Clinton Email Scandal Update
Judicial
Watch does more than almost anyone else in DC to educate the public
about the duplicity of high ranking government officials. I have
another extraordinary example of this in the Clinton email scandal.
JW just recently obtained State Department records
showing that the Obama agency asked Hillary Clinton to return emails in
July 2014. This contradicts statements made in court that State only
requested via a November 2014 letter (a version of which was sent to
several former secretaries of state) that Mrs. Clinton return records to
the State Department. Other new emails show the State Department has
separate policies for handling the documents of State Department senior
officials "and the rest of the department."
The emails are found in a batch of 189 pages of documents produced under court order in a major Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit specifically seeking all of Clinton's emails and records about her email practices.
An astonishing email from Cheryl Mills,
Hillary Clinton's former counselor and chief of staff, to David E.
Wade, then-chief of staff to Secretary of State John Kerry, shows that
the State Department asked for the Clinton emails in July 2014.
From: Cheryl Mills
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 9:20 AM
To: Wade, David E
Cc: Visek, Richard C; Philippe Reines
Subject: Following Up
Dear David (and Rich)
I
wanted to follow up on your request last month about getting hard
copies of Secretary Clinton's emails to/from accounts ending in ".gov"
for her tenure at the Department.
I will be able to get that to you,
to the best of its availability. Given the volume, it will take some
time to do but I wanted to let you know that I am working to get it to
you.
Hope you are having a great end to your summer.
Best.
cdm
(Sorry for not copying Jen, I don't have her email).
Judicial
Watch filed this new email with U.S. District Court Judge Emmett
Sullivan, who is now considering whether to grant discovery in another JW lawsuit
seeking information on the "special government employee" status of Huma
Abedin. The court specifically asked the State Department about how
and when it requested that Mrs. Clinton return records. In our latest court filing, Judicial Watch states:
This
[Mills] email indisputably shows that the State Department first asked
Mrs. Clinton to return records as late as July 2014, not November 2014
as the State Department would have this Court and [Judicial Watch]
believe.
Hillary Clinton also misled the American people, as she suggested
during her infamous March 2015 United Nations press statement that she
turned over the emails only after a request in October 2014 and
responded "right away." In fact, these new emails show it took at least
five months for her to turn over only half of the emails in question.
Another email, on the heels of the initial Clinton email story in the New York Times,
details how a top State Department official tried to allay the concerns
of National Archivist Paul Wester about the Clinton email issue.
Margaret Grafeld, deputy assistant secretary of global information
systems, recounts to other top State Department officials a March 3, 2015, call with National Archives:
I
just had a very cordial 45 minute conversation with Paul Wester
regarding the press coverage of the HRC email personal account and State
records, focusing on State actions and those NARA will take today.
I
explained to Paul the environment in which State operates (and the
bifurcated management of records for principals vs the rest of the
Department), as well as steps that M and others have initiated to ensure
that we are compliant with laws and regulations.
In short, we
can expect a letter from Paul to me later today covering the alienation
(a legal term of art) of the former Secretary's records [Redacted]
requesting an explanation both of what happened and what we are doing to
remedy the situation. I requested that he cc M on the letter as the
Senior Agency Official for Records Management, which shall be done.
I will share the letter with you all as soon as I receive it.
Don't
you love the phrase "bifurcated management of records for principals
vs. the rest of the Department"! That phrase is Orwellian bureaucratese
for: "We treated Hillary Clinton as if she were above the law."
The
special treatment of Hillary Clinton continued after she left the State
Department. Another email suggests the State Department provided Mrs.
Clinton's lawyers with a "two drawer safe" in which to store classified
emails from the Clinton email server. The documents also show that a
report was to be prepared regarding security issues with the Clinton
emails, which included a security inspection made of the Clinton
lawyers' offices. One related email states:
Please
ask the appropriate DS subject matter experts to contact [Clinton
lawyer Kathleen] Turner to arrange for appointment to do a thorough
security review to include physical security of area/safe in which
document/electronic versions are being kept, who has access to the
area/safe, do those individuals have appropriate clearances, when the
electronic version is uploaded on a computer is it a stand-alone
computer, when the disk/thumb drive is removed is any residual
information deleted from the computer and any other appropriate
questions. This review/inspection needs to be carried out as soon as
possible.
The records also show that, as of December 2, 2014,
the Select Committee on Benghazi was still in the dark about the
separate Clinton email system. Mrs. Clinton would return some of the
requested emails to the State Department on December 5, 2014, but the
Select Committee was not informed of this transaction until March 2015.
In fact, a December 29, 2014, letter from Mr. Kendall responding to the December 2
request for documents simply refers to the Committee's request to the
State Department with no mention of the Clinton email transfer that took
place over three weeks earlier.
Last week, this same lawsuit produced records
that included a State Department letter to Hillary Clinton's lawyers
that includes a list of classified records to be either deleted or
returned to the State Department. In September 2015, Judicial Watch released State Department documents
showing a nearly five-month gap in the emails that Clinton chose to
return to the State Department. Shortly afterward, Judicial Watch released correspondence
from Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy asking
Hillary Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, to destroy or return all copies
of a classified email "forwarded by Jacob Sullivan to Secretary Clinton
... (Subject: Fw: FYI - Report of arrests - possible Benghazi
connection)." Kendall rejected the request, as Congress and other
investigators had demanded electronic records be preserved. The
correspondence also shows Hillary Clinton ignored a demand to turn over
all electronic copies of the approximately 55,000 pages of emails she
previously returned in paper form.
The State Department and Mrs.
Clinton have been misleading the American people, the Congress, and the
courts about when the State Department asked her for the government
emails she took with her when she left State. The new emails show that
Hillary Clinton was specifically and separately asked for her government
emails months earlier than what the State Department represented to the
courts and what Clinton told the American people. These new documents
ought to be of keen interest to the FBI and federal prosecutors
investigating Hillary Clinton and her colleagues in the Obama
administration. Were the White House and John Kerry in on this
deception?
You can see how the Clinton email controversy is only
worsening. So as America waits for the FBI and a compromised Justice
Department to act - and as Congress is completely AWOL - your JW is
doing the work of getting to the truth about this truly historic
scandal.
Judicial Watch Files Key Brief in Freddie Gray, Jr. Prosecution - Supports Rights of Accused Police Officer
When
an angry mob begins to dictate justice, we all lose out. And the
poisonous atmosphere that now exists toward law enforcement officers is a
danger to all of us. So I'm especially proud of our legal team's brief
in support of the rule of law and the rights of an accused police
officer in what is now one of the most notorious, racially-divisive
criminal cases in the country.
Specifically, Judicial Watch's attorneys filed an amicus curiae
brief with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, arguing that forcing
Baltimore Police Officer William G. Porter to testify against fellow
officers before his June retrial for manslaughter, assault, and other
criminal charges over the police-custody death of Freddie Gray Jr.,
would have a significant, adverse chilling effect on his constitutional
rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. We argue the unusual push
to force Office Porter to testify while facing charges is part of an
unjust effort "to quiet unrest and appease violent protesters." We
filed the brief last week, on February 10.
The JW amicus brief explains our interest in the case:
Judicial Watch seeks to participate as an amicus curiae
in this matter to ensure that due care and the full protections of the
law - not a hasty rush to judgment or short-sighted effort to placate
angry protesters - are afforded to all persons and entities involved. Of
particular concern to Judicial Watch are the "uncharted" questions of
law raised by the State's efforts to compel Officer William G. Porter to
testify at the trials of his fellow officers following his mistrial and
before his retrial.
In January, the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City ordered Officer Porter to testify, over the assertion
of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, in the
trials of two police officer co-defendants. Last night the Court of
Appeals, Maryland's highest court, took up the issue for expedited
consideration. Argument is scheduled for March 3. Judicial Watch attorneys argue to the appellate courts:
Under
the unique circumstances presented by this case, the State cannot
accuse Officer Porter of perjury, compel him to testify against his
fellow officers, and seek to retry him without violating his Fifth and
Sixth Amendment rights.
On April 12, 2015, Gray was arrested by the Baltimore City Police. One week later,
Gray died on April 19, 2015, after sustaining spinal cord injuries
while being transported in a police van on the day of his arrest. His
death sparked violent rioting, leading to over 100 police officers being
injured, multiple arrests, hundreds of businesses being destroyed, a
state of emergency, and deployment of the National Guard. On May 1,
less than two weeks after Gray's death, Baltimore State's Attorney
Marilyn J. Mosby announced charges against the six officers involved in
Gray's arrest. All have pleaded not guilty. In announcing
the charges, State's Attorney Mosby suggested the quick decision to
prosecute the officers, was in response to the demands of violent
protestors:
"To the people of Baltimore and the
demonstrators across America, I heard your call for 'no justice, no
peace.' Your peace is sincerely needed as I work to deliver justice on
behalf of this young man."
Baltimore politicians
don't seem to care much about the constitutional rights of the police
officers facing imprisonment in the Freddie Gray prosecution. This
prosecution undermines the public's faith in the fair administration of
justice. Forcing defendants to testify in plain violation of their
Fifth Amendment rights would turn our justice system on its head. It is
looking more and more like these Baltimore police officers are in the
dock for the death of Gray in order to appease a violent mob. Is this
what justice in Maryland looks like?
Fast and Furious Court Victory for Judicial Watch
This
is an important story about Judicial Watch's complicated and complex
investigation into the Obama administration's deadly Operation Fast and
Furious scandal. And this is one story that should be shared far and
wide.
Earlier this week your JW was pleased to announce that we
scored a victory in the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit regarding a September 5, 2013, Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
for all records of communications between the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
on settlement discussions in the Committee's 2012 contempt of Congress
lawsuit against former Attorney General Eric Holder. The contempt
citation stemmed from Holder's refusal to turn over documents to
Congress related to the Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal. The appeals court decision was issued last week, on February 12.
On June 28, 2012, Holder was held in contempt by the House of Representatives over his refusal to turn over records
explaining why the Obama administration may have lied to Congress and
refused for months to disclose the truth about the gunrunning operation
in which the Obama administration allowed weapons to "walk" across the
border into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, directly resulting in the
death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and countless Mexican
citizens. The House vote against Holder marked the first time in U.S.
history that a sitting Attorney General was held in contempt of
Congress.
A week before the contempt finding, to protect Holder
from criminal prosecution and stave off the contempt vote, President
Obama asserted executive privilege over the Fast and Furious records
that the House Oversight Committee had subpoenaed eight months earlier.
Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit
on September 12, 2012, for all of the records the Obama White House was
withholding from the House of Representatives under its June 20, 2012,
executive privilege claims. The House had been separately litigating
to obtain the records before U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman
Jackson. We figured, correctly it turns out, we'd have better success
in court than the hapless Congress.
Initially, the House lawsuit
stalled our litigation. On February 15, 2013, U.S. District Court
Judge Bates stayed the Judicial Watch case, in part to allow ongoing
settlement discussions between the DOJ and the House Committee to
continue.
Judicial Watch was skeptical that the "settlement
discussions" were serious and that they were merely an excuse to keep
the records secret to protect Holder and the Obama administration from
any Fast and Furious fallout. Judicial Watch sought records about the
alleged settlement talks and sued in federal court
for them in September 2013. As last week's appellate decision details,
U.S District Court Judge Richard Leon ruled that a statement Judge
Jackson made in the House lawsuit was a lawful reason to withhold the
documents from the public:
"I don't know what you
said. I don't want to know." - was "an explicit statement from Judge
Jackson instructing the parties to keep the substance of their
settlement discussions private," so "there can be no doubt that there
was a valid court-imposed restriction prohibiting disclosure."
The
U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that Judge Leon erred in concluding
that Judge Jackson's comment - about not wanting to know about the
settlement - should be construed as an order to seal the records
requested by Judicial Watch:
[T]here is no extrinsic
evidence that was what the judge intended; indeed, that concern is
nowhere mentioned in the record in this case, and it is equally
plausible that Judge Jackson wanted simply to preserve her objectivity
in case she ultimately were to preside over a trial. Nor has the
Department pointed to extrinsic evidence, such as information that the
district court customarily protects the confidentiality of settlement
discussions before a case is referred to mediation, that supports its
preferred reading.
Accordingly, the intended effect of Judge
Jackson's order is ambiguous. An ambiguous court order does not protect a
record from disclosure pursuant to the FOIA.
The appeals court directed the issue be taken up again by the lower courts:
At
oral argument, Judicial Watch raised no objection to our remanding the
case for clarification and acknowledged that Judge Jackson's explanation
would be dispositive. Accordingly, we vacate the judgement for the
district court and remand this matter to Judge Leon in order to give the
Department an opportunity to seek clarification from Judge Jackson
regarding the intended effect and scope of her order.
The "mediation" and the House effort to obtain the Fast and Furious documents
went nowhere until after Judge Bates in the Judicial Watch litigation
ruled that the Obama Justice Department had to disclose directly to
Judicial Watch information that Congress was seeking.
After a lengthy 16-month delay of its lawsuit because of this "mediation," Judicial Watch finally obtained a July 18, 2014, ruling from Judge John D. Bates that lifted a stay of our open records lawsuit and ordered the production of a Vaughn
index by October 1, 2014. Judge Bates noted that no court has ever
"expressly recognized" President Obama's unprecedented executive
privilege claims in the Fast and Furious matter. Typically, a Vaughn
index must: (1) identify each record withheld; (2) state the statutory
exemption claimed; and (3) explain how disclosure would damage the
interests protected by the claimed exemption.
On September 9, 2014, Judge Jackson, citing Judicial Watch's separate success, ordered the Justice Department to produce information to Congress by November 3, 2014.
On September 23, Judge Bates then denied the DOJ's request that it be given more than a month, until November 3,
to produce the Vaughn index. As Judge Bates noted: "at best, it means
the Department has been slow to react to this Court's previous [July 18,
2014] Order. At worst, it means the Department has ignored that Order
until now."
Holder announced his resignation two days after Judge
Bates denied a Justice Department request it be given over an extra
month to produce the Fast and Furious information. JW took due credit
for forcing Holder out of office, noting it was "no coincidence that Holder's resignation comes on the heels of another court ruling
that the Justice Department must finally cough up information about how
Holder's Justice Department lied to Congress and the American people
about the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, for which Holder was held
in contempt by the House of Representatives."
I hope the latest
Judicial Watch court victory over the Obama gang in the Fast and Furious
scandal is some solace to the families of Brian Terry and the families
of countless other Fast and Furious victims. The body count, thanks to
Barack Obama's Fast and Furious gunrunning operation, will only rise
over time - so every bit of accountability Judicial Watch can claw from
the courts is well worth the effort.
You can see how this latest
court victory was the result of a remarkable and tenacious effort by our
legal and investigative teams. And the appellate ruling is one of a
string of victories.
Your JW's FOIA litigation also forced President Obama to retreat
from his abusive assertions of executive privilege. (It probably won't
surprise you to learn that separate litigation by the House for the
Fast and Furious documents continues, with Judge Jackson ruling last month against Obama's assertions of executive privilege.)
In
2011, then-Attorney General Holder admitted that guns from the Fast and
Furious scandal are expected to be used in criminal activity on both
sides of the U.S.-Mexico border for years to come.
Holder was right on that, at least. In 2014, Judicial Watch announced
that, based upon information uncovered through a public records
lawsuit, the U.S. Congress confirmed that an AK-47 rifle was used in a
July 29, 2013, gang-style assault on an apartment building that left two
people wounded. Judicial Watch litigation also obtained crime scene photos
of the Phoenix attack that raised new cover-up questions. Despite the
fact that the crime scene photos clearly revealed a serial number that
shows that the AK-47 used in the commission of the crime was a Fast and
Furious weapon, the City of Phoenix and Department of Justice failed to
turn over the incriminating photos to Congress, despite longstanding
requests for such information. According to Judicial Watch sources,
investigators at the scene and subsequently knew that the AK-47 was a
Fast and Furious weapon.
Just last month, a Fast and Furious weapon was found at the hideout of infamous Mexican drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman. The .50 caliber rifle reportedly is capable of taking out a car or a helicopter.
This
decrepit city may yawn at the deaths of Brian Terry and myriad other
innocents (here and in Mexico) caused by this administration's Fast and
Furious insanity, but your Judicial Watch is still on the case, our
litigation will continue and I tell you that we're still investigating
new leads on the issue.
Justice Antonin Scalia, R.I.P.
Associate
Justice for the U.S. Supreme Court Antonin Scalia described himself as a
"textualist" and an "originalist" who looked to the actual language of
the U.S. Constitution and what the words meant when they were written.
This means he rejected a results-oriented form of jurisprudence that
elevated policy preferences above the rule of law. Though he often
dissented from the majority view on the Supreme Court, he wrote his
opinions with an eye toward educating young lawyers for the sake of
posterity and constitutional renewal.
The untimely death of
Scalia marks a sad time for those of us fighting for the rule of law and
constitutional government. Justice Scalia's death reminds us how much
our liberties depend upon principled individuals in positions of power.
So many of his Supreme Court opinions stand as testament to his genius,
wisdom, and his patriotic desire to share the original vision of the
Founding Fathers with his fellow Americans.
Unfortunately, given
the outsized and often-extra constitutional role that the Supreme Court
plays in our system of government, the passing of an American titan
immediately started a power struggle.
I'm of the belief that no
nominee of President Obama to the judicial branch, let alone to the
Supreme Court, should be approved by the Senate. The right to govern
ourselves has too often been under assault by as many as six current
justices (including "Republican" appointees) who would substitute their
own personal policy views for the guidance of the text of the U.S.
Constitution. Certainly, any nominee of President Obama to the High
Court would further stress our republican form of government.
The
American voter should decide on Election Day who nominates Scalia's
replacement. This is not a radical thought, and is a compromise that
places the voters in the driver's seat for this key decision about the
future of our nation.
The Left and their allies in the media will
attack any sensible Democratic senator and pressure Republicans, many
of whom aren't principled conservatives, who oppose considering Obama's
nominees.
So it is essential that you speak up. Share your
views with your senators, whether Democrat or Republican. Write letters
to the editor of your local newspaper. Be active online. The stakes
are significant. As the leftist New York Times highlights today in a story with a title that serves as an unintended warning, "Supreme Court Nominee Could Reshape American Life:"
There
is a reason Republican senators are so adamant in their refusal to let
President Obama appoint a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia, a
towering figure in conservative jurisprudence. An Obama appointment
would be the most consequential ideological shift on the court since
1991, creating a liberal majority that would almost certainly reshape
American law and American life.
We will track and
participate in the debate here in DC, but your personal activism could
be essential in educating politicians and defending the U.S.
Constitution that Justice Scalia loved so much.
Until next week...
Tom Fitton
President
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment