Judicial Watch Takes Lead on Hillary Clinton Email Scandal
Judicial
Watch has had remarkable success in using the court process to obtain
answers on the burgeoning email scandal, including from Hillary Clinton
herself.
Since my report to you last week, events have moved quickly.
First,
a JW Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit forced Mrs. Clinton to
do what no other congressional committee, FBI, or Justice Department
investigation has been able to do - submit information, under penalty of
perjury, about her email system. The week began with the U.S. State
Department submitting to a federal court an August 8 sworn declaration
from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding federal
records on her controversial email system. The declaration states:
I, Hillary Rodham Clinton, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
While I do not know what information may be "responsive" for purposes of this law suit, I have directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com
in my custody that were or potentially were federal records to be
provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this
has been done.
As a result of my directive, approximately 55,000 pages of these emails were produced to the Department on December 5, 2014.
Cheryl Mills did not have an account on clintonemail.com. Huma Abedin did have such an account which was used at times for government business.
The document is signed by "Hillary Rodham Clinton." The State Department was ordered
by US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan on July 31 to request that
Clinton and her top aides confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they
have produced all government records in their possession and to return
any other government records immediately. The Court wanted State to ask
Clinton, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills to describe their use of Hillary
Clinton's email server to conduct government business. The State
Department produced last week the August 5 letter it sent to Mrs. Clinton, which included a copy of Judge Sullivan's July 31 order, which reads: text of Judge Sullivan's July 31 minute order:
As
agreed by the parties at the July 31, 2015 status hearing, the
Government shall produce a copy of the letters sent by the State
Department to Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Ms. Huma Abedin and Ms. Cheryl Mills
regarding the collection of government records in their possession.
These communications shall be posted on the docket forthwith. The
Government has also agreed to share with Plaintiff's counsel the
responses sent by Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills. These
communications shall also be posted on the docket forthwith. In
addition, as related to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests in this case, the
Government is HEREBY ORDERED to: (1) identify any and all servers,
accounts, hard drives, or other devices currently in the possession or
control of the State Department or otherwise that may contain responsive
information; (2) request that the above named individuals confirm,
under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive
information that was or is in their possession as a result of their
employment at the State Department. If all such information has not yet
been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals
produce the information forthwith; and (3) request that the above named
individuals describe, under penalty of perjury, the extent to which Ms.
Abedin and Ms. Mills used Mrs. Clinton's email server to conduct
official government business. The Government shall inform the Court of
the status of its compliance with this Order no later than August 7,
2015, including any response received from Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and
Ms. Mills. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 31, 2015.
You
don't need to be a legal expert to see that Mrs. Clinton's declaration
fails to comply with both Judge Sullivan's court order and the State
Department's request. Clinton does not certify she turned over all
federal records and provides no information on the extent that Abedin
and Mills used her server.
Just to review, it was over four 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 entire
tenure as the secretary of state. It also was reported that Secretary
Clinton stored these records on a non-U.S. government issued server at
her home in Chappaqua, New York.
It
is clear now that Mrs. Clinton doesn't want to tell the whole truth
about her email system. The court will very likely have more questions
for her. Clinton's declaration raises more questions than it answers and
shows contempt for the court.
But this isn't the only news.
Judge Sullivan issued an order late last Friday
to the State Department explicitly instructing that all federal
documents relating to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her
aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills be preserved:
In view of [20] the Government's status report,
the Court hereby directs the Government to request that Mrs. Hillary
Clinton, Ms. Huma Abedin, and Ms. Cheryl Mills i) not delete any federal
documents, electronic or otherwise, in their possession or control, and
ii) provide appropriate assurances to the Government that the
above-named individuals will not delete any such documents. The
Government shall inform the Court of the status of its compliance with
this Order no later than August 12, 2015, including a copy of any
assurances provided by Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills that they
will not delete any federal documents in their possession or control.
Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 7, 2015.
The order was issued a little over an hour after Judicial Watch lawyers filed an urgent response informing Judge Sullivan of a plan to destroy federal records as reported by State to the court. Incredible!
Let's not forget these developments come in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma
Abedin, the former Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton. The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about Hillary
Clinton's email records.
As if this wasn't enough, there were even more major court and legal developments.
On Wednesday, the State Department filed correspondence
in response to Judge Sullivan's July 31 order requiring the State
Department to report on his directive to take steps to ensure that Mrs.
Clinton, Ms. Abedin, and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills did not destroy
government records. The filing included a letter from Hillary Clinton's
lawyer David Kendall that read in part:
[W]e
have voluntarily provided to the Department of Justice on August 6,
2015, the .pst file containing electronic copies of the 55,000 pages of
emails on a thumb drive (along with two copies), which had been securely
stored in my possession, after receiving from the Department of Justice
an assurance that it would maintain this file in an appropriately
secure manner and the Department's opinion that such maintenance would
satisfy any preservation obligations I am under. Similarly, Platte
River Networks is today providing to the Department of Justice the
server and related equipment on which emails to and from Secretary
Clinton's clintonemail.com
were stored from 2009 to 2013 and which PRN took possession of in
2013. This is following the Department of Justice's assurances to us
and counsel for PRN that it would maintain the server equipment in an
appropriately secure manner. The Department also gave counsel its
opinion that such maintenance would satisfy any preservation obligations
we have.
This
Clinton lawyer's letter in response to the court's orders shows Mrs.
Clinton continues to withhold material information from the court. Reports seem to confirm Mrs. Clinton is still withholding emails from the FBI and Justice Department.
In response, the Court acted quickly with yet another Court order yesterday! The order states:
On
August 7, 2015, the State Department indicated that it would, by August
14, 2015, provide additional information about all servers, accounts,
hard drives, or other devices in the Department's possession or control
that may contain information responsive to Plaintiff's Freedom of
Information Act request in this case. The State Department shall file a
status report with such relevant information no later than 12:00 p.m.
on August 14, 2015. Further, in light of the State Department's August
12, 2015 status report, the August 14, 2015 report shall indicate the
extent to which the State Department is working with other government
agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Department of Justice, to search Mrs. Clinton's private email server for
information relevant to this lawsuit. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
on August 13, 2015.
The State Department just filed its response. We issued a statement minutes ago:
The
State Department filing is woefully deficient, misleading, and
contemptuous of the court's orders for complete disclosure about Mrs.
Clinton's email system and the systems of Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills. The
court, Judicial Watch and the American people are no closer to learning
where all of the emails of Hillary and her top aides can be found. The
State Department refused to answer questions about what is even in its
possession. Now we know that the Obama administration and Hillary
Clinton have joined hands in this email scandal. The State Department
relies on the half-baked, vague declaration by Hillary Clinton and a
misleading letter by her lawyer to try to avoid its obligations to
produce records under the Freedom of Information Act. It is now clear
that Mrs. Clinton is withholding servers and emails from the FBI and
Justice Department, and Judge Sullivan is being misled to conclude
otherwise. We will seek appropriate relief from the court.
I
think it is fair to conclude that the courts are expecting quick action
on Mrs. Clinton's email system and that the Obama administration will
learn that the courts will not allow it to bury her emails.
I
have saved the best for last. Hillary Clinton, under incredible
pressure, erupted, lost control, and attacked Judicial Watch for her
email scandal! Her attack on the grassroots organization occurred
during an interview on Univision. I responded on behalf of Judicial Watch with the following statement:
Hillary
Clinton's attacks on Judicial Watch for its success in suing for her
State Department records under the Freedom of Information Act will not
deter us from our nonpartisan work. Hillary Clinton has a nasty record
of attacking and threatening those who try to hold her accountable to
the law. It was Hillary Clinton who chose to conduct official
government business on a separate email system. It was this decision by
Hillary Clinton that placed classified information and the nation's security at risk.
In addition, it prevented government records from being properly
searched as required by law in response to Judicial Watch's Freedom of
Information Act requests and lawsuits. A federal judge has led the way
in requesting answers from her under penalty of perjury. Mrs. Clinton
has a problem with the truth and obeying the law - and that is why a
federal judge has requested information from Mrs. Clinton, the State
Department, and her closest advisors. Blaming Judicial Watch for the
email mess she made is pathetic.
Sure
enough, this attack was a deflection from the truth that she was forced
to turn over her "server" and some emails to the FBI and Justice
Department almost at the same time she was blaming Judicial Watch for
her problems!
I
cannot say enough for how grateful I am for all of the hard work of my
colleagues here at Judicial Watch. Hillary Clinton criticizes us
because we are truth-tellers, persistent, and effective. Congress, the
rest of the media, and federal "law enforcement" follow our lead.
Stay tuned...
Illegal Immigration Crisis Weakens Citizens' Voting Rights
Should
it be permissible for government officials to count noncitizens in
drawing up voting districts? The answer to this question has taken on
added urgency with the illegal immigration crisis and the massive
amounts of legal immigrants living in America. Our friends at the
Center for Immigration Studies just this week announced
that their analysis of census data shows that "the nation's immigrant
population (legal and illegal) hit a record high of 42.1 million in the
second quarter of this year - an increase of 1.7 million since the same
quarter of 2014." This means that the noncitizens now comprise "13.3
percent of the nation's total population - the largest share in 105
years."
Keep
these astonishing and troubling numbers in mind as I report to you our
new Supreme Court "friend of court" brief, filed in partnership with the
Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) The suit pushes back against a
practice in Texas that undermines the voting rights of legal citizens.
Last week (August 7), we filed an amici curiae brief
in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Texas residents challenging
the "malapportionment" caused by a Texas election districting law that
weakens the voting rights of citizens by including nonvoting noncitizens
in state legislative districts.
Under
the current Texas districting law, government officials draw districts
for the Texas State Senate based upon total population, rather than the
number of eligible voters. As a result, voters in districts with large
numbers of non-voting-eligible aliens have increased voting and
political power compared to voters in districts with higher numbers of
legal residents. Voters in Texas' urban centers have substantially
inflated voting power over the fewer number of eligible voters who also
reside in those districts. The situation is particularly acute in urban
areas like Dallas and Houston, where up to 50 percent of the voting age population are not U.S. citizens.
The Judicial Watch-AEF brief argues that the districting law almost cuts in half the voting power of some Texas citizens:
Texas
created districts that are equal in total population but decidedly
unequal in citizen population. As a result, the votes of some of Texas'
citizens have, by some measures, almost twice the electoral power of the
votes of other Texas citizens ...
Texas'
legislators ... argue that they are complying with the constitutional,
"one person, one vote," requirement, at the very moment that they are
"weighting" the votes of their supporters by placing them in districts
with greater numbers of nonvoting noncitizens. The ultimate consequence
of this scheme is that legislators are able to enhance their odds of
winning reelection without having to engage in the bothersome and
time-consuming task of actually persuading voters to vote for them.
A little history is in order.
Back
in June 2014, Texas citizens Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger filed a
lawsuit arguing that the law violated the "one person, one vote" clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. On November 5, 2014, a special panel of
three federal court judges dismissed the suit, and on December 4, 2014,
Evenwel and Pfenninger filed their notice of appeal to the Supreme
Court.
The
Judicial Watch/AEF brief recommends that the Supreme Court "enjoin the
use of Texas' Senate districts because they embody and rely on citizen
malapportionment. Further, this Court should direct that Texas' Senate
districts be apportioned on the basis of citizen voting-age population."
This
Texas state legislative districting case has national policy
implications because congressional districts are also drawn in a way
that gives undue voting weight to voters in districts with large alien
and ineligible voting age populations. For example, if only eligible
citizen voters could be counted when creating congressional districts,
many of the nation's sanctuary cities with large immigrant noncitizen
populations could have their electoral power reduced.
Let's examine the faulty logic behind the current districting law and how this impacts the rights of legal citizens.
In
Texas, some voters are given one-half of a vote simply if they live in
areas that don't have many illegal aliens and other non-citizen
residents. We argue that the Supreme Court should apply the law to
ensure record numbers of non-citizens in the United States aren't used
to deprive citizens of their right to have their votes treated equally
under law. This Texas redistricting case exposed the dirty little secret
that the illegal immigration crisis is being used by politicians to
gain power at the expense of the voting rights of U.S. citizens.
Our
efforts here do not occur in a vacuum. As our long-time readers know,
JW has been working tenaciously over the years to improve ballot
integrity and to preserve the voting rights of legal citizens. Attorneys
with our Election Integrity Project, for instance, filed successful lawsuits
and other legal actions against state government officials who have
failed to maintain clean voter registration lists. When ineligible
names, which often include noncitizens, appear on voter rolls, it
increases the likelihood of fraud. Noncitizens are officially counted
in a way that takes away the voting rights of citizens. This political
power, stolen from American citizens, is one reason many politicians
don't want to enforce laws against illegal immigration and want to
increase the already record number of legal and illegal immigrants.
The Supreme Court should rule on the Texas issue by June of next year.
Judicial Watch Civil Rights Suit Challenges Race-Based Separatist Vote in Hawaii
Could
the U.S. find itself back down to 49 states instead of 50? Since the
news media is obviously obsessed with any news items involving racial
strife, we find it interesting that so little attention has been given
to this story out of Hawaii: With a wink and a nod from Team Obama,
leftists in Hawaii are conducting a racially discriminatory campaign
that could tear the state apart.
That's why we have filed a lawsuit in United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
that seeks to stop a scheme by the State of Hawaii to use a voting list
restricted by both race and viewpoint to conduct an election for Native
Hawaiian "self-government." The suit is filed on behalf of five
Hawaiian residents and one Texas resident of Hawaiian ancestry, who,
either because of their race or viewpoint, are explicitly denied the
right to vote, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting
Rights Act.
On
August 13, 2015, Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit against the state of
Hawaii, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) the Native Hawaiian Roll
Commission (NHRC), and other State officials and agents, asking the
court to declare that the process required to register for the Native
Hawaiian voter roll violates constitutional rights found in the First,
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, as well as federal voting laws.
An
enrollment list is being created under Act 195, the 2011 Hawaii law
that authorizes the NHRC to create a list of "Native Hawaiians" who
would be eligible to submit amendments to the State constitution at a
planned constitutional convention and to vote on issues concerning the
sovereignty of the "Native Hawaiian people." Act 195 defines a "Native
Hawaiian" as any person whom the government determines to be a direct
descendant of the State's aboriginal peoples.
On July 20, 2012, using taxpayer funds from the State's Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the NHRC launched the Kana'iolowalu campaign,
opening a registration process for native Hawaiians who desired to vote
for a new race-based sovereign government. A person may register for
the Kana'iolowalu if, besides meeting the law's racial requirements,
that individual has "maintained a significant cultural, social, or civic
connection to the Native Hawaiian community" and "wishes to
participate" in organizing an anticipated "Native Hawaiian governing
entity." Essentially, a race-based enrollment list of native Hawaiians has been created in accordance with this campaign.
Your JW obtained the list under a June 3, 2015, court order issued in an open records lawsuit
that our legal team filed against the Roll Commission, seeking the
release of documents related to the campaign. If you are a Hawaiian, I
encourage you are to search the list to see if your name was added. The Obama administration has been criticized for taking executive action toward "the reestablishment of
a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian
community." The regime in Washington appears to have a stake in the
divisiveness that would naturally flow out of the action in Hawaii.
The
new federal lawsuit alleges Hawaii and other defendants have unlawfully
restricted voter access by requiring voters to certify particular
racial characteristics and to acknowledge their agreement with the
Hawaiian "sovereignty" movement. Hawaiian residents wishing to register
for the native Hawaiian voting roll are required to affirm all three of
the following declarations:
· Declaration
One. I affirm the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian
people, and my intent to participate in the process of self-governance.
· Declaration Two. I have a significant cultural, social or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community.
· Declaration
Three. I am a Native Hawaiian: a lineal descendant of the people who
lived and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian islands prior to 1778,
or a person who is eligible for the programs of the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act, 1920, or a direct lineal descendant of that person.
Judicial Watch argues:
[T]he
restrictions on registering for the Roll violate the U.S. Constitution,
including the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the
Fifteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clauses of
the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments; and federal law, including the
Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. § 10301.
Judicial
Watch argues that the state's requirements, which exclude certain
Native Hawaiians from registering for the roll, represent violations of
numerous constitutional rights, primarily the Fifteenth Amendment
protection against voting restrictions based on race:
The
defendants fully intended to restrict who may register for the Roll on
the basis of ancestry, as shown by the plain text of Act 195 as well as
the text of the online registration procedures, and as shown by numerous
public statements by the defendants, including those made on their
registration website...Act 195 and the defendants' registration
procedures deny and abridge the plaintiffs' rights to vote on account of
race, in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment.
The lawsuit also alleges a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:
Act
195 and the registration process used by the defendants discriminate
against the plaintiffs on account of the fact that they are not Native
Hawaiians, as defined by their ancestry. Accordingly, Act 195 and the
registration process used by the defendants discriminate against the
plaintiffs on account of their race...Act 195 and the registration
process used by the defendants violate the plaintiffs' rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the equal protection of the laws.
Additionally, the voting roll procedures violate the Voting Rights Act:
Section
2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, proscribes any
"qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or
procedure . . . imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision
in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of
any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."
The defendants fully intended to restrict who may register for the Roll
on the basis of race. Act 195 and the registration process used by the
defendants restrict who may register for the Roll on the basis of
individuals' Hawaiian ancestry, which is a proxy for race.
Who
would believe that in this day and age U.S. citizens are being denied
access to the right to vote explicitly because of their race and their
points of view! Using a race-based enrollment list to help radicals in
Hawaii tear the state apart and break away from the United States of
America is a violation of the U.S. Constitution and basic federal voting
rights law. And that Hawaiian officials would prevent you from voting
if you don't sign up for their racial apartheid theories is an affront
to the First Amendment. Our clients who are being denied their core
constitutional rights believe courts can't shut down this racist scheme
soon enough.
Here, I'd like to recognize some of the key players in this case.
The
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a Hawaii-based think tank, has been
helping Judicial Watch to investigate Hawaii's plan for a race-based
election. Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute and a
plaintiff in the case said, "Instead of OHA and the State continuing to
waste millions of dollars on the pursuit of a political sovereignty
campaign, they need to use these precious funds to meet the real needs
of Hawaiians for housing, jobs, education, and health care. Given the
low enrollment in the certified Native Hawaiian Roll, it is clear that
the Native Hawaiian people themselves have rejected OHA-backed efforts
to create a racially exclusive nation. The time has come to stop
dividing Hawaii's people and start uniting them."
Robert
Popper, director of Judicial Watch's Election Integrity Project, is
Judicial Watch's lead attorney on the lawsuit. Mr. Popper was formerly
deputy chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the
Justice Department.
Michael Lilly of the Honolulu law firm Ning, Lilly & Jones is serving as Judicial Watch's local counsel for the plaintiffs.
Our new lawsuit is getting a lot attention in the media.
All Americans should be concerned about this racist assault on the U.S.
Constitution. In addition, we expect that the Obama administration
will further push this apartheid-like movement using federal tax
dollars, which we are also prepared to counter. I'll report back to you
on this issue as events warrant.
Until next week...
Tom Fitton President
No comments:
Post a Comment