Posted on 08/10/2015 6:13:04 PM PDT by markomalley
Part of the chase for Hillary’s emails is taking place in Congress.
Another part is taking place in federal court in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch seeking records as to employment outside the State Department by close Hillary aide Huma Abedin (Anthony Weiner’s wife).
The Washington Free Beacon reports on the background:
The State Department Inspector General is now investigating the arrangement between Huma Abedin and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Inspector Steve Linick is looking into the program that allowed Clinton to hire Abedin for government work even though she was employed by a private firm.
In May 2013, the New York Times reported that Abedin never disclosed her earnings and the private consulting that she was conducting outside of the State Department while continuing to serve as Clinton’s top adviser.
Abedin worked for Teneo, which was founded by Doug Band, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton. The corporate client list for Teneo has included Coca-Cola and MF Global, the since-folded brokerage firm run by Jon S. Corzine.
Hillary has been playing hide the ball with records she used through her private email account and server.
The Judicial Watch FOIA case was filed in 2013 and closed in 2014. The case was then reopened by the Court when Hillary’s personal email account and private server, along with deletions, were disclosed.
(video at link)
Among other things, the Court recently ordered that records be preserved after a threat to destroy records:
Judicial Watch announced that at 7:33 pm ET on Friday, August 7, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order 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 Friday evening, informing Judge Sullivan of a plan to destroy federal records as reported by State to the court.
Last week’s State Department filing shows that the agency sent the former officials the request and a copy of Judge Sullivan’s order but that both Mills and Abedin, who responded through their attorneys, ignored Judge Sullivan’s request to submit information under penalty of perjury. The State Department reports that Mrs. Clinton has yet to respond. Contrary to both Judge Sullivan’s order and the State Department’s request, Ms. Mills’ attorney said that she told Ms. Mills to destroy federal records in her possession on Monday, August 10. Judicial Watch immediately filed its urgent response informing Judge Sullivan of this plan to destroy federal records.
State had been ordered on July 31 to request that Clinton and her top aids 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 ascertain how Clinton, Abedin and Mills to describe their use of Hillary Clinton’s email server to conduct government business.
Contrary to both Judge Sullivan’s order and the State Department’s request, Mills’ attorney said that she told Mills to destroy federal records in her possession on Monday, August 10.
Judicial Watch reports that on August 8 Hillary finally submitted a Declaration under penalty of perjury as to records production — but that Declaration is inadequate:
Judicial Watch announced that the State Department today submitted to the 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 order.
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.
Let’s take a look as the many potential loopholes and outs Hillary has in the wording:
Any declaration under oath holds great risk. But Hillary’s lawyers have carefully worded her Declaration to admit to nothing, provide multiple ambiguities, and numerous “outs” should she be challenged.
Judicial Watch is continuing to press for answer and documents.
But Judicial Watch is up against the world’s expert on dodging — someone who learned from the Master. Or maybe the Master learned from her.
Hillary’s been walking into and out of perjury traps for twenty years.
“the arrangement between Huma Abedin and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”
She could lie blatantly in court just like her husband did and suffer the same consequences - none at all.
It takes a willing prosecutor to bring perjury charges, doesn’t it? Who would that be? Our esteemed Attorney General?
Perjury will not be sufficient to bring her down.
This is not important. Trump is being disrespected by Fox.
If by “perjury trap” you mean, she lied under oath, and got caught AND they found a federal prosecutor 1.) with balls and 2.) unconcerned about career suicide.
Of course a prosecutor with balls wouldn’t care about his career.
They’re calling it a `trap’. It’s perjury. Period.
(Oops! I said “period”.)
Only in a sane world.
Hildabeast will never be charged with anything.
We are all disrespected by Clinton and FOX. This would include you.
This is a pointless exercise, unless it can be parlayed into a political advantage. The Clintons, like it or not, are above the law. They never pay a price for their criminality.
Waterboard that treasonous, murderous bitch - then hang her.
Lololololol! Yup. No problem for them.
She could eat live BABIES on TV and women would still vote for her!!!!
Pray it may be so!
DC is the greatest RICO scam going...John Gotti would be proud....The IRS collects and is enforcer..what a deal
I don't engage in faux outrage.
She did, but the rule of law is not what it used to be....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.