Posted on 09/06/2019 3:32:29 PM PDT by jazusamo
Judge Slams State/DOJ on Clinton Email Cover-Up!
Virginias Lieutenant Governor Clams Up on Assault Allegations
Ilhan Omar Declares Support for Terrorist Financier
Judge Slams State/DOJ on Clinton Email Cover-Up!
We just released the transcript of a major court hearing (held last week) in which U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth granted significant new discovery to us on the Clinton email issue ( Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)).
During the hearing, Judge Lamberth specifically raised concerns about a Clinton email cache recently discussed in a letter to Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) and wants us to shake this tree on this issue.
[J]ust last week, the Senates Senate Finance and Homeland Security Committees released documents revealing that Clinton IT aide Paul Combetta copied all but four of the missing emails to a Gmail account that does not appear to have ever been reconstructed and searched. The court thinks Judicial Watch ought to shake this tree.
Judge Lamberth also criticized the State Departments handling and production of Clintons emails in this case stating, There is no FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] exemption for political expedience, nor is there one for bureaucratic incompetence.
In the beginning of their oral arguments, lawyers for the State Department wrongfully stated that we could no longer continue their discovery. The court stopped their arguments stone cold:
STATE DEPARTMENT: it is, of course, Judicial Watchs burden to explain to Your Honor why there has been good cause to reopen discovery now that discovery has closed in this case.
THE COURT: Well, I didnt close discovery. So your premise is wrong.
STATE DEPARTMENT: Fair enough, Your Honor. Whether you want to call it closed or not, it is still
THE COURT: I didnt close it. I said I would have a status after they took this initial discovery, and thats what Im doing today. I didnt close discovery.
STATE DEPARTMENT: Thats right, Your Honor, but it is still Judicial Watchs
THE COURT: So they dont need any good cause
STATE DEPARTMENT: Whether
THE COURT: Today the good cause continues from whether or not State was acting in good faith, and Ill tell you everything theyve discovered in this period raises serious questions about what the hell the State Departments doing here.
The Court also rejected DOJ and States efforts to derail further Judicial Watch discovery. Judge Lamberth called their arguments preposterous and cited a prior Judicial Watch FOIA case in which he ordered U.S. Marshals to seize records from a Clinton administration official in a separate Judicial Watch lawsuit:
Ill tell you another thing. I didnt like in your brief. Ill tell you right now upfront. You put in your brief the most preposterous thing, I thought, in your brief was the very idea that let me read you the line. Competitive Enterprise Institute was a case of first impression and that some District Judge bought that and the Court of Appeals reversed it. Now, that wasnt a case of first impression at all. The first impression with me was a case I had involving Ron Brown and the travel records of whether or not, in the Commerce Department and it was a Judicial Watch case whether or not the Commerce Department was selling seats on trade missions, and I had a Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce who took a box of records home and then they gave a no-records response and, in the course of that, I found out he had taken the records home and they said they had no records. I sent marshals over and they got the box at his house, and I ordered them the marshals to seize the records. That was the first case.
The judge also stated that the government has mishandled this case and the discovery of information including former Secretary Clintons emails so poorly that we may have the ability to prove the they acted in bad faith, which would entitle Judicial Watch to attorneys fees.
Judge Lamberth detailed how the State Department spent three months from November 2014 trying to make this case disappear, and that after discovering the State Departments actions and omissions, Now we know more, but we have even more questions than answers. So I wont hold it against Judicial Watch for expanding their initial discovery request now.
Judge Lamberth stated his goal was to restore the publics faith in their government:
When I authorized discovery back in December, I described my goal: to rule out egregious government misconduct and vindicate the publics faith in the State and Justice Departments. Thats still my goal today. This isnt a case I relish, but its the case before me now, and its a case of the governments making.
The court granted us seven additional depositions, three interrogatories and four document requests related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clintons use of a private email server. Hillary Clinton and her former top aide and current lawyer Cheryl Mills were given 30 days to oppose being deposed by Judicial Watch.
Below is the courts ruling from the bench granting us significant new discovery:
First, let me clarify the Governments misunderstanding. Were not reopening discovery here. Discovery never closed. Back in January, I said, quote, The Government will the Court will hold a post-discovery hearing to ascertain the adequacy of States searches; to determine if Judicial Watch needs to depose additional witnesses, including Hillary Clinton or her former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills; and to schedule dispositive motions, unquote. So June 19th was a checkpoint, not a finish line. And whether Judicial Watch previously knew about some of the other individuals it now wants to depose is beside the point. They tailored their initial discovery request to the facts and questions then before the Court.
Now we know more, but we have even more questions than answers. So I wont hold it against Judicial Watch for expanding their initial discovery request now.
Remember what got us started down this path in the first place. In late 2014 and early 2015, at least some State Department officials knew Secretary Clintons emails were missing; they knew Judicial Watch didnt know that; they knew the Court didnt know that, but the Department pressed forward trying to settle this case. So, I authorized discovery into whether these settlement efforts amounted to bad faith.
Now, the Government says, quote, there is simply no factual basis to justify any further discovery on that subject, unquote, but Judicial Watchs most recent submission lays out the following:
It appears that in the middle of 2013, States Office of Information and Program Services launched an inquiry into Clintons email practices.
It appears that in August 2013, that office directed FOIA responders to stop issuing, quote, no record located, unquote, responses to FOIA requests for Clintons emails.
It appears that by the summer of 2014, State knew a large volume of Clintons emails had never been searched, potentially violating FOIA and record management obligations. It turns out State had a standing meeting every Wednesday afternoon during the summer of 2014 to discuss Clinton-related FOIA inquiries. Attendees included Secretary Kerrys Chief of Staff; his Deputy Chief of Staff; the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources; the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs; several attorneys; and Patrick Kennedy, the Under Secretary for Management. Thats every Wednesday afternoon.
It appears that in August 2014, State began planning for media investigations into Clintons emails.
It appears that in November 2014, State told Judicial Watch it performed a legally adequate search and tried to settle. In fact, I think, in my original opinion on authorizing discovery, I noted that State had given a draft Vaughn index to Judicial Watch at that time. I dont think I have ever seen that, but I think it was given to I think, in my opinion, I said that it had been given to Judicial Watch. Indeed, State spent the next three months from November 2014 trying to make this case disappear. They kept doing it even after they came into the possession of Clintons emails.
Judicial Watch wants to follow up with the State attorney assigned to this FOIA request to participate in settlement discussions and negotiations. That seems reasonable to me.
[Judicial Watch] wants to ask the Department official responsible for overseeing FOIA requests more about why he directed his office to stop using no record located responses to FOIA requests relating to Clintons emails if that, in fact, is what happened. Im curious, too.
They want to ask the current Department FOIA overseer more about what went on in those weekly 2014 meetings. I look forward to hearing what he says.
They want to ask the Justice Department attorney who led the settlement negotiations to divulge when he learned Clintons emails were missing. He must answer.
Another reason we had this initial discovery was to see if Secretary Clinton intentionally attempted to evade FOIA by using a private email. When Judicial Watch deposed the Deputy Director who oversaw States FOIA responses, he recalled an instance when in his office found an email from Clintons private account and the Public Affairs team said, Remember, youre not supposed to use that email. How can you spin that?
I agree with Judicial Watch that its worth deposing the State Department records officer who personally reviewed archiving procedures with Secretary Clinton and her departing staff to see what they discussed.
I also think Judicial Watch is justified to seek more information about how Secretary Clinton ultimately determined which emails were public records and which were private.
The final reason I authorized discovery was to determine whether State adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watchs FOIA request. Now the Government seeks to duck behind an unpublished D.C. Circuit opinion from 2018 holding the Government has already taken every reasonable action under the Federal Records Act to retrieve Clintons 30,000 missing emails and no imaginable enforcement action could recover any more.
But just last week, the Senates Senate Finance and Homeland Security Committees released documents revealing Clinton IT aide Paul Combetta copied all but four of the missing emails to a Gmail account that does not appear to have ever been reconstructed and searched. The Court thinks Judicial Watch ought to shake this tree.
And the Court agrees with Judicial Watch that it should talk to three never-before-deposed State officials who raised concerns about Clintons private email use all the way back to 2009.
There is no FOIA exemption for political expedience, nor is there one for bureaucratic incompetence.
The Government also tries to say this Court [sic] is no longer or no longer presents a live controversy. This is wrong. Judicial Watch can still obtain fees if they prove agency bad faith.
Ill close with this. When I authorized discovery back in December, I described my goal: to rule out egregious government misconduct and vindicate the publics faith in the State and Justice Departments. Thats still my goal today. This isnt a case I relish, but its the case before me now, and its a case of the governments making.
The Court authorizes Judicial Watch to take the additional discovery described in its status report, except for deposing Secretary Clinton and her Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills. I will give their attorneys 30 days to file any additional opposition to their depositions and 10 days thereafter for Judicial Watch to file any reply, and Ill issue a separate ruling on that. Otherwise, the discovery should go forward and all of it should be completed by December 13th. A status will be held on December 19th at 10:00 a.m. to set a further schedule in this case.
We uncovered new information about the Clinton email scandal that a federal court agrees requires more answers. We share the courts annoyance with DOJ lawyers who continue to defend the indefensible. It is beyond disturbing that the State and Justice Departments would continue to try to protect Hillary Clinton and cover up her email scandal. President Trump should order the agencies to cooperate in uncovering the truth.
The new discovery comes in our July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014, request for:
On December 6, 2018, Judge Lamberth ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers and Clinton aides to be deposed or answer written questions under oath. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.
The court ordered discovery into three specific areas: whether Secretary Clintons use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; whether the State Departments intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watchs request.
Our FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.
Our discovery over the last several months found many more details about the scope of the Clinton email scandal and cover-up:
We are, of course, grateful that a federal judge sees through the charade perpetrated by these high-ranking officials. Ill be sure to update as the case continues to progress.
Virginias Lieutenant Governor Clams Up on Assault Allegations
I love JW, and send them $.
I don’t have the energy to get my hopes up ...if arrests come, then I’m all in.
Off the Wall Ping!
Contact to be added.
Lock. Her. Up.
I agree...JW keeps going after these crooks to expose them with info, it’s not their job to indict.
String. Her. Up. The Founders would have done it in heartbeat.
Water torture.
a) Deep State Department, or
b) State of Denial Department
Oh okay, how about 'DEEP STATE OF DENIAL DEPARTMENT'.
Judge Lamberth you are AWESOME.
Judge Lamberth better watch his back. Traitorhillary has a history of dealing with people who threaten her or get in her way.
Why doesnt the current Secretary of State publicly demand complete and unconditional compliance with judicial watchs document requests? Its a new administration. Let the SoS clean out the filthy critters left over from the last administration and try to restore their reputation, to whatever extent possible.
And has anyone been held in contempt? Or is it all just bread and circuses?
“...Judge Lamberth better watch his back. Traitorhillary has a history of dealing with people who threaten her or get in her way....”
Yep...the good judge is a prime candidate for an old-fashionArkcancide....just like Epstein.
Lets keep this FReepathon moving and wrap it up, Folks!
The fees should be paid from the State Dept's lawyers, Kerry and his staff AND Hillary Clinton's private bank accounts.
Then #LOCKTHEMALLUP
bfl
Judge Lamberth is more than a little familiar with the way anything pertaining to the Clintons is not at all on the up and up..no matter whether the husband or the wife. This excerpt is more favorable to her by the judge but just an example of how far back he goes with those grifters.
“”During the 1990s, U.S. District Court judge Royce Lamberth earned a reputation as a Clinton basher on par with independent counsel Ken Starr. In 1993, the Reagan appointee fined Ira Magaziner nearly $300,000 for lying in court about the makeup of Hillary Clintons health-care task force. Lamberth allowed Judicial Watch bulldog Larry Klayman to depose scores of White House staffers in lawsuits most judges would have quickly dismissed. In one of those suits, the judge accused President Clinton of criminal behavior and asked the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to investigate the presidents alleged violation of the Privacy Act. And in 1999, he fined former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin more than $600,000 and found them in contempt of court in a lawsuit filed by Native Americans over a trust fund held by the Interior Department.””
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/01/hillarys-hero-judge-royce-lamberth/
But he knows them better than most people so I don’t think you have to be concerned.
Soon to be the late Judge Lamberth.
*JW BUMP*
They are truly doing God’s Work!
What a great read; I feel somewhat heartened! MAGA! :)
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.