Two months ago, on
March 2, 2015, that The New York Times reported then-Secretary Clinton used at
least one non-"state.gov" email account to conduct official government business during her
tenure as the Secretary of State. It also was reported that Secretary Clinton
stored these records on a non-U.S. government server at her home in Chappaqua,
New York. For two months, other than one Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) lawsuit by one media outlet, official Washington has sputtered outrage but no
strong steps have been taken to ensure accountability for Hillary Clinton's and
the Obama administration's brazen lawlessness. Federal records, many surely
classified, were mishandled, stolen, secreted, and supposedly destroyed in
violation of several criminal and civil federal laws. The failure of leadership
on this massive corruption issue did not stop Judicial Watch. We've been
stepping into this gap for some time for the American people concerned about a
government and politicians out of control.
Indeed, JW shook up
Washington this week with a historic legal effort that shows your JW is boldly
taking the lead in uncovering and curtailing the escalating corruption at the
highest levels of government. This week, our expert team of attorneys filed
seven - yes, seven - new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the
U.S. State Department to obtain the release of documents about the Clinton email
scandal, including the emails of her top aide Huma Abedin, and records about the
Benghazi and Clinton Foundation scandals. JW filed one of the lawsuits
on Monday, May 5 and six on Tuesday, May 6. (Last week, Judicial Watch
also filed a lawsuit for records on Hillary Clinton's use of an iPad and
iPhone.)
As we have reported in
the past, JW already has at least 18 active lawsuits, 10 of which are active in
federal court, and about 160 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
requests that could be affected by Mrs. Clinton and her staff's use of secret
email accounts to conduct official government business. In Judicial Watch's
various FOIA lawsuits, our lawyers Judicial Watch have informed attorneys for
the Obama administration that Hillary Clinton's and any other secret accounts
used by State employees should be secured, recovered, and searched. Judicial
Watch's litigation against the State Department has already exposed key
documents about both the Benghazi and Clinton cash scandals.
But these bold legal
actions were a prelude to a massive legal effort without compare. This latest
raft of lawsuits gets to the heart of several Clinton/Obama
scandals:
The seven new Judicial
Watch FOIA lawsuits ask federal courts to require the Obama administration obey
the law and turn over:
Judicial Watch is seeking access to all emails of
official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of
Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009, through February 1, 2013, using a
non-"state.gov" email address.
Judicial Watch is seeking all emails sent or
received by former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in her official
capacity as secretary of State, as well as all emails by other State Department
employees to Secretary Clinton regarding her non-"state.gov" email
address.
Judicial Watch is seeking access to records
concerning the use and expense of a non-"state.gov" email address and server
domain by former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Such records
include, but are not limited to, records concerning security, classification,
preservation, and compliance with the Federal Records Act and/or the Freedom of
Information Act.
Judicial Watch is seeking access to all records
that identify the number and names of all current and former officials,
officers, or employees of the U.S. Department of State from January 20, 2009, to
the present who used email addresses other than their assigned "state.gov" email
addresses to conduct official State Department business and the policies in
place to ensure that emails were searched for responsiveness to FOIA
requests.
- Former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton's communications during the attack on the American
diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, during which U.S. Ambassador Christopher
Stevens and Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith were killed. A second assault
targeted a nearby compound, killing two government contractors Tyrone Woods and
Glen Doherty. (Judicial
Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No.
1:15-cv-00692)).
Judicial Watch is seeking all emails of former
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton concerning the September 11, 2012,
attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, as well as all communications
between State Department employees and members of Congress, congressional staff
or the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
- State Department
policies, procedures and review process enacted to ensure against conflicts of
interest between foreign interests and the Clinton Foundation, during Hillary
Clinton's tenure as secretary of State (Judicial
Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No.
1:15-cv-00688)).
Judicial Watch is seeking records that identify the
policies and/or procedures in place to ensure that former Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton's personal or charitable financial relationships with
foreign leaders, foreign governments, and business entities posed no conflict of
interest to her role as secretary of State; and all records related to the State
Department's review of donations to the Clinton Foundation for potential
conflicts of interest with former Secretary Clinton's role as secretary of
State.
Judicial Watch is seeking access to all records
completed and/or signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding her
resignation from the office of secretary of State, as well as other State
Department employees. Such records include, but are not limited to a
"separation statement" signed by Hillary Clinton upon her resignation as
Secretary of State.
A weak and hapless Congress, a compromised Justice
Department, and a pliant liberal media won't do the work of taking on Clinton
and Obama corruption- and JW is happy to continue its leadership role in
exposing government malfeasance. There is a rule-of-law and transparency crisis
in Washington. But our new FOIA lawsuits are intended to make certain that Mrs.
Clinton and her co-conspirators in the Obama administration will be held
accountable for the violations of transparency law, criminal destruction and
mishandling of government records, their Benghazi lies, and the Clintons'
continuing abuse of office for personal and political
gain.
I want to assure you that as massive - and
historical - as this is, we are just getting started. This is just the first
round of newly planned lawsuits, since (as it won't surprise our readers to
learn) the State Department, and other Obama agencies, have failed to respond as
required by law.
These lawsuits come just as former President Bill
Clinton has entered the fray to explain away his wife's ethical lapses and the
many conflicts of interest involving foreign donations to his family's
foundation. You doubtlessly have heard
President Clinton dishonestly talk in media interviewsabout how he and Hillary have done nothing
"knowingly inappropriate" (which translates as "I'm guilty, but have mercy.").
He said he'll continue to accept cash payments from whatever and whomever
because "I gotta pay our bills" and that the Clintons are really victims who are
being held to an unfair standard.
In typical Clintonian fashion, his complaint is the
exact opposite of truth. In fact, few citizens, businesses, or even politicians
would think they could use their public office to make themselves tens of
millions of dollars from foreign potentates and then steal, destroy, and secret
government records that could shed light on the illicit moneymaking! Bill's
bellyaching about explaining his, Hillary's, and Chelsea's monumental grifting
might give pause to the friendly liberal media and Democratic partisans running
the Justice Department. But, as you can see with our flotilla of new federal
lawsuits, JW won't be deterred by the latest round of Clinton
evasions.
Skiing and Politicking on the Taxpayer Dime
When Daniel
Craig returns as Agent 007 James Bond this fall, he will be appearing in one of
the most expensive spy films ever made. SPECTRE,
like many Bond films before it, includes a high-speed ski chase. Fortunately, the American taxpayer wasn't forced to
pony up for the elaborate production's ski escapade costs. (I'm sure the
producers of any movie would happily have accepted the financial support.)
Unfortunately, however, the taxpayers were forced to pay, and pay through the
nose, for Michelle Obama's ski weekend escapade in pricey, trendy Aspen,
Colorado, this past February. This is what we learned in response to a Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) request we made to the U.S. Air Force on February 18,
2015. We asked for:
- Any and all
records concerning mission taskings relevant to First Lady Michelle Obama's trip
to Aspen, Colorado.
- Any and all
records concerning transportation costs.
- Any and all
passenger manifests for the trip.
The records we obtained from the U.S. Air
Force tell us that the First Lady's
trip cost us all a pretty penny. According to the newly released records, the
transportation costs for the four-day trip to Aspen were
based on a flight cost of $7,712 an hour for the First Lady, her daughters, and support
personnel in the Gulfstream aircraft (as opposed to the $700 that
the average American can spend for a roundtrip flight all the way to Europe and
back). Not included were the attendant costs for U.S. Secret Service personnel,
accommodations, meals, rental cars, lift tickets for skiing at Buttermilk, and
related expenses. The $57,068.80 tab Mrs. Obama and her daughters ran up in
travel expenses alone for their weekend trip is more than 14 times what the average American of four spends for an
entire week-long vacation.
It has been apparent to
us for some time now that the Obamas abuse taxpayer money with unnecessarily
luxurious vacations and travel. How many times did the Obama family travel to
Aspen prior to the presidency? Misusing the perks of presidency to travel to
luxury hot-spots is an abuse that must end. If Congress is looking to save tax
dollars, they might consider trimming the platinum travel budgets of this and
future presidents.
Apparently, the ski
trip was intended to be low-key, and it may have stayed under the radar had it
not been for the Obama's motorcade having been forced to stop for a two-car
collision ahead of them, which closed the road for 40 minutes. Though the Obamas
had been allowed to "sneak through while they waited on tow trucks," according to Aspen
Police Chief Brian Olsen, the presence of the First Lady was noticed. The Obama
family reportedly stayed at the home of Jim and Paula Crown, a Chicago couple
who have been major campaign contributors to President Obama throughout his
political career.
Barack and Michelle
Obama and other members of their family have traveled more during his presidency than any other first couple,
including extensive and costly trips to Spain, Africa, South America, and China,
accompanied by staff and often by friends.
Including the Aspen
trip, government records indicate that the beyond-first-class travel of the
Obamas and Vice President Joe Biden have cost the American people well over $56
million.
The Obamas have trained
Vice President Biden well on how to use tax dollars for personal and political
use. Air Force records we received in response to a September 19, 2014, FOIA show that
Biden's September 3, 2014, trip to Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in New Hampshire
cost taxpayers $17,025 in transportation expenses. Biden was in New Hampshire
to campaign for Democratic Senate and House candidates. We had asked
for:
1) Any and all records concerning mission
taskings of Vice President Biden's September 3, 2014 trip to New
Hampshire;
2) Any and all records concerning
transportation costs for Vice President Biden's September 3, 2014 trip to New
Hampshire; and
3) Any and all passenger manifests (DD-2131)
for Vice President Biden's September 3, 2014 trip to New
Hampshire.
Biden's cost included
three hours of flight time at $5,675 an hour, which does not include Secret
Service expenses or costs incurred by local law enforcement in New Hampshire.
While the Obama administration claimed Biden was in New
Hampshire to celebrate shipyard workers, it's clear that he was in campaign mode.
London's Daily
Mail reported that Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter of New
Hampshire, along with Reps. Chellie Pingree and Mike Michaud of Maine, all
joined Biden at the shipyard.
And tax dollars are
sacrificed on the altar of Mr. Biden's political ambition.
CNN Politics reported,
"The vice president, who's mulling a 2016 presidential bid, made his remarks at
the Portsmouth Naval Yard in a speech about the economy. He was accompanied on
stage by U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat who's running for
re-election this year." The dirty little not-so-secret is that candidates,
campaigns, and political parties pay nearly nothing for the political use of Air Force One (or Air Force
Two).
The Obama family and
Biden mistake the Air Force for Uber. The scam of presidents and vice
presidents using tax dollars to subsidize candidates running for office must
end. Did Shaheen reimburse taxpayers for a reasonable portion of the costs
Biden to campaign for her? Our military has been decimated and is under strain.
Biden might want to consider this when he next considers using Air Force Two
for a trip to New Hampshire or Iowa as he runs for the
presidency.
Your JW has been on top
of these taxpayer-funded junkets for some time now.
We previously reported that flight costs for President Obama's Labor Day
2014 weekend trips for fundraising, personal business, and politicking came to a
total of $1,539,402.10 in taxpayer-paid transportation expenses. A break-down of
these costs obtained from FOIA told us that:
- Flights for
Obama's 2014 Labor Day weekend fundraising trips to Westchester, New York, and
Providence, Rhode Island, cost taxpayers $527,192.50
- Transportation for Obama's round-trip flight from
D.C. to Westchester, New York, to attend a wedding cost taxpayers
$358,490.90
- The flight
for Obama's trip to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to speak at "Laborfest 2014" cost
taxpayers $653,718.70
Unfortunately, the
White House does not appear inclined toward a more fiscally responsible approach
to travel as the Obama years wind down. So look for the tab to continue to
skyrocket as the high-flying couple attempt to squeeze every last cent they can
out of the White House travel budget. And with a presidential campaign heating
up for Mr. Biden and other Democrats, your tax dollars will increasingly be the
fuel for wasteful travel.
Are Courts Above the
Law?
We have a president who thinks he can rewrite the law
on his own. This has long been the practice of too many activist judges, but
rarely have courts simply ignored a core provision of a law governing their
operations. And that is why we filed
an amicus curiae brief with the U.S.
Supreme Court asking it to review a Fourth Circuit ruling that conflicts with
the Three-Judge Act by allowing only one judge to rule in a critical Maryland
gerrymandering case. The Judicial Watch brief was filed to support the
petitioners in Stephen M. Shapiro
et al. v Bobbie S. Mack et al.
The Three-Judge Court Act, dating back more than a
century, requires that three-judge panels must hear all constitutional
challenges to legislative redistricting unless, according to past Supreme Court
rulings, the case is "obviously frivolous," "essentially fictitious," "wholly
insubstantial," or "obviously without merit." Yet, in 2003, the Fourth Circuit
Court began to ignore this precedent in determining that a single judge could
decide not to convene a three-judge panel if he determined the case was not
"plausible." The Fourth Circuit again applied the same contrarian standard in
its 2014 ruling against plaintiffs Shapiro, Benisek, and
Pycha.
Congress and the courts have recognized the vital
importance of safeguarding voters against gerrymandering abuses by passing and
upholding the Three-Judge Court Act. The Fourth Circuit subverts this law by
allowing one judge inordinate power to effectively decide whether voters can
challenge how a state draws congressional and state legislative districts. And
JW's position is that no one is above the law, most especially the
courts.
In November 2013, Shapiro, Benisek, and Pycha sued
Bobbie Mack (the chair of the Maryland State Board of Elections) and Linda
Lamone (the state administrator of the Maryland State Board of Elections) in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that the 2011
congressional districts established by the Maryland General Assembly violated
their constitutional rights. When a single district court judge
dismissed the suit, the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit. In October 2014, the Fourth Circuit
upheld the district court ruling, denying the plaintiffs an
oral hearing before a three-judge panel. In February 2015, the plaintiffs filed
a petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Our legal team argues that the Fourth Circuit decision
"raises an important issue of federal election law that should be heard by this
Court," adding:
In particular, Judicial Watch is concerned that the
Fourth Circuit's ruling violates the Three-Judge Court Act and will allow states
to delay judicial review of gerrymandered redistricting plans that
disenfranchise voters and violate the Constitution. Judicial Watch has
represented parties in two recent cases in Maryland concerning a ballot
referendum on the state's gerrymandered redistricting plan. Moreover, Judicial
Watch may wish to be involved in challenges to gerrymandering on behalf of
members or clients in the future, and believes the federal judiciary should not
be erecting further obstacles to review.
We also point out that the Fourth Circuit's
circumvention of federal law results in "an allocation of authority" to one
federal court judge that "cannot be squared with Congress's judgment-recognized
by this Court and others-that apportionment challenges and other types of
three-judge cases are too important to be decided in the first instance by a
single judge. Nor is the difference between one and three judges merely a
formality."
Let's review some recent history to help drive home
the importance of this case and what it means for average voters across the
country.
Congress intended redistricting and other
constitutional challenges under laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be
heard under the "exceptional procedure" of a special three-judge panel. In
1976, Congress strengthened the Three-Judge Act by specifically ensuring that
redistricting cases were handled by such panels in order "to assure more weight
and greater deliberation by not leaving the fate of such litigation to a single
judge." As we say in our amicus, by instead using "motions to dismiss" to
arbitrarily limit access to three-judge courts, the Fourth Circuit has "turned
the Three-Judge Court Act's purpose and framework on its
head."
The Three-Judge Court Act allows appeals from the
district court three-judge panels to go directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing
the federal circuit courts of appeals. This statute assures a speedy resolution
to this important class of cases:
And when the clock is always counting down towards the
next election, such a delay can control whether the alleged constitutional
violation can be remedied or if it is something that a state's voters simply
must swallow.
The 2013 lawsuit by Shapiro, Benisek, and Pycha
challenged a congressional districting plan signed into law by then-Gov. Martin
O'Malley in October 2011. Critics at the time charged that the new congressional
map was specifically designed to enhance the power of select incumbents while
minimizing the voting power of minorities, rural voters and
Republicans. The Washington
Post editorialized: "The map, drafted under Mr. O'Malley's watchful eye,
mocks the idea that voting districts should be compact or easily navigable. The
eight districts respect neither jurisdictional boundaries nor communities of
interest. To protect incumbents and for partisan advantage, the map has been
sliced, diced, shuffled and shattered, making districts resemble studies in
cubism."
Your JW has been out in front of this case for some
time now. We first entered the Maryland redistricting battle on August 10, 2012,
when we represented MDPetitions.com and Delegate Neil Parrott in
the successful
lawsuit to block a move by the state's Democrat party to have
an Election Day voter referendum on the state's controversial gerrymandering
plan removed from the ballot. Three weeks later, Judicial Watch again
represented Parrott in filing a complaint
against Maryland Secretary of State John McDonough and the
State Board of Elections challenging the misleading wording of the ballot
question.
Whether or not the Supreme Court decides to review the
case (grants cert), Judicial Watch isn't walking away from the
gerrymandering abuse in Maryland. You can expect more court action to uphold
constitutional protections of citizens' voting rights from shady state
politicians who treat entire communities and voters like pieces on a game
board.
