Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 27, 2017, 07:54:24 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
101203 Posts in 2371 Topics by 1087 Members
Latest Member: R.K
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The war on the rule of law
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] Print
Author Topic: The war on the rule of law  (Read 103194 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #600 on: November 04, 2016, 12:14:28 AM »

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obama-administration-illegally-diverting-billions-insurance-companies?utm_content=buffercc715&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8605


« Reply #601 on: November 05, 2016, 01:21:01 PM »


The laws that regulate me all seem to have an enforcement mechanism and penalty attached to them.

'Obama administration broke the law' is how almost every sentence about them could begin.  Yet no one pays a price for it.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14432


« Reply #602 on: November 06, 2016, 06:02:55 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIpG7Pgx3r8


Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 723


« Reply #603 on: November 06, 2016, 07:05:35 PM »


 angry angry angry
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #604 on: November 07, 2016, 12:39:54 AM »

I find myself wondering if there is dishonest editing in that clip.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 723


« Reply #605 on: November 07, 2016, 12:58:28 AM »

Twitter was down broefly this evening, and Wikileaks said they are under attack; all after Wikileaks just realeased another 8000 emails.

The Clinton camp is telling the public to ignore the emails.

Wikileaks has a 10 year track record of 100% accuracy.
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #606 on: November 07, 2016, 10:52:35 AM »

http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1997/05/01/877310.html?pageNumber=40
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #607 on: November 22, 2016, 11:55:29 PM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442412/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-case-prosecution-lock-her-up
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6824


« Reply #608 on: November 23, 2016, 02:21:43 PM »



http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442411/jeff-sessions-attorney-general-nomination-justice-department-should-enforce-law
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #609 on: December 16, 2016, 11:50:41 AM »

http://www.thedailyliberator.com/back-clinton-investigation-re-opened-new-york-fbi/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6824


« Reply #610 on: December 16, 2016, 01:38:01 PM »

The LEFt's nonstop trying to delegitimize the election in every imaginal way actually makes an ongoing investigation of Clinton emails and foundation imperative.  It is now not just for knowing the truth for truth's sake but now it is *politically necessary*.

It is also necessary to find the degree to which Obama and Lynch went out or their way to cover it up.  We KNOW they did.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #611 on: December 21, 2016, 12:55:10 AM »

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2016/12/why-wont-mainstream-media-mention-all.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14432


« Reply #612 on: December 21, 2016, 09:41:42 AM »


I think that will change in about a month.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #613 on: December 31, 2016, 10:01:05 AM »

December 2009

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/white.house.emails/index.html


Washington (CNN) -- Computer technicians have recovered about 22 million Bush administration e-mails that the Bush White House had said were missing, two watchdog groups that sued over the documents announced Monday.

The e-mails date from 2003 to 2005, and had been "mislabeled and effectively lost," according to the National Security Archive, a research group based at George Washington University. But Melanie Sloan, executive director of the liberal-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said it could be years before most of the e-mails are made public.

"The e-mails themselves are not what we're getting," Sloan said.

Documents related to the handling of e-mail under the Bush administration and subsequent information regarding how White House e-mails are currently archived will be released under a settlement with the Obama administration, which inherited a lawsuit the groups filed in 2007. But the National Archives must sort out which documents are covered by the Freedom of Information Act and which ones fall under the Presidential Records Act, which means they could be withheld for five to 10 years after the Bush administration left office in January, Sloan said.

"The National Archives will sort this out," she said.

The e-mail controversy dates back to the Bush administration's 2006 firing of the top federal prosecutors in nine cities. After congressional committees demanded the administration produce documents related to the firings, the White House said millions of e-mails might have been lost from its servers. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the National Security Archive sued over the issue in 2007, arguing the Bush administration violated federal laws that require presidential records to be preserved.

Court records have shown that the Bush administration knew about the e-mail problems as far back as 2005 and did nothing to fix them, Sloan said.

"They never made an effort to restore them," she said.

But Scott Stanzel, a former deputy press secretary in the Bush White House, said the group "has consistently tried to create a spooky conspiracy out of standard IT issues."

"We always indicated that there is an e-mail archiving system and a disaster recovery system," Stanzel said. "We also indicated that e-mails not properly archived could be found on disaster recovery tapes. There is a big, big difference between something not being properly archived and it being 'lost' or 'missing,' as CREW would say."

Monday's settlement allows for 94 days of e-mail traffic, scattered between January 2003 to April 2005, to be restored from backup tapes. Of those 94 days, 40 were picked by statistical sample; another 21 days were suggested by the White House; and the groups that filed suit picked 33 that seemed "historically significant," from the months before the invasion of Iraq to the period when the firings of U.S. attorneys were being planned.

Also requested were several days surrounding the announcement that a criminal investigation was under way into the disclosure of then-CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. That investigation led to the conviction of White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to federal agents investigating the leak.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington represented Wilson and her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, in a lawsuit over her exposure, which they argued was in retaliation for his accusation that the Bush administration over-hyped the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq. A federal judge dismissed the case on procedural grounds in 2007, but Sloan said the missing e-mails raise the "strong possibility" that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never received all the documents he requested during the leak investigation.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #614 on: December 31, 2016, 10:02:47 AM »

Lock her up!!!

Year End Bang on Clinton Email
In 2016, Judicial Watch established itself it as the most significant public policy entity in the nation. Our work in the courts exposing the truth about the Clinton emails and the corruption of the Clinton pay-to-play scandals changed history.

So it is fitting that in this, the year’s final Weekly Update, I have a report for you on a new major court decision that could dramatically influence what comes next on the Clinton email scandal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit made a ruling this week in a JW case that would require Secretary of State John Kerry to seek the help of the attorney general in recovering additional Hillary Clinton emails. This means that Clinton email issue will be squarely before the Trump administration, as I highlight in our statement to the press:

Today’s appeals court ruling rejects the Obama State Department’s excuses justifying its failure to ask the attorney general, as the law requires, to pursue the recovery of the Clinton emails. This ruling means that the Trump Justice Department will have to decide if it wants to finally enforce the rule of law and try to retrieve all the emails Clinton and her aides unlawfully took with them when they left the State Department.

The appellate ruling reverses a decision in which the District Court declared “moot” a Judicial Watch’s lawsuit challenging the failure of Secretary of State John Kerry to comply with the Federal Records Act (FRA) in seeking to recover the emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other high level State Department officials who used non-“state.gov” email accounts to conduct official business (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. John F. Kerry (No. 16-5015)).

According to the FRA, if an agency head becomes aware of “any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal . . . or destruction of [agency] records,” he or she “shall notify the Archivist . . . and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of [those] records.” Kerry refused to do this, and we sued. The lower court decided Kerry had done enough. The appeals court panel disagreed:

Appellants sought the only relief provided by the Federal Records Act—an enforcement action through the Attorney General. But nothing the Department did (either before or after those complaints were filed) gave appellants what they wanted. Instead of proceeding through the Attorney General, the Department asked the former Secretary to return her emails voluntarily and similarly requested that the FBI share any records it obtained. Even though those efforts bore some fruit, the Department has not explained why shaking the tree harder—e.g., by following the statutory mandate to seek action by the Attorney General—might not bear more still. It is therefore abundantly clear that, in terms of assuring government recovery of emails, appellants have not “been given everything [they] asked for.” Absent a showing that the requested enforcement action could not shake loose a few more emails, the case is not moot.

In May 2015, we filed the lawsuit after the State Department failed to take action following a letter to Kerry “notifying him of the unlawful removal of the Clinton emails and requesting that he initiate enforcement action pursuant to the FRA,” including working through the attorney general to recover the emails.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuit subsequently was consolidated with a later lawsuit filed by our friends at the Cause of Action Institute. For more on this court development, you can see our discussion over at the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal. And then we also have our Facebook Live Weekly Updatediscussions here and on Youtube.

This Obama administration has demonstrated itself to be an agent of lawlessness and an enemy of an open and transparent republic. To start, let’s hope that President-elect Trump’s appointees at the State Department and Justice Department finally start enforcing the rule of law on the Clinton email scandal.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14432


« Reply #615 on: December 31, 2016, 10:06:23 AM »

Any allegations of classified materials in those emails?


December 2009

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/white.house.emails/index.html


Washington (CNN) -- Computer technicians have recovered about 22 million Bush administration e-mails that the Bush White House had said were missing, two watchdog groups that sued over the documents announced Monday.

The e-mails date from 2003 to 2005, and had been "mislabeled and effectively lost," according to the National Security Archive, a research group based at George Washington University. But Melanie Sloan, executive director of the liberal-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said it could be years before most of the e-mails are made public.

"The e-mails themselves are not what we're getting," Sloan said.

Documents related to the handling of e-mail under the Bush administration and subsequent information regarding how White House e-mails are currently archived will be released under a settlement with the Obama administration, which inherited a lawsuit the groups filed in 2007. But the National Archives must sort out which documents are covered by the Freedom of Information Act and which ones fall under the Presidential Records Act, which means they could be withheld for five to 10 years after the Bush administration left office in January, Sloan said.

"The National Archives will sort this out," she said.

The e-mail controversy dates back to the Bush administration's 2006 firing of the top federal prosecutors in nine cities. After congressional committees demanded the administration produce documents related to the firings, the White House said millions of e-mails might have been lost from its servers. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the National Security Archive sued over the issue in 2007, arguing the Bush administration violated federal laws that require presidential records to be preserved.

Court records have shown that the Bush administration knew about the e-mail problems as far back as 2005 and did nothing to fix them, Sloan said.

"They never made an effort to restore them," she said.

But Scott Stanzel, a former deputy press secretary in the Bush White House, said the group "has consistently tried to create a spooky conspiracy out of standard IT issues."

"We always indicated that there is an e-mail archiving system and a disaster recovery system," Stanzel said. "We also indicated that e-mails not properly archived could be found on disaster recovery tapes. There is a big, big difference between something not being properly archived and it being 'lost' or 'missing,' as CREW would say."

Monday's settlement allows for 94 days of e-mail traffic, scattered between January 2003 to April 2005, to be restored from backup tapes. Of those 94 days, 40 were picked by statistical sample; another 21 days were suggested by the White House; and the groups that filed suit picked 33 that seemed "historically significant," from the months before the invasion of Iraq to the period when the firings of U.S. attorneys were being planned.

Also requested were several days surrounding the announcement that a criminal investigation was under way into the disclosure of then-CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. That investigation led to the conviction of White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to federal agents investigating the leak.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington represented Wilson and her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, in a lawsuit over her exposure, which they argued was in retaliation for his accusation that the Bush administration over-hyped the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq. A federal judge dismissed the case on procedural grounds in 2007, but Sloan said the missing e-mails raise the "strong possibility" that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never received all the documents he requested during the leak investigation.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #616 on: January 09, 2017, 11:35:55 AM »



http://www.speroforum.com/a/XHHCZIQCFI15/79734-FBI-quietly-releases-dozens-of-Clinton-documents-unannounced?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=SNULSAXHOK41&utm_content=XHHCZIQCFI15&utm_source=news&utm_term=FBI+quietly+releases+dozens+of+Clinton+documents+unannounced#.WHPJR3rcC-A

Perhaps even more important is that it was reported on FOX this morning that the unannounced release included info that recipients of Hillary's classified emails who lacked security clearance WERE HACKED BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.

Gents, please keep an eye out for proper citations for this!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #617 on: January 20, 2017, 01:37:40 PM »

New Email Action by Court As Obama Leave Office

It is likely when you receive this email, our nation will have a new president, Donald Trump.  Judicial Watch wishes the new president all the best and hope he brings with him a respect for the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution – a respect sorely lacking from the Oval Office’s previous occupant.  One of the Obama’s legacy of lawlessness are the pending Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against various executive agencies.  Yesterday, all of these lawsuits, well over 60, were against the Obama administration.  Today, they are against agencies of the Trump administration.  Ironically, the Trump administration will have to grapple with all of Judicial Watch’s Clinton email-related lawsuits against the State Department and other agencies!

President Trump should commit to a transparency revolution, especially as Hillary Clinton’s war on transparency helped make his presidency possible.  The Trump administration and new Congress must focus on restoring the rule of law and accountability after the eight years of a lawless Obama administration.  Corruption in government is an overwhelming problem.  We expect, but will not rely on, President Trump or other DC politicians to do the right thing.  Judicial Watch will continue its independent investigations and lawsuits in order to hold politicians of both political parties accountable to the rule of law.
Let’s hope the Trump administration takes a different approach to transparency, one that respects the law and the people’s right to know.  His appointees will have to deal with the transparency issue immediately, especially as the courts took actions this week to make sure that the Obama administration wouldn’t destroy some public documents on its way out the door.

This week U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted our Motion to Preserve  emails of a U.S. Department of Justice assistant attorney general. Judge Sullivan issued a Minute Order on January 17, 2017, requiring the Justice Department to “preserve all agency records and potential agency records between the dates of December 1, 2014 and November 7, 2016 in any personal email account of Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Peter Kadzik.”

The court order came in response to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit we filed against the U.S. Department of Justice on January 15, 2017, seeking access, in part, to email correspondence between Peter Kadzik, the Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, and John Podesta, then-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, regarding the Justice Department’s review of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-00029)).

According to Wikileaks, on May 19, 2015, Kadzik sent Podesta an email appearing to tip off Clintons’ campaign about the Justice Department’s review of Clinton’s emails:

There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the emails.

On November 7, 2016, Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the Justice Department seeking:

•   All email correspondence between Peter Kadzik on either his official Justice Department email account or peterkadzik@gmail.com and any non-government employee regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of non-state.gov email to conduct official government business;
•   All email correspondence between Peter Kadzik on either his official Justice Department email account or peterkadzik@gmail.com and John Podesta; and
•   All email correspondence between Peter Kadzik on his official Justice Department email account or peterkadzik@gmail.com and any official, officer or employee of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign.
•   The timeframe for this request is December 1, 2014 to November 7, 2016.
Also on November 7, we submitted another FOIA request to the Justice Department seeking:
•   All emails sent to or received by Peter Kadzik using the email address peterkadzik@gmail.com in which he conducted official government business; and
•   All emails copied and/or forwarded … to Peter Kadzik’s Justice Department email account from peterkadzik@gmail.com.
•   The timeframe for this request is January 1, 2016 to the present.

After the Justice Department failed to respond to its FOIA requests, we filed a FOIA lawsuit on January 5, 2017, and, the next day filed a Motion for Preservation Order for the court to order the Justice Department to preserve the agency records “currently residing” in Kadzik’s Gmail account:
The records at issue are in the physical possession of Assistant Attorney General Kadzik. With the upcoming change in administrations on January 20, 2017, it is likely that he will leave government service on or around that date.

***
[Judicial Watch] is concerned that after Assistant Attorney General Kadzik leaves government employment, Defendant will no longer have control over the actions of this official.

In the Justice Department’s January 17, 2017 Opposition to Judicial Watch’s Motion for Preservation Order, the Department contended that:

It is the government’s understanding that Mr. Kadzik has located no agency records or potential agency records in his Gmail account and that, therefore, there are no such documents to preserve … Because the government has already taken the action that Judicial Watch’s motion requests, and has informed the Court of that action, Judicial Watch’s motion is moot and should be denied.

The court was not persuaded, did not find Judicial Watch’s motion moot, and issued the Preservation Order the same day.

It is astonishing that the Obama Justice Department played games with its emails, especially Clinton-related emails.  We hope this and our other lawsuits -- and the court’s hard-hitting court order – sent a signal to the entire Obama administration not to destroy government records to spite the American people’s right to know.  It will now be up to the Trump administration to either finally vindicate the rule of law or continue its obstruction.
 
Federal Court Orders Top Obama DHS Officials To Preserve Emails

Yet another federal judge ordered the Obama administration to preserve emails in yet another Obama email scandal – this one at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

U.S. District Court Judge Randolph D. Moss this week ordered  Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and three other top DHS officials to preserve “all emails regarding, concerning, or related to official United States Government business” they sent through non-“gov” emails from December 23, 2013, and December 29, 2015.”

The court order came in our Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit seeking agency records in the personal email accounts used by the four top Homeland Security officials (Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of Homeland Security  (No. 1:16-cv-00967)(D.D.C.)).

Ruling “out of an abundance of caution,” Judge Moss ordered the preservation of records “to minimize the risk of any inadvertent loss of potentially responsive emails.” The court ruling covers Johnson, Deputy Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Chief of Staff Christian Marrone, and General Counsel Stevan Bunnell:

ORDERED that Secretary Johnson preserve all emails sent or received between December 23, 2013, and December 29, 2015, that are stored in any of his private email accounts that may contain responsive records, including any emails in archived or deleted folders, on a portable thumb drive or hard drive to be kept in his possession until this Court determines that the emails must be provided to the Department for processing or that they may be deleted;
FURTHER ORDERED that Deputy Secretary Mayorkas, former Chief of Staff Marrone, and former General Counsel Bunnell do the same with respect to their own private email accounts that may contain responsive records…

On December 22, 2016, Judicial Watch filed a Motion for Preservation Order in which it asked the court to issue a “preservation order” for the non-.gov emails of Johnson, Mayorkas and Bunnell because their departure from government service was anticipated upon the installation of the new administration, at which point, Homeland Security would no longer have any control over the former officials:

With the upcoming change in administrations on January 20, 2017, it is likely that the three officials currently in office (Secretary Jeh Johnson, Deputy Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and General Counsel Stevan Bunnell) will leave government service.

Counsel for DHS has informed [Judicial Watch’s] counsel that DHS has “asked” these officials to preserve the agency records in their possession. DHS’ counsel declined to provide any evidence supporting this assertion. Because [Judicial Watch] does not know specifically what DHS asked its employees to do and what, if any, other steps DHS has taken to ensure preservation, Plaintiff is concerned DHS’s mere requests to its employees are insufficient. This will be particularly concerning once the officials possessing the emails leave government employment, as the agency will have no control over the actions of these officials…

A court order requiring preservation of these emails is particularly necessary now as DHS has suggested that these officials may have been acting without authorization by sending emails from these accounts…. As such, there is no assurance that these officials will abide by a “request” by the agency to preserve these emails, particularly after their employment ends…

At a hearing on January 5, Obama Justice Department lawyers confirmed that they had done nothing to retrieve government records from Jeh Johnson or the other officials’ accounts. On January 10, Judge Moss ordered  DHS to produce any “preservation requests” for emails sent to Johnson, Mayorkas, Marrone, and Bunnell. In today’s court ruling, Judge Moss specifically ordered the DHS officials to preserve all of the contested emails.

We have every reason to believe that there are government records on Jeh Johnson’s and other top DHS officials’ personal email accounts. The fact that the Obama administration has stonewalled their production is yet another example of the lack of transparency that has permeated this administration. Once again, it took persistent legal action from Judicial Watch to preserve the public’s right to know.

In June, Judicial Watch in a related case  obtained 693 pages of Homeland Security records revealing that Secretary Jeh Johnson and 28 other agency officials used government computers to access personal web-based email accounts despite an agency-wide ban due to heightened security concerns. The documents also reveal that Homeland Security officials misled Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) when Perry specifically asked whether personal accounts were being used for official government business.

The waivers were granted to Johnson and other senior staffers after Homeland Security’s Sensitive Systems Policy Directive 4300A was promulgated on April 30, 2014. The Directive was issued after hackers breached  the Office of Personnel Management computer system. Directive 4300A states, “The use of Internet Webmail (Gmail, Yahoo, AOL) or other personal email accounts is not authorized over DHS furnished equipment or network connections.”  These national security concerns were thrown out the window so top DHS officials evade the transparency laws.  Let’s hope the Trump administration has the political will to hold these Obama officials to account to the law and the American public by disclosing any government records from their “private” email accounts.

 
Clinton Email Benghazi Lawsuit Heats Up

The Clinton email and Benghazi scandals aren’t over. Not by a long shot.

Just last week, JW’s attorneys asked a federal court for additional discovery. In addition to document requests, the new Revised Discovery Proposal asks for depositions from Clinton, Clinton aide Cheryl Mills and eight other State Department officials to explore “evidence of wrongdoing or bad faith with respect to State Department’s response” to our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request as well as some earlier FOIA requests.

The January 10 filing is the latest move in our July 2014 FOIA lawsuit  seeking records related to the drafting and use of the Benghazi talking points (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). This lawsuit forced the Clinton email issue into the public eye in early 2015.

In March 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted “limited discovery ” to Judicial Watch, 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, we filed an initial Proposed Order for Discovery seeking written and oral information. (In December Judge Lamberth requested both parties to file new proposed orders in light of information discovered in various venues since last May.)

You won’t be surprised to learn that the thoroughly corrupt Obama State Department opposed our proposal.

In last week’s filing, we informed the court that despite repeated conferences with the State Department, they had been “unable to reach agreement on a discovery proposal” and that “Defendant [State Department] is unwilling to agree to any discovery at all in this action.”  Judicial Watch’s new discovery proposal focuses on “two main areas:”

These areas are: (i) 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 (ii) potential remedies that may ensure a sufficient search for responsive records is undertaken…

Our Revised Discovery Proposal seeks both documents and depositions. The documents requested include:

1.   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…

2.   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…

3.   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…

4.   Plaintiff requests copies of the attached records [previously obtained by Judicial Watch] with the Exemption 5 redactions removed…
In addition to basic documents, we think testimony is essential, including a deposition of Hillary Clinton to learn:

[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.

We are asking to depose former Clinton aides, including Cheryl Mills, chief of staff; Jacob Sullivan, Deputy Chief of Staff and Director of Policy Planning; Heather Samuelson, head of the White House Liaison Office; Lauren Jiloty, Special Assistant; and Monica Hanley, confidential assistant. Also on the list is Clarence Finney, currently Deputy Director of the State Department’s Executive Secretariat Staff; Sheryl L. Walter, who was Director of the Office of Information Program and Services; and Gene Smilansky, a department lawyer.

In one of their last gasps of obstruction of justice, Obama State Department continues to oppose court-ordered efforts to gather the facts from Secretary Hillary Clinton and her top aides about how their email practices violated the American’s people right to know what really happened in Benghazi.
The Trump administration must now decide whether to reverse course on this desperate, last minute obstruction. 

Until next week...
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #618 on: January 20, 2017, 06:03:49 PM »

The Dog Didn't Bark: No Pardon For Hillary
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on January 20, 2017
If Bill and Hillary looked dour at Donald Trump's inauguration, it may have been more than just frustration and sour grapes at losing the election.  As Obama passed into history and Trump took power as president, what didn't happen may have had more consequence for the former first couple than what did take place:  Obama did not pardon Hillary.

Now the coast is clear for a thorough investigation of Hillary both on charges of mishandling state secrets and of running a pay-for-play operation out of the State Department.

As president-elect, Trump vowed not to pursue Hillary and expressed the wish that she not be prosecuted, but said that it "was not something I feel very strongly about."  In a series of tweets on November 22nd, Trump said that a prosecution of Hillary would be "very divisive" and noted that the Clintons have "suffered greatly" already.  But, significantly, he refused to say that he would take prosecution of Hillary "off the table."

Anyone watching the inaugural ceremonies could not fail to note how deliberately President Trump avoided eye contact with either Clinton, passing right by under their noses rather than pause for a handshake.

For his part incoming Attorney General Jeff Sessions has promised to recuse himself from any investigation.

But the investigators themselves -- in at least four US Attorney offices -- are by no means letting up.  If they find a case that Hillary ran afoul of the law in either scandal (pay for play or national secrets), it is quite likely that they will recommend prosecution.  In that eventuality, it is hard to see either Sessions of President Trump refusing to bring the case.

Hillary's only secure protection would have been an Obama pardon.  But now she is exposed.  She may have to face the fruits of her own criminality.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #619 on: January 25, 2017, 10:07:11 AM »



http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2017/01/border-patrol-alters-stats-hide-release-criminal-aliens-high-recidivism/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Tipsheet%201-25-17%20%281%29&utm_content=
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6824


« Reply #620 on: January 25, 2017, 10:50:11 AM »

   
"JW: Border Patrol alters stats about released criminal aliens"

So why should anyone with a "f" brain believe there is no voter fraud

we have been led by liars for years
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #621 on: January 30, 2017, 06:40:33 PM »

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/attorney-general-civil-rights-refugee.html?emc=edit_na_20170130&nl=breaking-news&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6824


« Reply #622 on: January 30, 2017, 07:55:20 PM »

This is unbelievable.

We have all out civil war.  Just no guns .

and this now from the State Department
most fed employees are Democrats ; those who refuse to cooperate must all be fired.

all this because some people have to sit in an airport for some extra hours!

« Last Edit: January 30, 2017, 07:59:18 PM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #623 on: January 30, 2017, 09:33:46 PM »

I hear Trump has fired the Acting AG.

GOOD!!!

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/30/law-professor-explains-why-trump-had-no-choice-but-to-fire-the-acting-ag/#.WJAH1xYqGQs.twitter


« Last Edit: January 30, 2017, 11:34:25 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14432


« Reply #624 on: January 30, 2017, 09:37:03 PM »

This is unbelievable.

We have all out civil war.  Just no guns .

and this now from the State Department
most fed employees are Democrats ; those who refuse to cooperate must all be fired.

all this because some people have to sit in an airport for some extra hours!



I'm pretty sure the guns part is coming...
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #625 on: January 30, 2017, 11:23:03 PM »

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6824


« Reply #626 on: February 06, 2017, 09:00:55 AM »



https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/rogue-judges-undermine-our-sovereignty-heres-how-congress-can-stop-them
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2239


« Reply #627 on: February 06, 2017, 11:13:47 AM »

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/opinion/executive-power-run-amok.html

"As an official in the Justice Department, I followed in Hamilton’s footsteps, advising that President George W. Bush could take vigorous, perhaps extreme, measures to protect the nation after the Sept. 11 attacks, including invading Afghanistan, opening the Guantánamo detention center and conducting military trials and enhanced interrogation of terrorist leaders. ...

"But even I have grave concerns about Mr. Trump’s uses of presidential power. ...

"Mr. Trump’s firing of the acting attorney general, Sally Yates, for her stated intention not to defend his immigration policy, also raises concerns. Even though the constitutional text is silent on the issue, long historical practice and Supreme Court precedent have recognized a presidential power of removal. Mr. Trump was thus on solid footing, because attorneys general have a duty to defend laws and executive orders, so long as they have a plausible legal grounding. But the White House undermined its valid use of the removal power by accusing Ms. Yates of being “weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.” Such irrelevant ad hominem accusations suggest a misconception of the president’s authority of removal."
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6824


« Reply #628 on: February 06, 2017, 11:36:28 AM »

ad hominem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

If any one with a brain is to suppose that Yates was not being political and was in her mind trying to uphold some idealist principle will not convince most on the left.
If she refused to carry out executive orders she is weak on enforcement.

If her personal beliefs (political ) were not at the core of what she did then what was?  Soros giving her a check?

If this is all the NYslimes can come up with,  criticizing Trump not because he had every right to fire her but because he made a statement that she is weak on immigration then the socialist NY paper  is reduced to  desperately scraping from the bottom of the barrel anything they can to find a fault with Trump.

Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2239


« Reply #629 on: February 06, 2017, 11:50:25 AM »

ad hominem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

If any one with a brain is to suppose that Yates was not being political and was in her mind trying to uphold some idealist principle will not convince most on the left.
If she refused to carry out executive orders she is weak on enforcement.

If her personal beliefs (political ) were not at the core of what she did then what was?  Soros giving her a check?

If this is all the NYslimes can come up with,  criticizing Trump not because he had every right to fire her but because he made a statement that she is weak on immigration then the socialist NY paper  is reduced to  desperately scraping from the bottom of the barrel anything they can to find a fault with Trump.



You don't know who John Yoo is, do you? He's a far cry from a liberal.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2239


« Reply #630 on: February 06, 2017, 02:43:29 PM »

OTOH, ccp (and others), you might find this interesting:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-special-wednesday-edition-goldsmith-v-lederman-yates
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6824


« Reply #631 on: February 07, 2017, 09:33:38 AM »

Bigdog,

Thanks for the very thought provoking posts.  

I listened to most of the tape.  Interesting and sharp discussions about  Yate's choices (if I understood it all correctly - it was late at night and I was exhausted)

She claimed as a matter of Stated Dept policy or law she should not or could not enforce Trump's executive order.
I think the speakers agreed she was wrong to claim that doing so on behalf of Stated Dept. legal grounds was wrong. For her to refuse to do so on some personal interpretation of  moral or idealistic grounds is reasonable.

She had every right to refuse for herself but should  not have invoked that she was doing so as representing the State Dept.

She had 2 choices.  one : resign  two : make a public statement (as she did) and refuse to carry out the orders.  

If she chose the former choice she could still make a public statement about what her reasons were.

If she chose the second choice she would have to know she would be fired.  So either way she had to know she was "falling on her sword" .

She appears to have thought that either choice was "equivalent" and for unclear reason (perhaps she "misread" or misinterpreted State Dept law is hypothesized as her assuming equivalence though not to my understanding the true motive is not known) chose to make a public statement and refuse on some false legal grounds .

This is all well and good.
Now Trump fires her and the NYT implies he impugns her character by calling her "weak" on immigration.    And the NYT claims that by doing so Trump or his representatives undermine their strong legal footing against her actions.

I assume the NYT would also like to claim impugning her character is "un Presidential".

I disagree with them on both points and hold their criticism is a veiled device  to politically undermine Trump.  I also feel that it is reasonable to state Yates IS weak on immigration by tying her refusal to enforce an executive order on immigration which is designed to protect American citizens  to refusing to participate with actions  the President deems are necessary to best protect American citizens.

Either way it is hard to fathom that her criticism and the way in which she decided to go public with a press conference was also not a somewhat veiled to effort to politically undermine her new boss.
Political showomanship was part of the equation.   It would be pushing the limits of credulity that she had not to at least some degree  coordinated with Democratic political  operatives.

Bottom line for me is I don't disagree with Trump's tweet.

(Of course I am just one more opinion and of course I have political biases too.)

« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 11:39:57 AM by ccp » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8605


« Reply #632 on: February 07, 2017, 11:17:50 AM »

Prof Yoo is selective about when he supports or opposes executive power (like the rest of us).

The President is on "solid footing" for the removal but his voicing of his reason for removal "suggests a misconception of the president’s authority..."?  

Libya wasn't a war?  
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/387751/president-doesnt-need-congresss-approval-attack-isis-john-yoo
Maybe it was a 'kinetic military action', but it looked, smelled, killed and overthrew a government like a war.  http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/03/24/obamas-unconstitutional-war/

On the fence, we already have congressional approval:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006
The existing law says, roughly, build the fence, make it secure, do what it takes.  So does Trump's executive order. Who enforced that law, not the administration John Yoo served.

Mostly Yoo's attacks are on the words of Trump, not his actions - that he will end NAFTA or slap on tariffs without taking it through Congress.  He has not done that.

The countries on the temporary ban order are "Muslim nations" only in the sense that their military rule tolerates nothing else.  Trump's earlier words referenced a ban on religion; this order did not.  There is a difference between strong words entering negotiations and policy.  Did Reagan end every campaign sentence about tax rate cuts with - 'depending on what the Democratic House wants to do?  No, nor did JFK.  It was presumed that it will go through Congress only if a leader leads it through and the people demand it.  

Prof. Yoo should know the term "bully pulpit" originated with Theodore Roosevelt more than a hundred years ago, not with Donald Trump.  Did they all have this misconception?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 11:31:34 AM by DougMacG » Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2239


« Reply #633 on: February 07, 2017, 12:06:32 PM »

Yoo is selective about when he supports executive power, but not like the rest of us. He is, in fact, a --if not the--major proponent of the unitary theory of presidential power, so when he suggests that there are limits to presidential action, you need to understand how far he is willing to push those boundaries. Please see any number of his academic works on this point.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #634 on: February 07, 2017, 12:42:31 PM »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

BD:  Was it Yoo who wrote the position paper for Bush 43 that concluded that waterboarding was not torture?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2239


« Reply #635 on: February 07, 2017, 04:44:34 PM »

Yes, sir.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39508


« Reply #636 on: February 07, 2017, 05:57:41 PM »

That bit about strong or weak unitary theory was something I had not considered previously.  Thanks.

« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 06:05:16 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6824


« Reply #637 on: March 05, 2017, 10:49:06 AM »

If anyone doubts the true colors of Loretta Lynch then just watch this:

http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/loretta-lynch-need-more-marching-blood-death-on-streets/

Phony grandmother facade aside she is every bit the militant partisan Holder is.  And was at DOJ. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!