[Vision2020] Fw: Weekly Update: Clinton Email Case Update?

[Ron Force]

This is the group that:
1. Tried to have President Obama deported as a alien
2. Claimed that ISIS had established a training camp on the US-Mexico Border
3. Claimed that LGBT inclusive schools are abusive of children
4. Fabricates a weekly Benghazi conspiracy theory

In other words, just your typical right-wing loonies.

Ron Force
Moscow Idaho USA

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:43 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Subject:  Weekly Update: Clinton Email Case Update?
> From: "Tom Fitton" <info at news.judicialwatch.org>
> To: lfalen at turbonet.com
> Date: 07/08/16 23:39:56
>
> Court Hearing Scheduled
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx70-2gwp2ee6>
> July 8, 2016: This Week's Headlines
>
>    - Judicial Watch Seeks Testimony of Hillary Clinton
>    <#m_-1006354615619487863_anchorone>
>
>
>    - FBI Director Undermines the Rule of Law
>    <#m_-1006354615619487863_anchortwo>
>
>
>    - Comey's FBI Helped Convict Navy Reservist who "Handled Classified
>    Materials Inappropriately" <#m_-1006354615619487863_anchorthree>
>
> [image: tom headshot]
> Judicial Watch Seeks Testimony of Hillary Clinton
>
> First the good news, the FBI/Justice Department cover-up won't derail
> Judicial Watch's independent effort to get at the truth about the Clinton
> email scandal.
> In fact, a few hours ago we submitted to a federal court judge a request
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx71-2gwp2ee7> for permission
> to depose former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
> We also asked permission to depose the Director of Office of
> Correspondence and Records of the Executive Secretariat ("S/ES-CRM")
> Clarence Finney; and the former Director of Information Resource Management
> of the Executive Secretariat ("S/ES-IRM") John Bentel.
> Our request arises in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
> lawsuit <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx72-2gwp2ee8> before
> U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan that seeks records about the
> controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of
> staff to Clinton. The lawsuit was reopened
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx73-2gwp2ee9> because of
> revelations about the clintonemail.com system. ( Judicial Watch v. U.S.
> Department of State
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx74-2gwp2ee0> (No.
> 1:13-cv-01363)).
> Judge Sullivan almost immediately issued a court order
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx75-2gwp2ee1>, just as your Weekly
> Update went to press, scheduling a hearing on the issue on July 18.
> As you know, the court previously granted
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx76-2gwp2ee2> discovery on
> the clintonemail.com system, and we have deposed seven former Clinton top
> aides and current State Department officials, including top Clinton aides Cheryl
> Mills <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx77-2gwp2ee3> and Huma
> Abedin <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx78-2gwp2ee4>. We
> also deposed IT official Brian Pagliano, who asserted his Fifth Amendment
> right not to testify during the deposition
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx79-2gwp2ee5>. In granting
> Judicial Watch's initial discovery motion, the court ruled that Judicial
> Watch may seek permission for Hillary Clinton's testimony, if necessary.
> Today's brief argues that the Clinton testimony is necessary:
>
> [Judicial Watch] recognizes the significance of asking a former agency
> head and presumptive nominee for president to sit for a deposition. As the
> primary driving force behind and principal user of the clintonemail.com
> system, however, Secretary Clinton's testimony is crucial to understanding
> how and why the system was created and operated. It also is crucial to
> understanding why the secretary chose to use the system for all her
> official email communications, not only initially but also after the system
> proved to be so problematic for the department, top departmental officials,
> and the secretary herself. Plaintiff has attempted to obtain as much
> evidence as possible from other State Department officials, but Secretary
> Clinton is an indispensable witness and significant questions remain,
> including why records management officials apparently had no knowledge of
> the system when so many other officials used the system to communicate with
> her. Consequently, Secretary Clinton's deposition is necessary.
>
> Our brief notes, "Although significant progress has been made in
> uncovering evidence concerning the creation and use of the
> clintonemail.com system and the State Department's approach and practice
> for processing FOIA requests potentially implicating Secretary Clinton's
> and Ms. Abedin's emails, important questions remain." Our brief also points
> to this week's findings announced by FBI Director James Comey as providing
> additional reasons for Clinton's testimony:
>
> In his statement
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx7a-2gwp2ee5> announcing the
> conclusion of the FBI investigation into Clinton's email practices, Comey
> stated, "The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that
> were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to
> State in 2014." The FBI's finding raises questions about Clinton's
> assertions in her August 8, 2015, declaration that she directed that all
> her emails on the clintonemail.com system in her custody "that were or
> potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State"
> and that "on information and belief, this has been done." Clinton's
> deposition is necessary to inquire about the basis of these assertions in
> light of the FBI's finding.
>
> Judicial Watch alerted the State Department and Justice Department last
> week that we would seek this additional testimony from Clinton and others,
> but Justice Department lawyers informed us that the State Department
> opposes the request.
> We are seeking the testimony of Finney because, as chief Freedom of
> Information (FOIA) officer for the Secretary's office, he "had day-to-day
> responsibility for records management and research, including conducting
> and coordinating searches in response to FOIA requests, during Secretary
> Clinton's and Ms. Abedin's tenure."
> We are seeking the deposition of Bentel for several reasons. When asked by
> his staff about Clinton's use of a non-state.gov email account to conduct
> government business, "Mr. Bentel instructed them not to discuss the issue.
> As a result, obtaining Mr. Bentel's testimony is essential to determine
> what he knew, when he knew it, and why he did not share the information
> with the appropriate State Department employees responsible for responding
> to FOIA requests."
> Hillary Clinton can answer questions about her email practices that no
> other witness can. Her testimony will help the court determine if, how, and
> why FOIA was thwarted by the Clinton email system.
> Judicial Watch has a separate request for Clinton's testimony
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx7b-2gwp2ee6> pending before
> U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, who ruled on March 29
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx7c-2gwp2ee7> 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."
> FBI Director Undermines the Rule of Law
>
> Shamefully ignoring the law, FBI Director James B. Comey recommended
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx7d-2gwp2ee8> that the
> Department of Justice not indict Hillary Clinton for the disclosure of
> classified information on her non-state.gov email. Sure enough, Obama
> Attorney General Loretta Lynch closed the investigation
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx7e-2gwp2ee9> without
> charges the next day.
> Comey first detailed Clinton's massive destruction of government records
> and grossly negligent handling of classified information. But then came an
> enormous disconnect between these devastating findings and Comey's weak
> recommendation not to prosecute.
> Chris Farrell, JW's Director of Investigations & Research, spelled out
> Hillary Clinton's email crimes in detail for The Hill
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx7f-2gwp2ee0> .
>
> Comey provided the following detailed examples of how Mrs. Clinton
> violated the law:
>
>
>    - "110 e-mails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning
>    agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or
>    received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret
>    at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the
>    time; and eight contained Confidential information."
>
>
>    - Comey charged that former Secretary of State Clinton (and her
>    colleagues), "were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive,
>    highly classified information." And he confirmed that, "any reasonable
>    person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those
>    government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters,
>    should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that
>    conversation."
>
>
>    - With respect to Mrs. Clinton's culpability in compromising national
>    defense information to hostile actors, Mr. Comey stated: "We do assess that
>    hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of
>    people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal
>    account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email
>    domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.
>
>
>    - She also used her personal email extensively while outside the
>    United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the
>    territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors,
>    we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary
>    Clinton's personal email account."
>
> By not acting on these charges, Comey has torpedoed his bureau's
> reputation. As I wrote for Fox News
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx7g-2gwp2ee1>:
>
> According to Comey's testimony before the House, the Hillary Clinton lies,
> subterfuge, document destruction and national security violations that
> would, for starters, get you or any other non-political elitist drummed out
> of the FBI, shouldn't even be considered for prosecution by a "reasonable
> prosecutor." Well, not if that "reasonable prosecutor" owes his meal ticket
> and position of power to the likes (and dislikes) of Hillary Clinton and
> Barack Obama.
> What was perhaps most striking about Comey's testimony is how he carefully
> narrowed his investigation in a way that conveniently helps Hillary Clinton.
> Did Hillary Clinton lie to Congress about her email practices? Not part of
> the investigation. Did she conceal and illegally remove federal records?
> Not part of the investigation. And no word on the pay-for-play schemes with
> the Clinton Foundation and its donors. How did the classified material get
> on Clinton's system? Comey confessed his FBI didn't even investigate this
> basic question.
> One analysis of Comey's legal sophistry is that he saw that the fix was in
> and he wasn't going to cause a crisis and put his job on the line by
> recommending a prosecution to a compromised and conflicted Obama Justice
> Department.
> Comey may think he's successfully threaded the political needle -
> highlighting Clinton's malfeasance while giving her a get-out-of-jail-free
> card. But all he's done is further lowered the reputation of the FBI in the
> eyes of the American people.
>
> Comey's statement and testimony to Congress the other day was remarkable
> for its intellectual and factual dishonesty (see our next story). But do
> not despair! Your Judicial Watch helped break open the Clinton email
> scandal and, as you see with our latest effort to depose Hillary Clinton,
> will keep on with this groundbreaking litigation and investigation.
> Comey's FBI Helped Convict Navy Reservist who "Handled Classified
> Materials Inappropriately"
> Among many things making Comey's decision infuriating was the fact that
> his FBI helped convict a Navy reservist who "handled classified materials
> inappropriately." Our Corruption Chronicles blog had that story
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx7h-2gwp2ee2>:
>
> Illustrating that FBI Director James Comey is a liar and a fraud, his
> agency helped convict a Navy reservist last summer of the same crime that
> he just cleared Hillary Clinton of committing. In that case the reservist
> from northern California got criminally charged-as per FBI
> recommendation-for having classified material on personal electronic
> devices that weren't authorized by the government to contain such
> information. The FBI investigation didn't reveal evidence that the
> reservist intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized
> personnel, so he was just being "extremely careless" like Clinton and her
> top aides.
> Similar offenses, vastly different outcome. The key factor, of course, is
> that one subject is a regular Joe without Clinton-like political
> connections. His name is Bryan H. Nishimura and last July he pleaded guilty
> to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials after the FBI
> found such materials were copied and stored in at least one "unauthorized
> and unclassified system." Clinton had droves of classified and top secret
> materials in an "unauthorized and unclassified system."
> Nishimura had been deployed to Afghanistan as a regional engineer for the
> U.S. military and had access to classified briefings and digital records
> that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers,
> according to the FBI announcement
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx7i-2gwp2ee3>, which defines
> the reservist's crime in the following manner; "handled classified
> materials inappropriately." So did Clinton on a much larger scale.
> Last July Nishimura pleaded guilty to "unauthorized removal and retention
> of classified materials" and was sentenced to two years of probation, a
> $7,500 fine and forfeiture of personal media containing classified
> materials. He was further ordered to permanently surrender all government
> security clearances. Hillary Clinton could soon have the highest security
> clearance available if she gets elected president, making Comey's
> inconceivable recommendation that "no charges are appropriate in this case"
> all the more outrageous.
> Incredibly, during his 15-minute press conference
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx7j-2gwp2ee4> this week
> Comey provided details of how Clinton violated the law by exchanging dozens
> of email chains containing classified and top secret information and how
> she mishandled national defense information on her outlaw email server. The
> FBI director even outlined how Clinton compromised the country's national
> defense to "hostile actors," yet he asserts Clinton and her cohorts didn't
> intend to break the law. "Although we did not find clear evidence that
> Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the
> handling of classified information," Comey said, "there is evidence that
> they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly
> classified information." Enough to be criminally charged like the Navy
> reservist from northern California.
> When Comey, the federal prosecutor in the Martha Stewart case, put the
> television celebrity in jail for participating in an insider trading
> scheme, he acknowledged the importance of not granting special treatment to
> a rich and famous person. Stewart went to prison for obstructing justice
> and lying to investigators about a sudden stock sale that helped her avoid
> losing thousands of dollars. In an interview with his college newspaper
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx7k-2gwp2ee5> a few years
> after Stewart's conviction Comey, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern
> District of New York, said that if Stewart were Jane Doe she would have
> been prosecuted. "I thought of my hesitation about the case due to someone
> being rich and famous, and how it shouldn't be that way," Comey said. "I
> decided we had to do it."
>
> Until next week...
>
> Tom Fitton
> President
> [image: Make a Contribution]
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx7l-2gwp2ee6>
> [image: Visit JudicialWatch.org]
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx7m-2gwp2ee7>
> 425 3rd St, SW Suite 800
> Washington, D.C. 20024
>
> [image: Facebook]
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx7n-2gwp2ee8> [image:
> Twitter] <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bnfy3-38cx7o-2gwp2ee9> [image:
> Email]
> <http://index.html?_n%5Bp%5D%5Bmain%5D=win.main.tree&_n%5Bp%5D%5Bcontent%5D=mail.compose&to=info@judicialwatch.org>
>
> This email was sent to: lfalen at turbonet.com
> Unsubscribe
> <http://go2.judicialwatch.org/form?bnfy3--nfyx-2gwp2ee5&sl=1pt&t=5>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> <http://www.campaigner.com/?utm_source=campaigner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=deliveryfooter>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20160711/86e068be/attachment-0001.html>