- Historic Court Action in Hillary Email Scandal
- Obama's IRS Targets Candidate Who Ran Against Him
- Fed Employees Sexually Assault Airline Passengers?
|
Last Friday, a federal court judge did something we had never seen before - U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton reopened a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.
The lawsuit had sought documents about an advertisement intended to air
in Pakistan entitled "A Message from the President of the United States
Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
Judge Walton issued the ruling on Friday, May 8, in response to a joint motion by
Judicial Watch and the State Department. This is historic. My
attorney colleagues at Judicial Watch tell me they are aware of no
precedent of another FOIA lawsuit being reopened by a federal court.
Judicial
Watch filed suit in December 2012, after the State Department failed to
respond to a September 24, 2012, FOIA request for all records
concerning the advertisement produced
by the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad intended to air in Pakistan. The
advertisement was an absurd and dishonest "apology" for the Internet
video that President Obama, then-Secretary of State Clinton, and other
administration officials falsely blamed for inspiring "spontaneous
demonstrations" resulting in the attack on the U.S. Special Mission
Compound in Benghazi, Libya. The disgusting ad was a misuse of tax
dollars and part of the cover-up of the truth about the Benghazi
terrorist attack.
That
being said, we ended the lawsuit after we were told that the State
Department searched Hillary Clinton's office but found no records. In
November 2014, JW agreed to dismiss the suit based, in part, upon the State Department's claim that
its search "of the Office of the Secretary, the Office of the Executive
Secretariat, and the U.S. Consulate General in Peshawar have been
completed and have resulted in the retrieval of no documents responsive
to your request."
We
had our suspicions, but at that time we did not know about Clinton's
secret email cache that the State Department was covering up. The least
the State Department could do was not to oppose our case to go back to
court for justice.
In the compromise joint motion,
JW and the State Department asked Judge Walton to reopen the lawsuit
under a federal court rule allowing for consideration of "newly
discovered evidence:"
In
March 2015, media sources reported that former Secretary Clinton, and
possibly other senior State Department officials, used non-"state.gov"
email account to conduct government business. Thereafter, [Judicial
Watch] informed the Department that based on this information, which was
previously unknown to [Judicial Watch], it would seek to reopen the
case.
Now
that the lawsuit is reopened, the State Department has promised the
court, at a minimum, to search the email records allegedly turned over
by Clinton to the State Department last year.
This
court ruling, once again, shows that Judicial Watch's various
litigation is the last, best chance to make public any secret emails of
Hillary Clinton and her appointees at the compromised State Department.
I told you last week about JW's massive new court push, which included
the filing of seven new
FOIA lawsuits about the Clinton email scandal, including emails of her
top aide Huma Abedin and records about the Benghazi and Clinton
Foundation scandals. We also just filed a lawsuit for records on Hillary Clinton's use of an iPad and iPhone.
There
are approximately 18 other lawsuits, 10 of which are active in federal
court, as well as about 160 Judicial Watch FOIA requests that could be
affected by Clinton and her staff's use of secret email accounts to
conduct official government business. In Judicial Watch's various FOIA
lawsuits, lawyers for 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.
While
we are opening new avenues inquiry and new lawsuits, we are still
awaiting word from another court on a separate bid to reopen a FOIA
lawsuit over records about Clinton aide Huma Abedin's controversial work
arrangements.
Our
team is asking the court to reopen a case under a rule that allows a
party to reopen a case due to "fraud (whether previously called
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party":
The
State Department had an obligation under the Federal Records Act to
properly preserve, maintain, and make available for retrieval records of
its official functions. In fact, it is the obligation of the head of
every federal agency to do so. Secretary Clinton plainly violated her
own legal obligations. Doing so was misconduct.
The State Department did not originally oppose the idea that Clinton's misconduct justified reopening this other case.
This
decision by a federal judge to reopen our Clinton-Benghazi lawsuit is
an extraordinary legal development that spells real trouble for Hillary
Clinton and the Obama administration.
There
is also no precedent for Hillary Clinton's stealing, hiding, and
destroying State Department records. Rather than defend its and Hillary
Clinton's fraud on the courts overseeing this and other FOIA lawsuits,
the State Department stood down and joined Judicial Watch in asking for
the lawsuit to be reopened. The Clinton machine may run rings around
Congress and much of the media, but I suspect this cover-up effort won't
work as well on federal judges in Judicial Watch's two dozen lawsuits.
Our big victory garnered national headlines and coverage from outlets such as Fox News. You can see a special JW Fox News interview on the topic here.
Thanks
to your support, JW is able to act and get what you and almost every
other American want done -someone, indeed anyone, to do something
effective about politicians like Hillary Clinton who think they are
above the law. In this case, we are so effective that we even forced
the Obama administration to take action!
If
you have the courage of your convictions, and you're inclined to run at
the national level as a candidate who is critical of big government
schemes, you should expect criticism under the First Amendment from
those who may not share your values. But you shouldn't have to worry
about being audited by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) at the behest
of vindictive government officials. Just ask Wayne Allyn Root, who ran
as a vice-presidential candidate on the Libertarian Party ticket in
2008. He's a proponent of constitutional, limited government, a
tireless critic of President Barack Obama, and a victim of IRS abuse.
Here's how Root describes his ordeal in an article appearing in TheBlaze:
"I
was targeted and persecuted by the IRS in an over-the-top attack
coordinated at the highest levels of government and the Democratic
Party," he wrote. "I can now prove it - with FACTS direct from my IRS
files obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial
Watch...my own IRS tax files not only implicate the IRS, but a leading
Democrat U.S. senator in a criminal conspiracy to silence a critic of
the president."
How
can he prove it? Your Judicial Watch worked with Mr. Root to obtain
his files from a stonewalling Obama IRS that substantiates Root's
suspicions about the audits he received. It took over a year of
diligent pursuit by JW expert investigators just to get Mr. Root's own
IRS files! Here are the specifics of our investigative analysis, which
we have shared with investigators in Congress. You can see why we
conclude it appears likely that the treatment of Mr. Root by the IRS was
motivated by his political activities:
1.
The IRS re-audited Mr. Root immediately after a Tax Court ruling in his
favor. Mr. Root was initially audited by the IRS in 2011.
Substantively, the basis for this audit was the agency's determination
to re-classify non-employee compensation earned by Mr. Root as an
independent contractor as wage income. This determination resulted in an
alleged tax deficiency of $69,217 (inclusive of interest and penalties)
for tax years 2007 and 2008. After an expensive battle to dispute this
determination, Mr. Root petitioned the U.S. Tax Court on September 15,
2011. On July 31, 2012, Chief Judge Michael B. Thornton found in Mr.
Root's favor, ruling that the re-classification was unjustified and that
no deficiency was owed.
Five days later, the IRS notified Mr. Root that he was being audited again for tax years 2009 and 2010.
2.
An IRS Revenue Agent conducted research regarding Mr. Root's political
activities and included his findings in the investigative record. The
records we obtained include an Examining Officer's Activity Record
documenting the agency's investigation of Mr. Root between May 27, 2010
and July 11, 2011. This document includes a case log entry dated
December 29, 2011, that reads in pertinent part, "RA [Revenue Agent]
researched the internet about TP/Wayne Root. Wayne Root is a public
figure whose career includes working as a (1) columnist for the Las
Vegas Review Journal and Newsmax.com (2) guest commentator on Fox News,
CNBC, CNN, and MSNBC, and (3) his being a guest host on nationally
syndicated radio shows (i.e. - The G. Gordon Liddy Show, The Jerry Doyle
Show, etc.)." The tax issues for which Mr. Root was audited are
entirely unrelated to any income he may have earned as a result of this
media activity.
3.
The IRS considered the audit of Mr. Root to be a "sensitive case." A
handwritten notation on an IRS Special Handling Notice for Examination
Processing dated May 23, 2013 identifies his as a "Sensitive Case."
Nowhere in the records is it articulated exactly what made his case
"sensitive," but it's logical to conclude that the reference is to his
political activity and public profile.
4.
The second audit was closed on May 23, 2013. Notably, the document
identifying the audit of Mr. Root as a "sensitive case" is dated May 23,
2013. The document abruptly closed the audit on that date with a
finding of "no change" (i.e., that no delinquency was owed). This is the
very day that Lois Lerner was suspended from her position as Director
of the Exempt Organizations Division of the IRS for her involvement in
targeting conservative organizations for disparate treatment by the
agency. The day before, former Director Lerner had testified before the
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. While the timing of
the closing of the agency's audit of Mr. Root on that date could be
unrelated to those events, it strikes us as a remarkable coincidence
warranting further investigation. An Examining Officer's Activity Record
documenting the processing of this second audit indicates that
investigative activity was being conducted as late as May 20, 2013, just
three days before the case was closed.
An
entry on a separate IRS worksheet documenting the closing of the case
identifies the agency's final determination as, "No adjustment to
contributions for the prior years 2007 and 2008 resulted in no change
from appeals division so repetitive audit procedures apply and per
manager's approval this issue was accepted as filed." In other words,
the IRS determined that the audit was unjustified because of the court's
finding in favor of Mr. Root that resolved the earlier audit. This
explanation, however, is highly dubious. The agency was certainly aware
of its 2007 - 2008 audit when it initiated the second audit. In
addition, on August 29, 2012, Mr. Root's attorney wrote to the IRS
advising the agency that, "the taxpayers have just recently completed an
audit for the 2007 and 2008 tax years . . . the examination resulted in
a 'No Change.' As such, a subsequent audit for the 2009 and 2010 tax
years may be deemed abusive as the audit issues appear to be largely
consistent." The fact that the IRS justified closing the second audit on
May 23, 2013 by citing information of which it was made aware in August
2012 is further supportive of the theory that it was closed in response
to the IRS targeting scandal.
5.
An unidentified Senator queried IRS officials about the status of the
audit of Mr. Root. On November 26, 2012, IRS Senior Operations Advisor
Tom Franke e-mailed Senior Program Analyst Ann Underland to inquire
whether Mr. Root was under examination. The e-mail notes that the
request for that information originated from the office of a Senator
representing Oregon. The subsequent e-mail conversation, some of which
has been redacted pursuant to FOIA exemption (b)(5), indicates that the
effort to respond to this inquiry involved a number of senior IRS
officials in California, including Los Angeles Territory Manager Anna
Hom and California Examination Area Director Linda J. Petrillo. There is
no indication what prompted the inquiry, nor did we receive a record
documenting the agency's response to the Senator's office. Mr. Root is
not a resident of Oregon and has no knowledge of why the inquiry was
made.
According to Fox News,
the IRS files obtained through the JW FOIA request implicate not just
the Obama IRS, but also a U.S. senator. Mr. Root is outraged:
"An
IRS audit that required researching my political views clearly wasn't a
"normal random audit." I was targeted for my political views. My
civil rights were clearly violated.
The
reason it may have taken the IRS fourteen months to turn my IRS files
over to Judicial Watch is that they state a United States senator from
Oregon was involved. At the time both senators from Oregon were
Democrats. But only one, Ron Wyden, was chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee with oversight over ... the IRS. Could Ron Wyden have been the
Democrat senator involved in my case?
If
so, why was a U.S. senator involved in a "normal random audit?" Why was
an Oregon Senator involved in the audit of a Nevada small businessman?
Since when do United States Senators get involved in IRS audits?
Could
someone have asked the Oregon Senator to get involved? The dots are not
hard to connect. Was he asked by someone in the White House to initiate
an IRS attack on Wayne Root? After all, I'm not just any conservative
critic of President Obama. I'm the former Columbia college classmate of
Obama. With about 6,000 media appearances on Fox News and conservative
talk radio and other outlets since Obama became president, it's not a
stretch to think I caught the attention of the Obama White House."
I
think you would agree that the Obama gang would have noticed one of two
men (even from a "third" party) opposing Obama's election in 2008! But
unlike many Republicans, Root is also someone who favors putting the
federal government back inside a constitutional box and that's a no-no
in Obama's America. The coordinated assault against Root began with a
phone call in 2011 that an IRS official claimed in a Wall Street Journal article could never have taken place. Why? Because the IRS supposedly never directly calls taxpayers.
"The
IRS agent left a voicemail, and then took another unheard-of step and
called my accountant, who had my power of attorney and told the agent he
was forbidden to ever contact me again," Root wrote in his piece for Fox News.
"Yet the IRS agent called me again, only minutes later, telling me all
about my political views. How did an IRS agent know about my political
views? Why was he telling me my political views? I felt like I was being
stalked."
I encourage you to review Mr. Root's account of his IRS battles, in partnership with your JW, on TheBlaze and on the Fox News websites. JW's take? Here is our quote for the record:
The
Obama IRS obstructed the release of Wayne Root's tax documents. The
abuse of process Judicial Watch and Wayne suffered through to get these
documents is scandalous. Now we know why the Obama IRS was hesitant to
give Wayne his own IRS files. These documents show the Obama IRS
scandal was more than just suppressing the Tea Party, it was also about
auditing critics of President Obama. Richard Nixon had to resign from
office for less. The first order of business for United States Attorney
General Loretta Lynch should be to appoint a special counsel who can
convene a grand jury to look into the Obama IRS outrages.
We're not finished here yet, not by a long shot. The Obama IRS scandal continues. Stay tuned....
If
you thought that the agent with the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) was getting a little too close and personal, and
even a little offensive, it may not have been your imagination running
wild. After obtaining 58 pages of records from
the TSA that detail alleged sexually-related assaults on passengers by
TSA personnel at three major U.S. international airports, we can tell
you that it is well past time for reform. The documents were released in
response to a July 2014 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that
was filed after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wouldn't turn
over documents to our investigators who were looking into passenger
complaints for the year 2013 at Dulles International Airport, Chicago
O'Hare International Airport, Denver International Airport, Miami
International Airport, and Los Angeles International Airport.
The
TSA documents show that passengers strenuously objected to the alleged
sexually-related assaults, repeatedly saying they were "shocked,"
"violated," and "humiliated." In one incident, a passenger reported that
TSA officers, and "even the Supervisor ... began to roar with laughter
at the alleged sexual assault." In other incidents, a breast cancer
survivor reported she felt as if she had been raped. And an elderly
passenger with a colostomy bag said she felt violated after being
informed by a TSA agent that she had to "touch her bag so I could then
touch her hands."
That
we had to fight and sue in court to get the TSA to disclose these
shocking complaints demonstrates that the agency is more interested in a
cover-up than in addressing the problem that its employees violate
innocent travelers too often, sexually or otherwise. With more than
56,000 employees and a $7.7 billion budget, the TSA can't be trusted to
do its job of securing air travel. American simply trying to board a
plane should not have to worry about being assaulted by federal
employees working for the TSA.
To quote the TSA:
At approximately 14:10
hours on the South Checkpoint, near lane 4 a passenger complained that
he sustained an injury resulting from the aggressive actions of the the
[sic] TSO [Transportation Security Officer] conducting a pat down
search...The passenger stated during the pat-down search he was struck
very hard in the groin area, which caused him pain to his left testical
[sic].
She
[TSA agent] then placed full palms squarely on my breasts and then
moved around my breasts again. She then placed both palms against my
breasts and I was shocked, humiliated, alarmed and assaulted and said
'Stop! What are you doing? That's not ok.'... I reported this to TSA
Supervisor ... She got the manager [redacted] and he said he would look
at the video and TSA would send me a letter but it would not tell me the
resolution and that I did not have a right to view the video... I will
not be sexually assaulted at the airport. As a taxpayer, I pay for the
TSA."
The
female TSO then proceeded to roughly feel of [sic] her breast including
her nipples. The TSO didn't go under her arms or along her sides. She
indicated that she did not receive a proper pat down. The search was
limited to her breast... Two other individuals came over to where the
supervisor and gentleman were and they began laughing. The caller
indicated that the incident was not the business of the other two
officers and not a show for them. The caller indicated that even the
Supervisor, along with the others, began to roar with laughter.
Caller
indicates that her mother feels as though she was singled out because
she was a breast cancer survivor and the caller feels as though this is
extremely discriminatory. Caller indicates that the breast is an
extremely intimate place that should not be rubbed in the manner that it
was. Caller expressed that her mother feels extremely violated and the
caller feels that being violated in this manner is on the same level as
rape. Caller has indicated that her mother will never travel again
because of the pat down that she received.
The
person began to tell me how TSO [redacted] stuck his hands down his
pants and grabbed the top of his penis and placed his fingers in his
butt crack... The person was sure that he was violated and wanted to
talk to a supervisor.... He said he is going to file a police report
with Chicago Police Department and file a lawsuit against TSA and
Officer [redacted] and walked away."
Though
not a sexually related complaint, included in the records is a document
with the subject line "Likely Passenger Complaint - Discrimination
because of Medical Condition:"
I
led the way and the passenger followed, stating all the while that she
was no terrorist; she was a woman of (68? - I do not remember precisely
but it was an age in the 60s which pinpointed for me that she was not
eligible for a modified pat down) and a U.S. citizen.... I then asked if
there were any medical devices other than the bag - she interrupted me
to say 'It's only poop. I can't blow up a plane with poop! ... I managed
to clear her legs and feet and then [redacted]. [Redacted] I needed her
to touch her bag so I could then test her hands.
Last month, CBS4 in Denver reported
"that two Transportation Security Administration screeners at Denver
International Airport have been fired after they were discovered
manipulating passenger screening systems to allow a male TSA employee to
fondle the genital areas of attractive male passengers."
I
can't find much evidence that we are made safer by the all the hassle
and extra costs imposed on us by the TSA "security" bureaucracy. In
fact, it is in dispute whether the TSA ever has stopped a terrorist
attack - or is competent to do so. Just this month, the DHS inspector
general testified to Congress about the TSA's potentially catastrophic
failures. The Washington Times summed up the IG's warnings:
The
Transportation Security Administration has vulnerabilities that
continue to put airline travelers at risk, despite being notified of its
shortcomings through more than 100 federal audit and inspection
reports...
The
above parade of horribles tells you why the TSA only released the
information about sexually-related assault issues after we forced them
into federal court. Our investigations will continue.
Until next week...
 Tom Fitton President |
No comments:
Post a Comment