Judicial Watch: Justice Department Granted Immunity To Hillary Clinton’s Lawyer Who Destroyed 33,000 Emails

Heather Samuelson also testifies under oath in Judicial Watch court-ordered deposition that, contrary to what she told the FBI, she was in fact aware that Clinton used private email account as secretary of state

 

Image via youtube.com

 

Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s White House Liaison at the State Department, and later Clinton’s personal lawyer, Heather Samuelson, admitted under oath that she was granted immunity by the U.S. Department of Justice in June 2016:

Samuelson: I was provided limited production immunity by the Department of Justice.

Judicial Watch: And when was that?

***

Samuelson: My recollection, it was June 2015 [later corrected to 2016].

A complete copy of her deposition transcript is available here. Samuelson also revealed that, contrary to what she told the FBI in 2016, she was, in fact, aware that Sec. Clinton used a private email account while secretary of state:

Judicial Watch: Ms. Samuelson, when did you first become aware that Secretary Clinton used the e-mail address hdr22@clintonemail.com while she was at the State Department?

Samuelson: I believe I first became aware when either she e-mailed me on personal matters, such as wishing me happy birthday, or when I infrequently would receive e-mails forwarded to me from others at the department that had that e-mail address listed elsewhere in the document.

***

Judicial Watch: Okay. And who were the State Department officials?

Samuelson: I recall Cheryl Mills, but it could have been others.

Samuel’s admission to Judicial Watch that she became aware of Clinton’s non-State.gov emails during her service in the Clinton State Department White House Liaison Office during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state (January 2009 – February 2013) contradicts the notation in the FBI’s May 24, 2016 302 report on Samuelson’s interview with FBI agents:

Samuelson did not become aware of Clinton’s use of a private email account and server until she was serving as Clinton’s personal attorney.

After Clinton left office, Samuelson worked for a year in the office of the White House Counsel before becoming Clinton’s personal attorney, where, in 2014, she was primarily responsible for conducting the review of Clinton emails and sorting out “personal” emails from government emails, which were returned to the State Department under the direction of Cheryl Mills and Clinton lawyer David Kendall.  After the emails were returned to State, Clinton deleted the rest of the “personal” emails from her server, wiping it clean. Samuelson conducted the review of emails on her laptop, using Clinton server files downloaded from Platte River Networks, which housed the Clinton email server. Judicial Watch questioned her about a “gap” in the emails she discovered:

Judicial Watch: I believe you, during your interview with the FBI, you were asked about a gap in e-mails that you noticed in Secretary Clinton’s e-mails from January 2009 to March of 2009. Do you recall that?

Samuelson: I do.

Judicial Watch: Okay. Can you explain to me what that gap was?

Samuelson: My understanding is — well, I’m sorry. I should say my recollection is when we received the documents — the file from Platte River Networks, there was a period of time that was missing in her e-mails. And that period of time was January 2009 to March 2009.

Judicial Watch: And what did you do as the result of discovering this gap in the e-mails from January 2009 to March 2009?

***

Samuelson: I asked Platte River why we did not have — why they did not provide those.

Judicial Watch: And what did they tell you?

Samuelson: They said they did not have that information.

Judicial Watch: Did Platte River have access during 2014 to the server that housed Secretary Clinton’s e-mails to her Clintonemail.com account –

***

– and was there any discussion as to whether they could obtain Secretary Clinton’s e-mails from that server from January 2009 to March 2009?

***

Samuelson: I did ask them, and they said they did not have any e-mails from that period.

Samuelson also testified in her deposition that she created an “after action memo” in or around December 2014 to memorialize the email search. Samuelson’s lawyer directed her not to answer questions about this memo.

During Hillary Clinton’s transition as secretary of state during her tenure, Samuelson was in charge of political-nomination (“Schedule C”) hires for Clinton’s transition team at the State Department.  When questioned by Judicial Watch lawyers about Brock Johnson, whom she hired as a special assistant to Secretary Clinton as a “favor” to controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band (co-founder of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative), Samuelson testified that on occasion Band sent referrals of individuals they should consider hiring. Johnson later worked, in coordination with the Obama White House, when the State Department falsely responded to a Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) FOIA request that there were no records showing Clinton’s email address.

The deposition of Samuelson comes out of Judicial Watch’s July 2014 Freedom of Information Act (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)). Judicial Watch seeks:

• 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.

On December 6, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers and Clinton aides, as well as Heather Samuelson, 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.” Judicial Watch’s discovery is centered upon whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act by using a non-government email system and whether the State Department acted in bad faith in processing Judicial Watch’s FOIA request for communications from Clinton’s office.

“The news that the Obama DOJ gave immunity to Heather Samuelson, Hillary Clinton’s lawyer responsible for the infamous deletion of 33,000 emails, further confirms the sham FBI/DOJ investigation of the Clinton email scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “And it is curious that Ms. Samuelson changed her story about what she knew and when about the Clinton email system. Attorney General Barr can’t reopen the Clinton email investigation fast enough.”

Congressman calls on Justice Department to halt federal funding for Nation of Islam

Washington Examiner

Alana Goodman

Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., Monday called on the Department of Justice to immediately halt federal funding to the Nation of Islam, after the Washington Examiner first reported that the group has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the government to teach religious studies programs to prison inmates.

In a letter to the Justice Department obtained by the Washington Examiner, Buchanan called the report “disturbing” and said the government’s funding of the openly anti-Semitic black separatist group was “downright immoral.”

“As you may know, the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center have designated the Nation of Islam as a hate group for its racist and anti-Semitic beliefs,” Buchanan wrote in the letter to acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker.

“The federal government should not use taxpayer dollars to subsidize one of the most infamous hate groups in the United States,” Buchanan added. “That’s why I’m demanding your department immediately cease all contracts with the Nation of Islam and prohibit it from receiving any contracts in the future.”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com …

Judicial Watch: Federal Judge ‘Shocked’ Clinton Aide Granted Immunity by Justice Department

Court Criticizes State Department for Providing False Statements on Clinton Emails

 

Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that in his opening remarks at a Friday, October 12 hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth strongly criticized the U.S. Department of State, stating, “The information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the [Clinton email] search and… what we now know turned out to be the Secretary’s email system.”

Turning his attention to the Department of Justice, Judge Lamberth said that he was “dumbfounded” by the agency’s Inspector General report revealing that Cheryl Mills had been given immunity and was allowed to accompany former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to her FBI interview:

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. So I did not know that until I read the IG report and learned that and that she had accompanied the Secretary to her interview.

(In an April 28, 2008, ruling relating to Mills’ conduct as a White House official in responding to concerns about lost White House email records, Judge Lamberth called 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.”)

Lamberth also complained that the Justice Department attorney representing the State Department was using “doublespeak,” and playing “word games.”

The hearing had been ordered by Judge Lamberth regarding a request from Judicial Watch for testimony under oath from Clinton, Mills and several other State Department officials regarding the State Department’s processing of Judicial Watch’s FOIA request and Clinton’s emails. The State Department still opposes all of Judicial Watch’s requests for additional discovery into the Clinton email scandal.

Judge Lamberth said he was relieved that he did not allow the case to be shut down prematurely, as the State Department had requested:

The case started with a motion for summary judgment [seeking to close the case] here and which I denied and allowed limited discovery because 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.

I don’t know the details of what kind of IG inquiry there was into why these career officials at the State Department would have filed false affidavits with me. I don’t know the details of why the Justice Department lawyers did not know false affidavits were being filed with me, but I was very relieved that I did not accept them and that I allowed limited discovery into what had happened.

Judge Lamberth also said the State Department was using “doublespeak” and word games:

THE COURT: The State Department told me that it had produced all records when it moved for summary judgment and you filed that motion.  That was not true when that motion was filed.
MR. PRINCE: At that time, we had produced all –
THE COURT: It was not true.
MR. PRINCE: Yes, it was – well, Your Honor, it might be that our search could be found to be inadequate, but that declaration was absolutely true.
THE COURT: It was not true.  It was a lie.
MR. PRINCE: It was not a lie, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What – that’s doublespeak.

***

PRINCE: There’s strong precedent saying that items not in the State’s possession do not need to be searched….
THE COURT:  And that’s because the Secretary was doing this on a private server?  So it wasn’t in the State’s possession?… So you’re playing the same word game she played?

In March 2016, Judge Lamberth granted “limited discovery” to Judicial Watch:

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.

***

[Judicial Watch] is certainly entitled to dispute the State Department’s position that it has no obligation to produce these documents because it did not “possess” or “control” them at the time the FOIA request was made. The State Department’s willingness to now search documents voluntarily turned over to the Department by Secretary Clinton and other officials hardly transforms such a search into an “adequate” or “reasonable one. [Judicial Watch] is not relying on “speculation” or “surmise” as the State Department claims. [Judicial Watch] is relying on constantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials.

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)). Judicial Watch seeks:

• 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 Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

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 to file new proposed orders in light of information discovered in various venues since the previous May.

The full transcript of the hearing is available here.

“President Trump should ask why his State Department is still refusing to answer basic questions about the Clinton email scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Hillary Clinton’s and the State Department’s email cover up abused the FOIA, the courts, and the American people’s right to know.”

Watch additional comments from Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here.

###

Tom Fitton’s statement on the hearing:

Justice Department Reveals it May Provide Judicial Watch with Previously Redacted Portions of Rosenstein ‘Scope of Authority’ Mueller Memo

 

Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced the Justice Department disclosed that it may soon provide the organization with additional, previously withheld material from the heavily redacted August 2 memorandum in which Rod Rosenstein granted broad authority to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, three months after Mueller’s appointment. The initial appointment memo, controversially, was written in May 2017. The Justice Department’s notice to Judicial Watch came almost immediately after the explosive District Court hearing in which Judge T.S. Ellis III demanded the full memorandum be made available to the court in two weeks, by May 18.

In a May 4 response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, the agency revealed that it is now “processing the August 2 memo to determine if it can release additional portions that have not already been filed publicly.” The Justice Department had previously refused to acknowledge that any such “scope” documents exist.

Judicial Watch filed its FOIA lawsuit against the Justice Department on October 5, 2017, after the agency failed to respond to a July 10, 2017, request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-02079)). Judicial Watch is seeking:

• A copy of the budget prepared and submitted by Robert S. Mueller III or his staff in his capacity as appointed “Special Counsel to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters.” Temporal scope of this request is from 17 May 2017 to 10 July 2017.
• A copy of all guidance memoranda and communications by which the Justice Management Division will review the Special Counsel’s Office’s “Statement of Expenditures” prior to or for the purpose of making each public. Temporal scope of this request is from 1 June 2017 to present.
• A copy of each document scoping, regulating, or governing the Special Counsel’s Office appointed under the leadership of Mueller III. Temporal scope of this request is from 17 May 2017 to present.

A few hours after Judge Ellis’s explosive hearing, the Justice Department officially admitted to Judicial Watch that a scope memo existed:

As you are no doubt aware, in conjunction with its opposition to Paul Manafort’s motion to dismiss his criminal indictment, the United States filed on that criminal docket a redacted version of an August 2, 2017, Memorandum regarding ‘The scope of Investigation and Definition of Authority’ conferred on the Special Counsel….

In light of the Special Counsel’s public acknowledgement of the August 2 memo, the government has been assessing whether the acknowledgment alters its prior response to Request No. 3 [for documents describing the scope of Mueller’s authority] of the FOIA request at issue in this suit, and processing the August 2 memorandum to determine if it can release additional portions that have not already been filed publicly, but needs some additional time to complete these tasks.

“We are pleased, especially after Judge Ellis’s hearing, that our lawsuit is causing the Justice Department to rethink its cover-up of the ‘scope memo’ for Mueller,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Judicial Watch has never before seen this level of secrecy and cover-up surrounding the operation of a special or independent counsel.”

In the August 2 memorandum obtained by Judicial Watch, Rosenstein reiterated the broad authority he gave Mueller in his May order authorizing the special counsel:

[T]o conduct “the investigation confirmed my then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on March 20, 2017, including: (1) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (2) any matters that arose or may arise directly from that investigation….”

The May 17, 2017 order was worded categorically in order to permit its public release without confirming specific investigations involving specific individuals. This memorandum provides a more specific description of your authority. The following allegations were within the scope of the Investigation at the time of your appointment and are within the scope of the Order…

The Justice Department then redacted all of the “following allegations.”

The August Rosenstein memorandum also included a section providing Mueller a “more specific description of your authority,” authorizing the special counsel to expand his prosecution of former Trump advisor Paul Manafort by investigating:

Allegations that Paul Manafort:

• Committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law;
• Committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych…

The Justice Department then redacted additional material apparently detailing the “crime or crimes” relating to Ukraine that Mueller was authorized to investigate.

Judicial Watch is pursuing numerous additional FOIA lawsuits related to the surveillance, unmasking, and illegal leaking targeting President Trump and his associates during the FBI’s investigation of potential Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election.

DOJ Releases ‘Fast And Furious’ Documents, Previously Blocked By Obama Admin …..

dailycaller.com

The Justice Department announced Wednesday it would hand over documents related to the Obama-era Fast and Furious gun scandal to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Former President Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder had previously refused to produce documents requested by Oversight, documents which former Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz at the time called “critical” to pursuing the investigation.

The Justice Department announced Wednesday it would hand over documents related to the Obama-era Fast and Furious gun scandal to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Former President Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder had previously refused to produce documents requested by Oversight, documents which former Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz at the time called “critical” to pursuing the investigation.

The original Fast and Furious operation — conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — somehow allowed nearly 2,000 firearms to find their way into the hands of Mexican cartel members. Firearms connected to the program were found at multiple crime scenes in both the United States and Mexico, including the murder scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

Judicial Watch Sues Justice Department for Communications about Former FBI Director Comey’s Controversial Senate Testimony

Did Mueller Coordinate with Comey On Anti-Trump Testimony

 

JUDICIAL WATCH

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for all records of communications relating to former FBI Director James Comey’s controversial testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-02316)).

Judicial Watch sued after the Justice Department failed to respond to an August 14, 2017, FOIA request seeking:

All records of communications between the Department of Justice and former FBI Director James Comey prior to and regarding Comey’s testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on June 8, 2017.

Fox News reported: “A source close to James Comey tells Fox News the former FBI director’s Senate testimony has been ‘closely coordinated’ with Robert Mueller, whom the Justice Department appointed as special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation.”

On June 8, 2017, Comey gave testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, in which he admitted: “I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter [for The New York Times]. I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”

In his testimony Comey detailed multiple conversations with President Trump. Comey confirmed he told President Trump three times that he was not a target of investigation and testified about President Trump’s firing of him.

On May 16, 2017, The New York Times reported that it received a leaked memorandum from former Director Comey detailing a conversation between President Trump and Comey regarding the FBI’s investigation of potential Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election.

Judicial Watch is pursuing numerous additional FOIA lawsuits (see here, here, here, and here) relating to former Director Comey’s memoranda and FBI exit records.

Judicial Watch also sent Acting FBI Director Andrew G. McCabe a warning letter concerning the FBI’s legal responsibility under the Federal Records Act (FRA) to recover records, including memos Comey subsequently leaked to the media, unlawfully removed from the Bureau by former Director James Comey.

“Mr. Comey may have violated the law in leaking these memos to the media,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It would be a scandal if Comey coordinated his Senate testimony with Mr. Mueller’s special counsel office. That we have had to sue in federal court speaks volumes.”

###

Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/judicial-watch-sues-justice-department-for-communications-about-former-fbi-director-comeys-controversial-senate-testimony?f=must_reads#ixzz4yOvwsMnW
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

The Curious Case of Natalia Veselnitskaya

Family Security Matters

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

Obama-administration officials arranged for her entry – for reasons that have nothing to do with Trump Jr. or the presidential campaign.

She is relentlessly described as a “Russian lawyer” in media reporting. It should not escape our notice, then, that Natalia Veselnitskaya is not an American lawyer. She is not admitted to practice law in the United States.

So why was she admitted into the United States when she was not qualified to do the job that was the rationale for her admission?

We’ll get to that. To cut to the chase, however, it had nothing to do with the Trump campaign.

Obama’s Iran Deal Was Much Worse Than We Suspected

The Federalist

What if Donald Trump had unilaterally shut down every investigation into Russian espionage, released over 20 suspected Russian spies, struck a deal to get rid of sanctions against Russia—in return for honoring deals that had been signed years before—and then lied to the American people about the entire episode?

That’s the Obama Administration’s Iran deal. It might have been the first time the United States has offered extensive concessions to a nation that has continued to destabilize its interests, for nothing in return. But Barack Obama didn’t just support Iran’s position over our allies like Israel (no surprise there, considering his antagonism) or Sunni nations—he supported it ahead of his own Justice Department’s 30-year counterproliferation efforts.

U.S. will not seek death penalty for accused ringleader in Benghazi attacks

Photo via Fellowship of the Minds

Free Republic

The Justice Department announced Tuesday that it will not seek the death penalty against Ahmed Abu Khattala, 54, a U.S.-designated terrorist whom prosecutors accuse of leading the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans.

The announcement, contained in a notice to the federal trial court in Washington, clears the way for a major terrorism trial in the nation’s capital, the first in the United States since 2015, barring a plea agreement by Abu Khattala.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com …

DOJ to Partner with the SPLC to Nullify the First Amendment

Independent Sentinel

When the White House announces an initiative, you can be sure it’s going to be either inimical to the United States, unconstitutional—or both.

Asst. AG John Carlin’s announcement on October 14th, that the Justice Department is creating a new position of “Domestic Terrorism Counsel,” shows signs of both. Its purpose is to combat the “real and present threat” of domestic extremism, he said. He ominously cited, as causes for concern: “anti-government views, racism, bigotry, anarchy and other despicable beliefs”—which begs the question: Just who will select those showing cause for concern?

His declaration is more ominous because he implied that the DOJ would be relying upon the Southern Policy Legal Center (SPLC) for help in this new mission. In fact, the announcement was co-hosted by SPLC. This raises the concern that the SPLC will help select those suspected of “despicable beliefs.”