompanied the Secretary to her interview.

(In an April 28, 2008, ruling relating to Mills’ conduct as a White House official in responding to concerns about lost White House email records, Judge Lamberth called Mills’ participation in the matter “loathsome.” He further stated Mills was responsible for “the most critical error made in this entire fiasco … Mills’ actions were totally inadequate to address the problem.”)

Lamberth also complained that the Justice Department attorney representing the State Department was using “doublespeak,” and playing “word games.”

The hearing had been ordered by Judge Lamberth regarding a request from Judicial Watch for testimony under oath from Clinton, Mills and several other State Department officials regarding the State Department’s processing of Judicial Watch’s FOIA request and Clinton’s emails. The State Department still opposes all of Judicial Watch’s requests for additional discovery into the Clinton email scandal.

Judge Lamberth said he was relieved that he did not allow the case to be shut down prematurely, as the State Department had requested:

 

The case started with a motion for summary judgment [seeking to close the case] here and which I denied and allowed limited discovery because it was clear to me that at the time that I ruled initially, that false statements were made to me by career State Department officials and it became more clear through discovery that the information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the search and this – what we now know turned out to be the Secretary’s email system.

I don’t know the details of what kind of IG inquiry there was into why these career officials at the State Department would have filed false affidavits with me. I don’t know the details of why the Justice Department lawyers did not know false affidavits were being filed with me, but I was very relieved that I did not accept them and that I allowed limited discovery into what had happened.

 

Judge Lamberth also said the State Department was using “doublespeak” and word games:

 

THE COURT: The State Department told me that it had produced all records when it moved for summary judgment and you filed that motion.  That was not true when that motion was filed.
MR. PRINCE: At that time, we had produced all –
THE COURT: It was not true.
MR. PRINCE: Yes, it was – well, Your Honor, it might be that our search could be found to be inadequate, but that declaration was absolutely true.
THE COURT: It was not true.  It was a lie.
MR. PRINCE: It was not a lie, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What – that’s doublespeak.

 

***

 

PRINCE: There’s strong precedent saying that items not in the State’s possession do not need to be searched….

THE COURT:  And that’s because the Secretary was doing this on a private server?  So it wasn’t in the State’s possession?… So you’re playing the same word game she played?

 

In March 2016, Judge Lamberth granted “limited discovery” to Judicial Watch:

Where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.

***

 

[Judicial Watch] is certainly entitled to dispute the State Department’s position that it has no obligation to produce these documents because it did not “possess” or “control” them at the time the FOIA request was made. The State Department’s willingness to now search documents voluntarily turned over to the Department by Secretary Clinton and other officials hardly transforms such a search into an “adequate” or “reasonable one. [Judicial Watch] is not relying on “speculation” or “surmise” as the State Department claims. [Judicial Watch] is relying on constantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials.

 

The development 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 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:

 

  • 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.

 

This Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

In May 2016, Judicial Watch filed an initial Proposed Order for Discovery seeking additional information. The State Department opposed Judicial Watch’s proposal, and in December 2016 Judge Lamberth requested both parties to file new proposed orders in light of information discovered in various venues since the previous May.

The full transcript of the hearing is available here.

“President Trump should ask why his State Department is still refusing to answer basic questions about the Clinton email scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Hillary Clinton’s and the State Department’s email cover up abused the FOIA, the courts, and the American people’s right to know.”

Watch additional comments from Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here.

 

###

 

Judicial Watch: FBI Documents Detail Weiner Laptop/Clinton Email Find Just Before the 2016 Election

 

Press Release

Email Sent: Oct 17, 2018 2:58 PM

Via Judicial Watch

 

‘A significant number of these 340,000 emails appeared to be between Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton …’

 

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced today that it has received 45 pages of FBI documents that reveal a “significant number” of 340,000 emails on the laptop of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner were between the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aide Huma Abedin.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents as the result of a September 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the Justice Department did not act on two FOIA requests for Anthony Weiner laptop investigation documents, including any Clinton emails found on the laptop (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No.1:18-cv-02105)).

The new documents include an October 3, 2016, email to a FBI official in New York that reads:

 

Just putting this on the record because of the optics of this case.

During the course of my review of a computer seized from Anthony Weiner, a seizure and search of which was authorized by an SDNY [Southern District of New York] Search Warrant, I encountered approximately/at least 340,000 emails stored on the computer. The large number of emails appears to be a result of a mail client program installed on that computer (such as Outlook) that pulled emails from servers belonging to both Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin.

A significant number of these 340,000 emails appeared to be between Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton (the latter who appears to have used a number of different email addresses). This is based simply a review of the header information. I did not review content of these emails, as the warrant only authorized me to view items that would give me probable cause to believe that CP [child pornography] evidence may reside therein.

SDNY is comfortable with me continuing my review as I have, which is to NOT read any emails to/from Anthony Weiner to which his wife, or a possible attorney is a party. Even if there is a third party on those emails, I will not review their content out of an abundance of caution. Obviously, I will not review any emails to which Anthony Weiner is not a party (such as emails between Ms. Abedin and Mrs. Clinton). I just wanted to formally bring this to your attention due to the pending election, the ongoing Congressional investigation into the FBI’s own investigation into Ms. Clinton’s email activities, etc.

 

The documents also include a September 29, 2016, FBI report indicating that after agents served unidentified persons with a grand jury subpoena on September 22, “Discussions immediately ensued between the US Attorneys’ Offices in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and [redacted], as well as the Department of Justice in Washington, DC.”

RealClear Investigations’ reporter Paul Sperry reported that only 3,077 of the emails found on the Weiner laptop “were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.”

In a related case, Judicial Watch obtained an email revealing that fired FBI official Peter Strzok created the initial draft of the October 2016 letter then-FBI director James Comey sent to Congress notifying lawmakers of the discovery of Hillary Clinton emails on Weiner’s laptop.

The notification to Congress, according the DOJ IG, came a full month after the emails were discovered by the FBI on Weiner’s laptop. The delay, the IG suggests, may have been the result of anti-Trump bias by FBI official Peter Strzok and others:

 

In September 2016, the FBI’s New York Field Office (NYO) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) began investigating former Congressman Anthony Weiner for his online relationship with a minor. A federal search warrant was obtained on September 26, 2016, for Weiner’s iPhone, iPad, and laptop computer. The FBI obtained these devices the same day. The search warrant authorized the government to search for evidence relating to the following crimes: transmitting obscene material to a minor, sexual exploitation of children, and activities related to child pornography.

The Weiner case agent told the OIG that he began processing Weiner’s devices on September 26, and that he noticed “within hours” that there were “over 300,000 emails on the laptop.”

***

In assessing the decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop, we were particularly concerned about text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions they made were impacted by bias or improper considerations.

***

After October 4, we found no evidence that anyone associated with the Midyear investigation, including the entire leadership team at FBI Headquarters, took any action on the Weiner laptop issue until the week of October 24, and then did so only after SDNY raised concerns about the lack of action.

 

“These new documents show the FBI knowingly sat on the Clinton emails for over a month before notifying Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And even worse, we now know the FBI didn’t even bother to look at the emails, and then again only partially, for weeks. The Clinton email scandal needs to be reviewed again and immediately by the Justice Department.”

###

______________________

© 2018 Judicial Watch, Inc.

 

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are received from individuals, foundations, and corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

 

425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20024
888-593-8442

 

Editor Intro to FBI, DOJ Make Side Deal …


public-enemy-1-2-comey-hillary

Editor John R. Houk

October 4, 2016

 

Over the last few days I have posted some info that shows Comey, his FBI or both involved not only in a cover-up to protect Obama and Crooked Hillary’s hindquarters but also to make Crooked Hillary untouchable enough to get elected. Shades of Obama Administration 2012 Benghazi lies to reelect Barack Hussein Obama.

 

Here are some examples of Comey corruption from those two posts:

 

The more that details about the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email practices come to light, the more their efforts appear to have been a sham designed to exonerate her of wrongdoing from the very beginning. …

 

 

Upon further review, it appears that Mr. Comey’s investigation was highly unusual, given the five immunity agreements that were handed out. …

 

“Instead of asking Attorney General Loretta Lynch to revoke his immunity deal and squeezing him, Comey let [Combetta] go because he was a ‘low-level guy,’ he testified at the House hearing. …

 

… Comey insisted that the immunity agreement was necessary to ensure that the FBI got the facts.

 

“There’s no doubt Combetta was involved in deleting emails,” said Comey. …

 

… Secretary Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills and Clinton aide Heather Samuelson also received immunity agreements meant to ensure that they gave the FBI access to their laptops. …

 

 

To add insult to injury, the FBI allowed Samuelson and Mills to sit in on Hillary Clinton’s interview with the bureau.

 

… (Was The Fix In On FBI Investigation Of Hillary Clinton’s Emails? By Roger Aronoff; SlantRight 2.0; 10/1/16)

 

And the other post:

 

Gowdy was after a document called a 302, which is essentially a summary of interviews of key witnesses. The FBI wasn’t giving those to Congress, and instead was getting a “summary of a summary of an interview” instead. This is something the Committee, and Gowdy in particular, was not pleased with. 

 

 

FBI Director James Comey appeared before Congress for the third time.

 

Once again, he fumbled through another session, trying to explain away the reasons why he overlooked Hillary Clinton’s criminal behavior.

 

 

Suspicions were raised when the FBI handed out five grants of immunity to Hillary’s underlings – including former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, who was the mastermind behind the private server.

 

Many wondered why immunity was given to so many people and no charges were filed.

 

“GOP lawmakers focused in particular on the Justice Department’s decision to give a form of immunity to Clinton lawyers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to obtain computers containing emails related to the case.

 “Laptops don’t go to the Bureau of Prisons,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said. “The immunity was not for the laptop, it was for Cheryl Mills.”

 The FBI director repeated an explanation he gave for the first time at a Senate hearing Tuesday, that the deal to get the laptops was wise because subpoenaing computers from an attorney would be complex and time consuming.”

 

… (2 News Pieces on Crooked FBI; Compiled by JRH; SlantRight 2.0; 10/2/16)

 

NOW I FIND OUT that the immunity deals were based ONLY on a limited search AND that after the limited search the laptops were to be destroyed by THE FBI! Here’s the story.

 

JRH 10/4/16

Please Support NCCR

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

FBI, DOJ Make Side Deal To Destroy Clinton Aides’ Laptops

“… doesn’t that undermine the claim …?”

 

By Charles Campbell

October 3, 2016 at 2:16pm

Western Journalism

 

Sources from the House Judiciary Committee told Fox News Monday that the immunity deals struck with Hillary Clinton’s top aides, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, included the Justice Department agreeing to destroy their laptops after they had been turned over to federal investigators.

 

The House Judiciary Committee sent a letter Monday to Attorney General Loretta Lynch inquiring about the arrangement, and why it also included a limited search of computers files dating no later than Jan. 31, 2015.

 

“Please explain why DOJ agreed to limit their search of the Mills and Samuelson laptops to a date no later than January 31, 2015,” Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte wrote in the letter, which was first reported by Fox News.

 

Goodlatte states that the agreements, which were signed on June 10, meant that investigators could not review documents after the email server became public and they abandoned “any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.”

 

“Why was this time limit necessary when Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson were granted immunity for any potential destruction of evidence charges?” he added.

 

It was revealed last month that the DOJ granted Mills and Samuelson immunity for any information recovered from their laptops.

 

The House Oversight Committee exposed the immunity agreements publicly, and it raised questions about why two Clinton aides were given permission to sit-in with Clinton during her July interview with the FBI.

 

The FBI claimed that because the interview was voluntary, the investigators had no control over who Clinton brought with her.

 

“Doesn’t the willingness of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to have their laptops destroyed by the FBI contradict their claim that the laptops could have been withheld because they contained non-relevant, privileged information? If so, doesn’t that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary?” Goodlatte wrote.

 

Last week, FBI Director James Comey said that he agreed to grant immunity because he wanted to avoid a drawn-out legal battle, but he also failed to mention that part of the “agreement” was for the laptops to be destroyed.

 

After the news of the laptops being destroyed broke, Twitter users expressed their contempt for how the case has been handled.

 

Shannon Bream 

✔@ShannonBream

 

BREAKING from Catherine Herridge: FBI made side deals with 2 HRC associates to “destroy” their laptops after inspecting them

+++

Raymond Smith 

@RaymondSmith54


@ShannonBream
 I am soooooooooo sick of this corrupt “administration” I am getting physically ill.

1:27 PM – 3 Oct 2016

+++

Shannon Bream 

✔@ShannonBream

 

BREAKING from Catherine Herridge: FBI made side deals with 2 HRC associates to “destroy” their laptops after inspecting them

+++


Tom Hannan 

@tomh2739

 

@ShannonBream @ByronYork I’m no lawyer but I think James Comey & The FBI just committed SEVERAL FELONIES

11:48 AM – 3 Oct 2016

 

“Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions than answers,” Coodlatte concluded.

__________________

Editor Intro to FBI, DOJ Make Side Deal

Editor John R. Houk

October 4, 2016

__________________

FBI, DOJ Make Side Deal To Destroy Clinton Aides’ Laptops

 

About Western Journalism

 

Western Journalism is a news company that drives positive cultural change by equipping and informing people with truth. It hosts WesternJournalism.com, a news website and blogging platform built for conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters. The platform hosts hundreds of bloggers, and our content is widely distributed using social media. New blogs are able to be successfully launched using the platform because of the large audience actively served.

 

WesternJournalism.com is a property of Liftable Media Inc., a Top 100 digital publisher in the U.S. (Quantcast).

 

READ THE REST