- Judicial Watch Files Seven Lawsuits to Expose Clinton Email Scandal
- Skiing and Politicking on the Taxpayer Dime
- Are Courts Above the Law?
|
Two months ago, on March 2, 2015, that The New York Times reported then-Secretary Clinton used at least one non-"state.gov" email account to
conduct official government business during her tenure as the Secretary
of State. It also was reported that Secretary Clinton stored these
records on a non-U.S. government server at her home in Chappaqua, New
York. For two months, other than one Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by one media outlet,
official Washington has sputtered outrage but no strong steps have been
taken to ensure accountability for Hillary Clinton's and the Obama
administration's brazen lawlessness. Federal records, many surely
classified, were mishandled, stolen, secreted, and supposedly destroyed
in violation of several criminal and civil federal laws. The failure of
leadership on this massive corruption issue did not stop Judicial
Watch. We've been stepping into this gap for some time for the American
people concerned about a government and politicians out of control.
Indeed,
JW shook up Washington this week with a historic legal effort that
shows your JW is boldly taking the lead in uncovering and curtailing the
escalating corruption at the highest levels of government. This week,
our expert team of attorneys filed seven - yes, seven - new Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the U.S. State Department to
obtain the release of documents about the Clinton email scandal,
including the emails of her top aide Huma Abedin, and records about the
Benghazi and Clinton Foundation scandals. JW filed one of the lawsuits on Monday, May 5 and six on Tuesday, May 6. (Last week, Judicial Watch also filed a lawsuit for records on Hillary Clinton's use of an iPad and iPhone.)
As
we have reported in the past, JW already has at least 18 active
lawsuits, 10 of which are active in federal court, and about 160
Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that could be
affected by Mrs. Clinton and her staff's use of secret email accounts to
conduct official government business. In Judicial Watch's various FOIA
lawsuits, our lawyers Judicial Watch have informed attorneys for the
Obama administration that Hillary Clinton's and any other secret
accounts used by State employees should be secured, recovered, and
searched. Judicial Watch's litigation against the State Department has
already exposed key documents about both the Benghazi and Clinton cash scandals.
But
these bold legal actions were a prelude to a massive legal effort
without compare. This latest raft of lawsuits gets to the heart of
several Clinton/Obama scandals:
The seven new Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuits ask federal courts to require the Obama administration obey the law and turn over:
Judicial
Watch is seeking access to all emails of official State Department
business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin
from January 1, 2009, through February 1, 2013, using a non-"state.gov" email address.
Judicial
Watch is seeking all emails sent or received by former Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton in her official capacity as secretary of
State, as well as all emails by other State Department employees to
Secretary Clinton regarding her non-"state.gov" email address.
Judicial Watch is seeking access to records concerning the use and expense of a non-"state.gov"
email address and server domain by former Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton. Such records include, but are not limited to, records
concerning security, classification, preservation, and compliance with
the Federal Records Act and/or the Freedom of Information Act.
Judicial
Watch is seeking access to all records that identify the number and
names of all current and former officials, officers, or employees of the
U.S. Department of State from January 20, 2009, to the present who used
email addresses other than their assigned "state.gov"
email addresses to conduct official State Department business and the
policies in place to ensure that emails were searched for responsiveness
to FOIA requests.
Judicial
Watch is seeking all emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton concerning the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate
in Benghazi, Libya, as well as all communications between State
Department employees and members of Congress, congressional staff or the
House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Judicial
Watch is 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 all records related to
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.
Judicial
Watch is seeking access to all records completed and/or signed by
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding her resignation from the
office of secretary of State, as well as other State Department
employees. Such records include, but are not limited to a "separation
statement" signed by Hillary Clinton upon her resignation as Secretary
of State.
A
weak and hapless Congress, a compromised Justice Department, and a
pliant liberal media won't do the work of taking on Clinton and Obama
corruption- and JW is happy to continue its leadership role in exposing
government malfeasance. There is a rule-of-law and transparency crisis
in Washington. But our new FOIA lawsuits are intended to make certain
that Mrs. Clinton and her co-conspirators in the Obama administration
will be held accountable for the violations of transparency law,
criminal destruction and mishandling of government records, their
Benghazi lies, and the Clintons' continuing abuse of office for personal
and political gain.
I
want to assure you that as massive - and historical - as this is, we
are just getting started. This is just the first round of newly planned
lawsuits, since (as it won't surprise our readers to learn) the State
Department, and other Obama agencies, have failed to respond as required
by law.
These
lawsuits come just as former President Bill Clinton has entered the
fray to explain away his wife's ethical lapses and the many conflicts of
interest involving foreign donations to his family's foundation. You
doubtlessly have heard President Clinton dishonestly talk in media interviewsabout
how he and Hillary have done nothing "knowingly inappropriate" (which
translates as "I'm guilty, but have mercy."). He said he'll continue to
accept cash payments from whatever and whomever because "I gotta pay our
bills" and that the Clintons are really victims who are being held to
an unfair standard.
In
typical Clintonian fashion, his complaint is the exact opposite of
truth. In fact, few citizens, businesses, or even politicians would
think they could use their public office to make themselves tens of
millions of dollars from foreign potentates and then steal, destroy, and
secret government records that could shed light on the illicit
moneymaking! Bill's bellyaching about explaining his, Hillary's, and
Chelsea's monumental grifting might give pause to the friendly liberal
media and Democratic partisans running the Justice Department. But, as
you can see with our flotilla of new federal lawsuits, JW won't be
deterred by the latest round of Clinton evasions.
Skiing and Politicking on the Taxpayer Dime
The records we obtained from the U.S. Air Force tell
us that the First Lady's trip cost us all a pretty penny. According to
the newly released records, the transportation costs for the four-day
trip to Aspen were based on a flight cost of $7,712 an hour for the First Lady, her daughters, and support personnel in the Gulfstream aircraft (as opposed to the $700 that
the average American can spend for a roundtrip flight all the way to
Europe and back). Not included were the attendant costs for U.S. Secret
Service personnel, accommodations, meals, rental cars, lift tickets for
skiing at Buttermilk, and related expenses. The $57,068.80 tab Mrs.
Obama and her daughters ran up in travel expenses alone for their
weekend trip is more than 14 times what the average American of four spends for an entire week-long vacation.
It
has been apparent to us for some time now that the Obamas abuse
taxpayer money with unnecessarily luxurious vacations and travel. How
many times did the Obama family travel to Aspen prior to the presidency?
Misusing the perks of presidency to travel to luxury hot-spots is an
abuse that must end. If Congress is looking to save tax dollars, they
might consider trimming the platinum travel budgets of this and future
presidents.
Apparently,
the ski trip was intended to be low-key, and it may have stayed under
the radar had it not been for the Obama's motorcade having been forced
to stop for a two-car collision ahead of them, which closed the road for
40 minutes. Though the Obamas had been allowed to "sneak through while
they waited on tow trucks," according to Aspen Police Chief Brian
Olsen, the presence of the First Lady was noticed. The Obama family
reportedly stayed at the home of Jim and Paula Crown, a Chicago couple
who have been major campaign contributors to President Obama throughout
his political career.
Barack and Michelle Obama and other members of their family have traveled more during
his presidency than any other first couple, including extensive and
costly trips to Spain, Africa, South America, and China, accompanied by
staff and often by friends.
Including
the Aspen trip, government records indicate that the beyond-first-class
travel of the Obamas and Vice President Joe Biden have cost the
American people well over $56 million.
The Obamas have trained Vice President Biden well on how to use tax dollars for personal and political use. Air Force records we received in
response to a September 19, 2014, FOIA show that Biden's September 3,
2014, trip to Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in New Hampshire cost taxpayers
$17,025 in transportation expenses. Biden was in New Hampshire to
campaign for Democratic Senate and House candidates. We had asked for:
1) Any and all records concerning mission taskings of Vice President Biden's September 3, 2014 trip to New Hampshire;
2) Any and all records concerning transportation costs for Vice President Biden's September 3, 2014 trip to New Hampshire; and
3) Any and all passenger manifests (DD-2131) for Vice President Biden's September 3, 2014 trip to New Hampshire.
Biden's
cost included three hours of flight time at $5,675 an hour, which does
not include Secret Service expenses or costs incurred by local law
enforcement in New Hampshire. While the Obama administration claimed
Biden was in New Hampshire to celebrate shipyard workers, it's clear that he was in campaign mode. London's Daily Mail reported
that Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire,
along with Reps. Chellie Pingree and Mike Michaud of Maine, all joined
Biden at the shipyard.
And tax dollars are sacrificed on the altar of Mr. Biden's political ambition.
CNN Politics reported,
"The vice president, who's mulling a 2016 presidential bid, made his
remarks at the Portsmouth Naval Yard in a speech about the economy. He
was accompanied on stage by U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire
Democrat who's running for re-election this year." The dirty little
not-so-secret is that candidates, campaigns, and political parties pay
nearly nothing for the political use of Air Force One (or Air Force Two).
The
Obama family and Biden mistake the Air Force for Uber. The scam of
presidents and vice presidents using tax dollars to subsidize candidates
running for office must end. Did Shaheen reimburse taxpayers for a
reasonable portion of the costs Biden to campaign for her? Our military
has been decimated and is under strain. Biden might want to consider
this when he next considers using Air Force Two for a trip to New
Hampshire or Iowa as he runs for the presidency.
Your JW has been on top of these taxpayer-funded junkets for some time now.
We previously reported that
flight costs for President Obama's Labor Day 2014 weekend trips for
fundraising, personal business, and politicking came to a total of
$1,539,402.10 in taxpayer-paid transportation expenses. A break-down of
these costs obtained from FOIA told us that:
Unfortunately,
the White House does not appear inclined toward a more fiscally
responsible approach to travel as the Obama years wind down. So look for
the tab to continue to skyrocket as the high-flying couple attempt to
squeeze every last cent they can out of the White House travel budget.
And with a presidential campaign heating up for Mr. Biden and other
Democrats, your tax dollars will increasingly be the fuel for wasteful
travel.
We
have a president who thinks he can rewrite the law on his own. This
has long been the practice of too many activist judges, but rarely have
courts simply ignored a core provision of a law governing their
operations. And that is why we filed an amicus curiae brief with
the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to review a Fourth Circuit ruling that
conflicts with the Three-Judge Act by allowing only one judge to rule
in a critical Maryland gerrymandering case. The Judicial Watch brief
was filed to support the petitioners in Stephen M. Shapiro et al. v Bobbie S. Mack et al.
The
Three-Judge Court Act, dating back more than a century, requires that
three-judge panels must hear all constitutional challenges to
legislative redistricting unless, according to past Supreme Court
rulings, the case is "obviously frivolous," "essentially fictitious,"
"wholly insubstantial," or "obviously without merit." Yet, in 2003, the
Fourth Circuit Court began to ignore this precedent in determining that
a single judge could decide not to convene a three-judge panel if he
determined the case was not "plausible." The Fourth Circuit again
applied the same contrarian standard in its 2014 ruling against
plaintiffs Shapiro, Benisek, and Pycha.
Congress
and the courts have recognized the vital importance of safeguarding
voters against gerrymandering abuses by passing and upholding the
Three-Judge Court Act. The Fourth Circuit subverts this law by allowing
one judge inordinate power to effectively decide whether voters can
challenge how a state draws congressional and state legislative
districts. And JW's position is that no one is above the law, most
especially the courts.
In
November 2013, Shapiro, Benisek, and Pycha sued Bobbie Mack (the chair
of the Maryland State Board of Elections) and Linda Lamone (the state
administrator of the Maryland State Board of Elections) in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that the 2011
congressional districts established by the Maryland General Assembly
violated their constitutional rights. When a single district court judge dismissed the suit, the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In October 2014, the Fourth Circuit upheld the
district court ruling, denying the plaintiffs an oral hearing before a
three-judge panel. In February 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for
a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Our
legal team argues that the Fourth Circuit decision "raises an important
issue of federal election law that should be heard by this Court,"
adding:
In
particular, Judicial Watch is concerned that the Fourth Circuit's
ruling violates the Three-Judge Court Act and will allow states to delay
judicial review of gerrymandered redistricting plans that
disenfranchise voters and violate the Constitution. Judicial Watch has
represented parties in two recent cases in Maryland concerning a ballot
referendum on the state's gerrymandered redistricting plan. Moreover,
Judicial Watch may wish to be involved in challenges to gerrymandering
on behalf of members or clients in the future, and believes the federal
judiciary should not be erecting further obstacles to review.
We
also point out that the Fourth Circuit's circumvention of federal law
results in "an allocation of authority" to one federal court judge that
"cannot be squared with Congress's judgment-recognized by this Court and
others-that apportionment challenges and other types of three-judge
cases are too important to be decided in the first instance by a single
judge. Nor is the difference between one and three judges merely a
formality."
Let's
review some recent history to help drive home the importance of this
case and what it means for average voters across the country.
Congress
intended redistricting and other constitutional challenges under laws
such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be heard under the "exceptional
procedure" of a special three-judge panel. In 1976, Congress
strengthened the Three-Judge Act by specifically ensuring that
redistricting cases were handled by such panels in order "to assure more
weight and greater deliberation by not leaving the fate of such
litigation to a single judge." As we say in our amicus, by
instead using "motions to dismiss" to arbitrarily limit access to
three-judge courts, the Fourth Circuit has "turned the Three-Judge Court
Act's purpose and framework on its head."
The
Three-Judge Court Act allows appeals from the district court
three-judge panels to go directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the
federal circuit courts of appeals. This statute assures a speedy
resolution to this important class of cases:
And
when the clock is always counting down towards the next election, such a
delay can control whether the alleged constitutional violation can be
remedied or if it is something that a state's voters simply must
swallow.
The
2013 lawsuit by Shapiro, Benisek, and Pycha challenged a congressional
districting plan signed into law by then-Gov. Martin O'Malley in October
2011. Critics at the time charged that the new congressional map was
specifically designed to enhance the power of select incumbents while
minimizing the voting power of minorities, rural voters and
Republicans. The Washington Post editorialized: "The
map, drafted under Mr. O'Malley's watchful eye, mocks the idea that
voting districts should be compact or easily navigable. The eight
districts respect neither jurisdictional boundaries nor communities of
interest. To protect incumbents and for partisan advantage, the map has
been sliced, diced, shuffled and shattered, making districts resemble
studies in cubism."
Your
JW has been out in front of this case for some time now. We first
entered the Maryland redistricting battle on August 10, 2012, when we
represented MDPetitions.com and Delegate Neil Parrott in the successful lawsuit to
block a move by the state's Democrat party to have an Election Day
voter referendum on the state's controversial gerrymandering plan
removed from the ballot. Three weeks later, Judicial Watch again
represented Parrott in filing a complaint against Maryland
Secretary of State John McDonough and the State Board of Elections
challenging the misleading wording of the ballot question.
Whether or not the Supreme Court decides to review the case (grants cert),
Judicial Watch isn't walking away from the gerrymandering abuse in
Maryland. You can expect more court action to uphold constitutional
protections of citizens' voting rights from shady state politicians who
treat entire communities and voters like pieces on a game board.
Until next week...
 Tom Fitton President |
No comments:
Post a Comment