5:16
Judicial Watch was in federal court this week at a hearing regarding our request for testimony under oath from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, and several other State Department officials about Clinton email searches.
We requested these searches in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit about the Benghazi terrorist attack. U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth set the hearing.
In his October 4, 2018, order setting the hearing date, Judge Lamberth said:
Two and a half years ago, the Court granted plaintiff’s request for limited discovery, mindful of parallel proceeding before Judge Sullivan and the ongoing inquiries by the State Department’s Inspector General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Since those proceeding have concluded, it is time to set a plan for further proceedings in this case.
The development comes in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). We seek:
- Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
- Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.This is the lawsuit that forced the Clinton email system issue into the public eye in early 2015.
In 2014, a related Judicial Watch case brought to light the fact that the “Internet video” talking points regarding the Benghazi attack were orchestrated in the Obama White House.
In March 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted us “limited discovery,” ruling that “where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.” In May 2016, Judicial Watch filed an initial Proposed Order for Discovery seeking additional information. The State Department opposed Judicial Watch’s proposal, and in December 2016 Judge Lamberth requested both parties file new proposed orders in light of information discovered in various venues since the previous May.
In Judicial Watch’s filing, they informed the court that, despite repeated conferences with the State Department, we had been “unable to reach agreement on a discovery proposal” and that “[the State Department] is unwilling to agree to any discovery at all in this action.” Their discovery proposal focuses on two main areas:
- Evidence of wrongdoing or bad faith with respect to State Department’s response to Plaintiff’s FOIA request for records related to the talking points provided to U.S.Ambassador Susan Rice following the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack; and
- Potential remedies that may ensure a sufficient search for responsive records is undertaken.
Judicial Watch seeks both documents and depositions. The documents requested include:
- All documents that concern or relate to the processing of any and all searches of the Office of the Secretary for emails relating to the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack and its aftermath …
- All communications that concern or relate to the processing of all searches referenced in Document Request No. 1 above, including directions or guidance about how and where to conduct the searches …
- All records that concern or relate to the State Department’s policies, practices, procedures and/or actions (or lack thereof) to secure, inventory, and/or account for all records…
- Plaintiff requests copies of the attached records [previously obtained by Judicial Watch] with the Exemption 5 redactions removed …
In addition to documents, Judicial Watch seeks depositions, including a deposition of Hillary Clinton that would include Mrs. Clinton’s testimony on:
[the] identification of individuals (whether State Department officials, other government officials, or third-parties, including but not limited to Sidney Blumenthal) with whom Secretary Clinton may have communicated by email.
It is frankly unbelievable that the State Department is still protecting Hillary Clinton and her aides from being asked basic questions about her illicit email system. The courts were misled and obstructed by Hillary Clinton’s email scheme and we hope to get some more answers about this scandal.
At the hearing this morning, Judge Lamberth excoriated the Justice Department and FBI for false statements about the Clinton email issue. He also said he was “dumbfounded” by the Justice Department for granting immunity to Cheryl Mills, a top Clinton aide. Judge Lamberth noted he had found Mills to have committed perjury in another Judicial Watch lawsuit. In an April 28, 2008, ruling relating to Ms. Mills conduct as a White House official in responding to concerns about lost White House email records, Judge Lamberth called Cheryl Mills’ participation in the matter “loathsome.” He further stated Mills was responsible for “the most critical error made in this entire fiasco… Mills’ actions were totally inadequate to address the problem.”
Judge Lamberth made no ruling today but one is expected soon.
THE GRIFTERS: HILLARY,
BILLARY and CHELSEA… global looters!
"But
there is no doubt in my mind that the Clintons, thoroughly practiced
grifters
that they are, as well as their increasingly shady daughter, will not
hesitate
to use such classified information as they may be able to access for
personal
and political enrichment. They've been doing it for decades,
and
they're
not about to stop now." RUSS VAUGHN
CLINTON MAFIA AND THEIR
BANKSTERS AT GOLDMAN SACHS
WHO IS TIGHTER WITH THE
PLUNDERING BANKSTERS? CLINTON, OBAMA or TRUMP?
The Clinton White House
famously abolished the Glass–Steagall legislation, which separated commercial
and investment banking. The move was a boon for Wall Street firms and led to major bank mergers that some
analysts say helped contribute to the 2008 financial crisis.
Bill and Hillary Clinton
raked in massive speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, with CNN documenting a total of at least $7.7 million in paid speeches to big financial
firms, including Goldman Sachs and UBS. Hillary Clinton made $675,000 from
speeches to Goldman Sachs specifically, and her husband secured more than $1,550,000 from Goldman speeches. In 2005 alone, Bill Clinton collected over $500,000 from three Goldman Sachs events.
Hillary
Clinton is simply the epitome of the rabid self – a whirlpool
of selfishness,
greed, and malignance.
It may well be true that Donald Trump has made his greatest
contribution to the nation before even taking office: the political destruction of Hillary Clinton and her
infinitely corrupt machine. J.R. Dunn
"Hillary will do
anything to distract you from her reckless record and the damage to the
Democratic Party and the America she and The Obama's have created."
HILLARY
& BILLARY:
Their Looting of the Poor of Haiti IS FINALLY OVER
“The couple
parlayed lives supposedly spent in “public service”
into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in
the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political
machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of
a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the
Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes. The basic
components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and
Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the
ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”
into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in
the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political
machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of
a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the
Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes. The basic
components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and
Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the
ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”
IT WAS BILL CLINTON WHO UNLEASHED WALL STREET’S BIGGEST
CRIMINAL BANKSTERS…. And haven’t they sucked up the banksters’ gratuities
since?
Only Barack Obama has serviced banksters more than Hillary
and Billary!
“Clinton
also failed to mention how he and Hillary cashed in after
his presidential tenure to make themselves multimillionaires, in
part by taking tens of millions in speaking fees from Wall Street
bankers.”
FED JUDGE: HILLARY'S TOP CRONY COMMITTED PERJURY IN EMAIL INVESTIGATION
October 18, 2018
The FBI didn't investigate Hillary Clinton's email crimes. It covered them up by helping destroy the evidence while handing out immunity agreements like candy. It was one of the worst abuses of power in an administration already swimming in abuses of power.
At the heart of it all were Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.
Mills was Hillary's right-hand woman who had been accused of playing a role in various cover-ups. Including this one.
In a combative exchange at a hearing Friday in Washington, D.C., a federal judge unabashedly accused career State Department officials of lying and signing "clearly false" affidavits to derail a series of lawsuits seeking information about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server and her handling of the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth said he was "shocked" and "dumbfounded" when he learned that FBI had granted immunity to former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills during its investigation into the use of Clinton's server, according to a court transcript of his remarks."I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case," Lamberth said during Friday's hearing.The Department of Justice's Inspector General (IG), Michael Horowitz, noted in a bombshell reportin June that it was "inconsistent with typical investigative strategy" for the FBI to allow Mills to sit in during the agency's interview of Clinton during the email probe, given that classified information traveled through Mills' personal email account. "[T]here are serious potential ramifications when one witness attends another witness' interview," the IG wrote.
Mills was wrongly allowed to act as if she were Hillary Clinton's lawyer.
"It was clear to me that at the time that I ruled initially, that false statements were made to me by career State Department officials, and it became more clear through discovery that the information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the search and this – what we now know turned out to be the Secretary’s email system," Lamberth said Friday.
Of course it was. And there have been no consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment