Judicial Watch: Exposes Smoking Gun Hillary Clinton B******i Email
Jul 10, 2015 19:28:06 #
7/10/15 Judicial Watch Exposes Smoking Gun Hillary Clinton B******i Email
www.judicialwatch.org/

"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence." That is what President Calvin Coolidge said and that is what we continue to prove here at Judicial Watch, much to the consternation of Hillary Clinton.
We now have information about an email that directly ties Hillary Clinton, for the first time, to the now-debunked B******i talking points used by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to claim that the attack was the result of a "spontaneous protest" gone awry.
The Obama State Department fessed up to the existence of this email in a federal court filing. Showing contempt for t***sparency, the Obama State Department is refusing to divulge the contents of the email, citing a discretionary "deliberative process" privilege.
JW's legal team filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit in July 2014 seeking records related to the drafting and use of the talking points. The lawsuit sought records specifically from Hillary Clinton and her top State Department staff about the B******i talking points scandal:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-three-new-lawsuits-obama-administration-records-relating-b******i-attack/?
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 B******i, Libya.
Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the B******i attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.
The State Department then had to start producing documents and explanations about the reasons behind the withholding of any documents - which led to the July 7 State Department court filing with the astonishing news about the Hillary Clinton B******i email.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/judicial-watch-v-state-department-motion-for-summary-judgment-1242/?
The State Department supposedly requested government-related emails from former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, and senior aide Jake Sullivan. Sullivan and Mills provided documents to the State Department responsive to Judicial Watch's request on June 26.
Abedin has yet to comply with the request from the State in Judicial Watch's case. The Obama gang running the State Department and Justice Department refuse to provide any details about these new documents -- which is another scandal.
For instance, even though it is known that official State Department business was being conducted, the State Department is also refusing to disclose the email domain names of Clinton's top aides: Mills, Sullivan and Abedin.
Yet, it gets even more interesting.
One of the Sullivan documents is an email chain from September 29, 2012, which discussed the talking points, and was originally included in the 55,000 pages of documents Clinton provided to the State Department.
The initial email was sent to Clinton's secret email account and to Mills, while the follow-up was sent by Mills to Sullivan and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Strategic Communications Philippe Reines.
Remember what I said earlier about "persistence"? Stay with me; this is where the search for the t***h runs into considerable opposition.
An unnamed agency staffer initially determined at an unknown time that a "talking points" email was not relevant to Judicial Watch's request for emails about the B******i "talking points."
The Clinton email then was withheld from Judicial Watch.
Confusingly, the State Department told the court this week that "the later message [turned over by Sullivan on June 26] in the email chain, which was not sent to former Secretary Clinton, made it clear that one portion of the earlier message had, indeed, been discussing the talking points given to Ambassador Rice."
The State Department, nevertheless, is withholding the emails under the "deliberative process" exemption to FOIA disclosure.
The "t***sparent" Obama administration tells the court that the release of Hillary Clinton's B******i email chain "could reasonably be expected to chill the frank deliberations that occur when senior staff are preparing points or other draft remarks for use by senior Department officials in addressing a matter of public controversy."
As I just told one media interviewer, I interpret this to mean "we can't give out info about the Obama/Clinton B******i cover-up because doing so might scare future corrupt politicians from engaging in cover-ups."
(Recall that those now-debunked B******i talking points were used by Rice to claim that the attack was the result of a "spontaneous protest." The Obama administration also sent false talking points about the attack to Congress.)
Despite these revelations, including an acknowledgement that top Clinton aide Huma Abedin may still produce documents, the State Department brazenly requests that the court simply dismiss Judicial Watch's lawsuit, arguing that it has executed a "reasonable" search of agency records relevant to Judicial Watch's request.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/judicial-watch-v-state-department-motion-for-summary-judgment-1242/?
We have long argued that despite assertions to the contrary, the State Department has not executed a reasonable search of all documents relevant to Judicial Watch's request.
While the agency claims to have searched the 55,000 pages of records turned over by Mrs. Clinton, it has refused to recover and search the records kept by Mrs. Clinton on her "off-campus" email server.
Per the Federal Records Act and other federal records laws, the State Department has a responsibility as a federal agency to obtain these records and search them in accordance with Judicial Watch's FOIA request.
However, the State Department adamantly refuses to provide any information about Hillary Clinton's mishandling of government records and why it never disclosed to the court or Judicial Watch that it knew Mrs. Clinton had taken these records.
The State Department also refuses to take any steps to recover, preserve, and search all the emails on Hillary Clinton's secret email server, which contains emails from multiple State officials, President Obama, and foreign leaders.
But because of our persistent legal pressure, the American people now have smoking gun proof of Clinton's involvement in the false B******i "talking points" used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.
Only the pressure of our litigation exposed this extraordinary revelation and thwarted the State Department's desperate cover-up of this information.
The Obama administration wants to keep this astonishing talking points document secret.
While this may serve the interests of Clinton's political efforts, it is contrary to the rule of law and shows contempt for the people's right to know.
In the meantime, State's refusal to search the government records Hillary Clinton and her aides purloined demonstrates the need for intervention from the courts, not the dismissal of lawsuits seeking to preserve, recover, and search these hidden emails.
Our efforts here demonstrate that we can't even trust the State Department to disclose incriminating emails from Hillary Clinton it does have. It is urgent the rule of law be enforced at that rogue agency.
U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith were both k**led in the B******i terrorist attack on September 11, 2012.
Several hours after the initial assault, a second terrorist attack took place targeting a different compound located just one mile away.
Two CIA contractors, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were k**led in this second attack and 10 others were injured.
Those four dead men and unheralded injured are mocked by the obstruction we face from Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration, but those heroes are vindicated when - as happened this week - our persistence uncovers more of the t***h.
www.judicialwatch.org/

"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence." That is what President Calvin Coolidge said and that is what we continue to prove here at Judicial Watch, much to the consternation of Hillary Clinton.
We now have information about an email that directly ties Hillary Clinton, for the first time, to the now-debunked B******i talking points used by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to claim that the attack was the result of a "spontaneous protest" gone awry.
The Obama State Department fessed up to the existence of this email in a federal court filing. Showing contempt for t***sparency, the Obama State Department is refusing to divulge the contents of the email, citing a discretionary "deliberative process" privilege.
JW's legal team filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit in July 2014 seeking records related to the drafting and use of the talking points. The lawsuit sought records specifically from Hillary Clinton and her top State Department staff about the B******i talking points scandal:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-three-new-lawsuits-obama-administration-records-relating-b******i-attack/?
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 B******i, Libya.
Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the B******i attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.
The State Department then had to start producing documents and explanations about the reasons behind the withholding of any documents - which led to the July 7 State Department court filing with the astonishing news about the Hillary Clinton B******i email.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/judicial-watch-v-state-department-motion-for-summary-judgment-1242/?
The State Department supposedly requested government-related emails from former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, and senior aide Jake Sullivan. Sullivan and Mills provided documents to the State Department responsive to Judicial Watch's request on June 26.
Abedin has yet to comply with the request from the State in Judicial Watch's case. The Obama gang running the State Department and Justice Department refuse to provide any details about these new documents -- which is another scandal.
For instance, even though it is known that official State Department business was being conducted, the State Department is also refusing to disclose the email domain names of Clinton's top aides: Mills, Sullivan and Abedin.
Yet, it gets even more interesting.
One of the Sullivan documents is an email chain from September 29, 2012, which discussed the talking points, and was originally included in the 55,000 pages of documents Clinton provided to the State Department.
The initial email was sent to Clinton's secret email account and to Mills, while the follow-up was sent by Mills to Sullivan and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Strategic Communications Philippe Reines.
Remember what I said earlier about "persistence"? Stay with me; this is where the search for the t***h runs into considerable opposition.
An unnamed agency staffer initially determined at an unknown time that a "talking points" email was not relevant to Judicial Watch's request for emails about the B******i "talking points."
The Clinton email then was withheld from Judicial Watch.
Confusingly, the State Department told the court this week that "the later message [turned over by Sullivan on June 26] in the email chain, which was not sent to former Secretary Clinton, made it clear that one portion of the earlier message had, indeed, been discussing the talking points given to Ambassador Rice."
The State Department, nevertheless, is withholding the emails under the "deliberative process" exemption to FOIA disclosure.
The "t***sparent" Obama administration tells the court that the release of Hillary Clinton's B******i email chain "could reasonably be expected to chill the frank deliberations that occur when senior staff are preparing points or other draft remarks for use by senior Department officials in addressing a matter of public controversy."
As I just told one media interviewer, I interpret this to mean "we can't give out info about the Obama/Clinton B******i cover-up because doing so might scare future corrupt politicians from engaging in cover-ups."
(Recall that those now-debunked B******i talking points were used by Rice to claim that the attack was the result of a "spontaneous protest." The Obama administration also sent false talking points about the attack to Congress.)
Despite these revelations, including an acknowledgement that top Clinton aide Huma Abedin may still produce documents, the State Department brazenly requests that the court simply dismiss Judicial Watch's lawsuit, arguing that it has executed a "reasonable" search of agency records relevant to Judicial Watch's request.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/judicial-watch-v-state-department-motion-for-summary-judgment-1242/?
We have long argued that despite assertions to the contrary, the State Department has not executed a reasonable search of all documents relevant to Judicial Watch's request.
While the agency claims to have searched the 55,000 pages of records turned over by Mrs. Clinton, it has refused to recover and search the records kept by Mrs. Clinton on her "off-campus" email server.
Per the Federal Records Act and other federal records laws, the State Department has a responsibility as a federal agency to obtain these records and search them in accordance with Judicial Watch's FOIA request.
However, the State Department adamantly refuses to provide any information about Hillary Clinton's mishandling of government records and why it never disclosed to the court or Judicial Watch that it knew Mrs. Clinton had taken these records.
The State Department also refuses to take any steps to recover, preserve, and search all the emails on Hillary Clinton's secret email server, which contains emails from multiple State officials, President Obama, and foreign leaders.
But because of our persistent legal pressure, the American people now have smoking gun proof of Clinton's involvement in the false B******i "talking points" used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.
Only the pressure of our litigation exposed this extraordinary revelation and thwarted the State Department's desperate cover-up of this information.
The Obama administration wants to keep this astonishing talking points document secret.
While this may serve the interests of Clinton's political efforts, it is contrary to the rule of law and shows contempt for the people's right to know.
In the meantime, State's refusal to search the government records Hillary Clinton and her aides purloined demonstrates the need for intervention from the courts, not the dismissal of lawsuits seeking to preserve, recover, and search these hidden emails.
Our efforts here demonstrate that we can't even trust the State Department to disclose incriminating emails from Hillary Clinton it does have. It is urgent the rule of law be enforced at that rogue agency.
U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith were both k**led in the B******i terrorist attack on September 11, 2012.
Several hours after the initial assault, a second terrorist attack took place targeting a different compound located just one mile away.
Two CIA contractors, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were k**led in this second attack and 10 others were injured.
Those four dead men and unheralded injured are mocked by the obstruction we face from Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration, but those heroes are vindicated when - as happened this week - our persistence uncovers more of the t***h.
Jul 10, 2015 23:06:39 #
Instead Of Wasting Time With Subpoenas
Maybe Trey Should Sue With FOIA
Maybe Trey Should Sue With FOIA
Jul 10, 2015 23:43:47 #
Judicial Watch has done all that and more.
It's what the Clintons and Obama the Democrats are good at stonewalling and manipulating the legal system against law suites. Delay, delay and delay some more.
Thats what all the obstruction of Justice injunctions are all about with Holder-Oboma on the Fast and Furious scandal. Then Holder uses Executive privilege crap.
Since Hillary and Bill are using the same technique thats Judicial Watch filed a law suite and are going to Federal Court under the RICO racketeering charges.
The subpoenas by law tells the plaintiffs to securely maintain the documents.
Hillary has admitted that the private server has been deleted and said that it has been given to the State Department. It's all finger pointing in the other direction.
This is all a sham, it's all smoke and mirrors. They may get away with the lost emails. But they will not getaway with destruction of evidence, FIOA and obstruction of justice. The Rico statutes have a mandatory one year prison charge.
Can a Hillary Clinton if she wins the presidency, and is convicted of these charges ? can she still serve ?
That's why the FBI and law enforcement goes into a business or a homeowner and takes everything. Computers, papers cd's DVD's
In this case It was the Clintons with secret service detachments, above the law, and no judge or law enforcement is going to pass that boundary.
That's why this Clinton criminal RICO racketeering case is so important.
The clinton's are not above the law.
RICO, RICO, RICO, RICO, RICO, RICO, RICO, RICO, RICO, RICO.
It's what the Clintons and Obama the Democrats are good at stonewalling and manipulating the legal system against law suites. Delay, delay and delay some more.
Thats what all the obstruction of Justice injunctions are all about with Holder-Oboma on the Fast and Furious scandal. Then Holder uses Executive privilege crap.
Since Hillary and Bill are using the same technique thats Judicial Watch filed a law suite and are going to Federal Court under the RICO racketeering charges.
The subpoenas by law tells the plaintiffs to securely maintain the documents.
Hillary has admitted that the private server has been deleted and said that it has been given to the State Department. It's all finger pointing in the other direction.
This is all a sham, it's all smoke and mirrors. They may get away with the lost emails. But they will not getaway with destruction of evidence, FIOA and obstruction of justice. The Rico statutes have a mandatory one year prison charge.
Can a Hillary Clinton if she wins the presidency, and is convicted of these charges ? can she still serve ?
That's why the FBI and law enforcement goes into a business or a homeowner and takes everything. Computers, papers cd's DVD's
In this case It was the Clintons with secret service detachments, above the law, and no judge or law enforcement is going to pass that boundary.
That's why this Clinton criminal RICO racketeering case is so important.
The clinton's are not above the law.
RICO, RICO, RICO, RICO, RICO, RICO, RICO, RICO, RICO, RICO.
Jul 10, 2015 23:49:33 #
Quote:
Using No-Knock 'John Doe' WarrantsThat's why the FBI and law enforcement goes into a business or a homeowner and takes everything. Computers, papers cd's DVD's
That Come With A Gag Order On The Defendant !!
Jul 10, 2015 23:58:17 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.