Judicial Watch Sues for Secret FBI Chart of Potential Violations of Law by Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Judicial Watch

 

Also suing for Comey’s Talking Points On Clinton Email Decision

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced today it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice seeking draft copies of FBI charts containing information on potential “statutory violations” committed by Hillary Clinton in the former secretary of State’s use of a non-secure, non-government email server to conduct government business.

Judicial Watch is also suing for draft copies of talking points prepared by the FBI for its officials to use following then-Director James Comey’s July 2016 press conference during which he recommended against prosecuting Clinton for mishandling classified information.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 3, 2018, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00800)). Judicial Watch seeks:

  1. All final and draft copies of talking points prepared by the FBI for its Executive Assistant Directors (EADs) relating to the “Mid-Year Exam” investigation (“MYE Talking Points) following the July 5, 2016 James Comey press conference in which he indicated he would not recommend prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
  2. All final draft copies of a one-page version of the aforementioned MYE Talking Points created for FBI Special Agents-in-Charge (SACs).
  3. All final and draft copies of charts of the “statutory violations considered during the investigation [of Hillary Clinton’s server], and the reasons for the recommendation not to prosecute.”

Judicial Watch recently uncovered DOJ records in a related lawsuit showing that three days after then-FBI Director James Comey’s press conference announcing that he would not recommend a prosecution of Clinton. On July 8, 2016,  the Special Counsel to the FBI’s executive assistant director in charge of the National Security Branch, whose name is redacted, wrote to Strzok and others that he was producing a “chart of the statutory violations considered during the investigation [of Clinton’s server], and the reasons for the recommendation not to prosecute…”

Neither these talking points nor the chart of potential violations committed by Clinton and her associates have been released.

“Judicial Watch will continue pressing for the secret FBI chart of potential Hillary Clinton crimes,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The FBI should focus on this Clinton ‘matter’ now that it is unencumbered by the corrupt  partisanship of Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, etc.”

Hold Hillary Accountable for Russiagate Hoax

Once again, Hillary Clinton got away with it.

 

Frontpage mag

Daniel Greenfield

After the Mueller report plopped with a wet thud on the media, everyone is blaming everyone else.

MSNBC and CNN are blaming the fake experts they invited on and interviewed night after night, urging them to make outlandish predictions that Mueller would soon have Trump locked up for treason. Like Inspector Renault, they’re shocked that the baseless claims they had been repeating were nonsense. And a few of the experts who turned it up to 11 will no longer be invited into media green rooms.

Meanwhile the politicians are blaming the media, even though Rep. Adam Schiff, Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Jerry Nadler, Rep Ted Lieu, and many other political reps were every bit as bad as the ‘experts’. Some, like Schiff, are doubling down and will go on investigating Russian collusion until the media stops inviting them on morning shows to discuss the nothing that they found last week and the week before.

Oddly, no one is blaming the political arsonist who started the dumpster fire that is Russiagate.

Continue reading

REPORT: Hillary Clinton Would Be In Jail Today If Obama DOJ Hadn’t Ordered Stand Down On Investigations

Remember that famous presidential debate line by then-candidate Donald Trump when he told Hillary Clinton if he had been in charge during the investigation into her private email server (among other things) that she’d “be in jail”? Well, a breaking report out this week provides some serious substance to the presidential debate boast.

If not for the (improper) protection/intervention of the Obama DOJ, Hillary Clinton would very likely be in jail by now. 

image: https://media1.tenor.com/images/f860c7b976335f47ab8cbcc9af8615a8/tenor.gif?itemid=6155615

Image result for you'd be in jail gifVia FOX NEWS:

Lisa Page admitted Obama DOJ ordered stand-down on Clinton email prosecution, GOP rep says

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted under questioning from Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe last summer that “the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information,” the congressman alleged in a social media post late Tuesday, citing a newly unearthed transcript of Page’s closed-door testimony.

Page and since-fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, who were romantically involved, exchanged numerous anti-Trump text messages in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, and Republicans have long accused the bureau of political bias. But Page’s testimony was perhaps the most salient evidence yet that the Justice Department improperly interfered with the FBI’s supposedly independent conclusions on Clinton’s criminal culpability, Ratcliffe alleged.

…Responding to the transcript revelations, Trump on Wednesday tweeted: “The just revealed FBI Agent Lisa Page transcripts make the Obama Justice Department look exactly like it was, a broken and corrupt machine. Hopefully, justice will finally be served. Much more to come!”

Federal law states that “gross negligence” in handling the nation’s intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines, and there is no requirement that defendants act intentionally or recklessly.

Originally Comey accused the former secretary of state of being “grossly negligent” in handling classified information in a draft dated May 2, 2016, but that was modified to claim that Clinton had merely been “extremely careless” in a draft dated June 10, 2016.

———————

https://i0.wp.com/plancksconstant.org/blog1/image3/sub1/hillary-jail.jpg

Image via plancksconstant.org

 

So, in summary, the Deep State shielded Hillary Clinton from justice while orchestrating a still-ongoing hoax of investigations against President Trump.

That isn’t democracy. That’s centralized, authorititive, and overtly abusive power that continues to attempt a coup of a duly elected President of the United States.

It’s going to be very interesting to see how the Trump administration responds as well as his tens of millions of supporters.

Read more at http://dcwhispers.com/report-hillary-clinton-would-be-in-jail-today-if-obama-doj-hadnt-ordered-stand-down-on-investigations/#d9el1fL8zagt7loq.99

Hillary lets the NY Times know that she didn’t really mean it when she said she wasn’t going to run for president

Photo via Jim Campbell

 

American Thinker

By Thomas Lifson

A day after telling a local New York television station, News 12 Westchester, “”I’m not running, but I’m going to keep on working and speaking and standing up for what I believe,” Hillary Clinton seems to have had second thoughts. Someone (my guess is Hillary herself) told New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman that she didn’t really mean it:

Maggie Haberman

@maggieNYT

Spoke to someone close with Clinton in contact with her today. They say she wasn’t trying to be emphatic and close the door on running when she spoke to a local reporter yesterday, and that she was surprised by how definitively it played. 1/2

Maggie Haberman

@maggieNYT

Spoke to someone close with Clinton in contact with her today. They say she wasn’t trying to be emphatic and close the door on running when she spoke to a local reporter yesterday, and that she was surprised by how definitively it played. 1/2

Maggie Haberman

@maggieNYT

The person also says she is extremely unlikely to run, but that she remains bothered that she’s expected to close the door on it when, say, John Kerry isn’t. She has told her team she is waiting at least to see the Mueller report. 2/2

Watch her statement on camera and decide for yourself if “she wasn’t trying to be emphatic”:

My guess is that she was a bit surprised and upset at the speed with which sighs of relief were heard from most Democrats – not just the contenders for the nomination, but across the board, including the rank and file. She is rightly afraid that she is now relegated to has-been status, someone who can be ignored. The comment on John Kerry reveals the jealousy and fear she feels that other Democrats may eclipse her in prominence, influence, and the ability to command speaker’s fees and raise money.

This is a woman who, after all, has lusted after power her entire adult life, ever since studying Sail Alinsky and taking on the role of agitator, and then discarding it for power-wielder instead.

A third guess: she secretly hopes that the other Democrat contenders will form a circular firing squad and weaken each other to the point where a deadlocked convention would turn to her as a savior, begging her to accept the nomination as a party-unifier, finally able to win because the Russians no longer are able to aid Trump.

Of course, that’s poppycock on multiple levels, but it probably helps her get through the night.

Photo credit: Westchester12 YouTube screen grab

A press blackout on news top FBI lawyer James Baker wanted Hillary Clinton prosecuted

American Thinker

By Monica Showalter

So the news is out that then-FBI Director James Comey did indeed have some credible prosecutors for Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified documents during her stint as Secretary of State, passing around some of the U.S. government’s most secret documents on an illegal private account attached to a server in some guy’s bathroom.

No reasonable prosecutor” would take the case, Comey intoned, who then let the former Secretary of State and then-presidential candidate completely off the hook.

Actually, there was one, at least one, and he was sitting right next to Comey, none other than FBI General Counsel James Baker, who admitted in congressional testimony that he did think Clinton’s dishonest act merited prosecution.

According to Fox News’s Catherine Herridge:

The FBI’s top lawyer in 2016 thought Hillary Clinton and her team should have immediately realized they were mishandling “highly classified” information based on the obviously sensitive nature of the emails’ contents sent through her private server. And he believed she should have been prosecuted until “pretty late” in the investigation, according to a transcript of his closed-door testimony before congressional committees last October.

Continue reading

Docs Reveal FBI Cover Up of ‘Chart’ of Potential Violations of Law by Hillary Clinton

I’ll make sure Andy tells Mike to keep these in his pocket

 

Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it received 186 pages of records from the Department of Justice that include emails documenting an evident cover up of a chart of potential violations of law by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Judicial Watch obtained the records through a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed respond to a December 4, 2017 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)). Judicial Watch is seeking all communications between FBI official Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page.

The newly obtained emails came in response to a May 21 order by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton to the FBI to begin processing 13,000 pages of records exchanged exclusively between Strzok and Page between February 1, 2015, and December 2017. The FBI may not complete review and production of all the Strzok-Page communications until at least 2020.

  • Three days after then-FBI Director James Comey’s press conference announcing that he would not recommend a prosecution of Mrs. Clinton, a July 8, 2016 email chain shows that, the Special Counsel to the FBI’s executive assistant director in charge of the National Security Branch, whose name is redacted, wrote to Strzok and others that he was producing a “chart of the statutory violations considered during the investigation [of Clinton’s server], and the reasons for the recommendation not to prosecute…”

[Redacted] writes: I am still working on an additional page for these TPs that consist of a chart of the statutory violations considered during the investigation, and the reasons for the recommendation not to prosecute, hopefully in non-lawyer friendly terms …

Strzok forwards to Page, Jonathan Moffa and others: I have redlined some points. Broadly, I have some concerns about asking some our [sic] senior field folks to get into the business of briefing this case, particularly when we have the D’s [Comey’s] statement as a kind of stand alone document. In my opinion, there’s too much nuance, detail, and potential for missteps. But I get they may likely be asked for comment.

[Redacted] writes to Strzok, Page and others: The DD [Andrew McCabe] will need to approve these before they are pushed out to anyone. At the end of last week, he wasn’t inclined to send them to anyone. But, it’s great to have them on the shelf in case they’re needed.

[Redacted] writes to Strzok and Page: I’m really not sure why they continued working on these [talking points]. In the morning, I’ll make sure Andy [McCabe] tells Mike [Kortan] to keep these in his pocket. I guess Andy just didn’t ever have a moment to turn these off with Mike like he said he would.

Page replies: Yes, agree that this is not a good idea.

Neither these talking points nor the chart of potential violations committed by Clinton and her associates have been released.

  • On May 15, 2016, James Rybicki, former chief of staff to Comey, sends FBI General Counsel James Baker; Bill Priestap, former assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division; McCabe; Page; and others an email with the subject line “Request from the Director.”

Rybicki writes: By NLT [no later than] next Monday, the Director would like to see a list of all cases charged in the last 20 years where the gravamen of the charge was mishandling classified information.

It should be in chart form with: (1) case name, (2) a short summary for content (3) charges brought, and (4) charge of conviction.

If need be, we can get it from NSD [National Security Division] and let them know that the Director asked for this personally.

Please let me know who can take the lead on this.

Thanks!

Jim

Page forwards to Strzok: FYSA [For your situational awareness]

Strzok replies to Page: I’ll take the lead, of course – sounds like an espionage section question… Or do you think OGC [Office of the General Counsel] should?

And the more reason for us to get feedback to Rybicki, as we all identified this as an issue/question over a week ago.

Page replies: I was going to reply to Jim [Rybicki] and tell him I can talked [sic] to you about this already. Do you want me to?

  • A July 22, 2016, email exchange, among Strzok, Page, Moffa and other unidentified FBI and DOJ officials, shows that Beth Wilkinson, an attorney for several top Clinton aides during the server investigation, wanted a conference call with the DOJ/FBI and that she was “haranguing” the FBI/DOJ about the return of laptops in the FBI’s possession:

A Wilkinson Walsh attorney, emails [Redacted] FBI National Security Division Officials: We wanted to follow up on our conversation from a few days ago. We would like to schedule a time to speak with both you and [Redacted] early next week. Is there a time on Monday or Tuesday that could work on your end?

[Redacted] FBI National Security Division official emails: See below. I am flexible on Monday and Tuesday. [Redacted] can chime in with her availability. It is my understanding that Toscas [George Toscas, who helped lead Midyear Exam] may have called over to Jim or Trisha [former Principal Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson] regarding some high-level participation for at least the first few such calls. I am happy to discuss further but wanted to send you this so you could raise within the OGC [Office of the General Counsel] and give me a sense of scheduling options. I am around if you want to talk.

***

[Redacted] FBI National Security Division official writes: In the meantime, I’ll tell Hal that we will certainly schedule a call and will get back to him as to timing. Since he knows Beth [Wilkinson] personally, it could be useful to have Jim on the phone if she is going to be haranguing us re: the laptops.

[Redacted] FBI Office of the General Counsel writes: More…I guess this is [Redacted’s] rationale for why we need to have the GC on the call to discuss the fact that we will be following all of our legal obligations and FBI policies/procedures with regard to the disposition of the materials in this case.

Strzok writes: You are perfectly competent to speak to the legal obligations and FBI policy/procedures. We should NOT be treating opposing counsel this way. We would not in any other case.

  • In an April 12, 2016, email exchange initiated by an email from Strzok to [Redacted] within the Justice Department’s National Security Division (NSD), Strzok asks the NSD official if he’d like to add anything to the agenda of a meeting to occur three days later between FBI and DOJ attorneys.

[Redacted] NSD official responds: Would like to see what you have on your agenda so we could see what we might want to add on our end. I will mention to [Redacted]. Also interested in understanding FBI OGC’s analysis of the privilege and ethics issues we are facing.

Strzok forwards to Page: Pretty nonresponsive.…

Page responds: Why provide them an agenda? I wouldn’t do that until you have a sense of how Andy [McCabe] wants to go. So no. We’ll talk about what we’re going to talk about and then they can talk about what they want to talk about. Also, seriously Pete. F him. OGC needs to provide an analysis? We haven’t done one. But they seem to be categorical that it’s just impossible, I’d just like to know why.

And now I’m angry before bed again.?

Total indulgence, there’s a TV in here. Here’s hoping I can find something to sufficiently melt my brain???

Strzok replies: Because I want to make this productive! Why NOT provide them an agenda!?!? We all talk about what we want to talk about and that’s a waste of time.

They haven’t done one either (legal analysis)

Assume noble intent.

How do we maximize this use of time?

Page writes: I’m ignoring all this and going to bed.

Strzok and Page were discussing a meeting that the Justice Department and FBI were about to have concerning, among other things, “privilege and ethics issues we are facing.”

  • On July 12, 2016, Eugene Kiely, the director of FactCheck.org, emailed the FBI about inconsistencies he’d identified between Comey’s congressional testimony and statements by Clinton and her campaign about her deletion of emails. Kiely noted that Comey testified to the House that Clinton did not give her lawyers any instructions on which of her emails to delete, whereas Clinton herself told the press that she made the decision on which emails should be deleted. Kiely also pointed out that Comey said in his testimony that there were three Clinton emails containing classification “portion markings,” whereas the State Department had said there were only two Clinton emails with classification markings. Kiely’s inquiry set off an internal discussion at the top of the FBI on how to respond to his questions.

Strzok writes: “We’re looking into it and will get back to you this afternoon; the answer may require some tweaking, the question is whether this is the forum to do it.” The email is addressed to FBI intelligence analyst Moffa; Rybicki; Michael Kortan, FBI assistant director for public affairs, now retired; Lisa Page and others.

Strzok’s suggested press response is fully redacted, but included is his deferral to the “7th floor as to whether to release to this reporter or in another manner.”

When asked “should we provide any additional information to FactCheck.org or would any updates more appropriately be give [sic] directly to Congress?” Strzok defers to “Jim/Lisa [Page]” and [Redacted].

  • In response to a March 29, 2016, article in The Hill, forwarded by Strzok to Page, reporting that Judge Royce Lamberth ordered limited discovery for Judicial Watch in its lawsuit against the State Department for Clinton’s emails (related to the Benghazi attack) – and thus opening Clinton up to possible depositions by Judicial Watch – Page responds simply: “Oh boy.”

“Judicial Watch caught the FBI in another cover-up to protect Hillary Clinton,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These records show that the FBI is hiding a chart detailing possible violations of law by Hillary Clinton and the supposed reasons she was not prosecuted.”

Judicial Watch recently released  215 pages of records from the DOJ revealing former FBI General Counsel James Baker discussed the investigation of Clinton-related emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop with Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall. Baker then forwarded the conversation to his FBI colleagues. The documents also further describe a previously reported quid pro quo from the Obama State Department offering the FBI more legal attaché positions if it would downgrade a redaction in an email found during the Hillary Clinton email investigation “from classified to something else.”

###

Federal Court Refused To Unseal Documents Justifying FBI Raid On Reported Clinton Foundation Whistleblower

 

Daily Caller

Richard Pollock

  • A federal court is keeping documents justifying an FBI raid on a reportedly recognized whistleblower secret.
  • Attorneys and whistleblower advocates say the court should disclose whether prosecutors told the judge that Dennis Cain was a whistleblower.
  • Cain reportedly gave documents pertaining to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One to a presidentially appointed watchdog before the raid.

A federal court refused to unseal government documents that permitted the FBI to raid the home of a reportedly recognized whistleblower who, according to his lawyer, delivered documents pertaining to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One to a presidentially appointed watchdog.

The U.S. District Court of Maryland’s Chief Magistrate Judge Beth P. Gesner, a Clinton appointee, also sealed her justification for keeping the documents secret in a single-page Dec. 20 order.

On Nov. 15, federal Magistrate Judge Stephanie Gallagher authorized the raid on Dennis Cain’s Union Bridge, Maryland, home. She sealed the government documents justifying it.

Continue reading