Obstruction of justice? “Second Federal Court Grants Discovery in Clinton Email Case…”


“Citing indications of wrongdoing and bad faith, a federal judge has overruled government objections by declaring that a conservative group is entitled to more details about how Hillary Clinton’s private email account was integrated into the State Department record keeping system and why it was not searched in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.”

“U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth entered an order Tuesday agreeing that Judicial Watch can pursue legal discovery — which often includes depositions of relevant individuals — as the group pursues legal claims that State did not respond completely to a FOIA request filed in May 2014 seeking records about talking points then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice used for TV appearances discussing the deadly attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi in September 2012.”

“Lamberth is the second federal judge handling a Clinton email-related case to agree to discovery, which is unusual in FOIA litigation. Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan gave Judicial Watch the go-ahead to pursue depositions of Clinton aides in a lawsuit for records about former Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin.” Read the whole story here.

scale of justice

Judge Lamberth granted Judicial Watch’s Motion for Discovery, which was filed in opposition to the State Department’s Motion for Summary Judgement.  The court ruled:

“An understanding of the facts and circumstances surrounding Secretary Clinton’s extraordinary and exclusive use of her “clintonemail.com” account to conduct official government business, as well as other officials’ use of this account and their own personal e-mail accounts to conduct official government business is required before the Court can determine whether the search conducted here reasonably produced all responsive documents. Plaintiff 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.  Plaintiff is not relying on “speculation” or “surmise” as the State Department claims.  Plaintiff is relying on constantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials.  Whether the State Department’s actions will ultimately be determined by the Court to not be “acting in good faith” remains to be seen at this time, but plaintiff is clearly entitled to discovery and a record before this Court rules on that issue.”

“The Court must observe that the Government argues in its opposition memorandum that “the fact that State did not note that it had not searched Secretary Clinton’s e-mails when it responded to Plaintiffs FOIA request … was neither a misrepresentation nor material omission, because these documents were not in its possession and control when the original search was completed.”  The Government argues that this does not show a lack of good faith, but that is what remains to be seen, and the factual record must be developed appropriately in order for this Court to make that determination…”

Related Stories:


We have an “ipso facto” set of crimes, RICO act crimes, unassailable evidence of open treason committed by every person in the State Department with any authority, every person in the Justice Department with any authority, and every person in the executive administration, “ipso facto” meaning the evidence of the crime is open, clear, unequivocal, and in this case every single sub-crime is subordinate to outright and open treason, and yet with all this evidence already in public, established as fact, not one indictment has even been contemplated, much less served.
These are they highest crimes ever committed in the history of the Nation, they exceed those of Benedict Arnold by exponential levels, and should have already led to international charges of “violation of the just war doctrine” against the United States, along with our president, and our congress, yet they are crimes which those of the U.N. intent on seeing world government find common ground and approve of, as furtherance of their intent.
The sole reason HRC remains a candidate is because she is the sole viable candidate to win the election, and has credentials in accord with the new world order, and the end game, U.N. world government.
Anyone wonder when we ceased to be “the Republic” and became “a democracy the world has to be made safe for?” The constitution was put behind us when the States stood up for their Sovereignty, against a criminal federal government. The “Supremacy Clause” in the constitution, the tenth amendment, secured all powers not specified in the constitution to the federal government, as belonging to The Sovereign States, and the Sovereign Citizens, respectively. Every State constitution had to have the same form of “supremacy clause” to qualify as a legitimate constitution, so all powers not specifically vested by state Constitutions in the States, remain in the hands of “the Sovereign Citizens of The Sovereign States”.
All the “taken” powers currently wielded by the central, not federal government, are powers which belong to “The People”, and were taken from “The People” in addition to that authority which we lend a “legal and law abiding, limited government, governing by our “specific and limited consent”, and by this, makes the government an unindicted RICO conspirator against “The Republic”, whose law is the constitution, and which has been decidedly abrogated to the point there is no aspect of it in power over government.
We reached this point as colonies, in the 1750’s, and began having our government specifically attack us, imposing new laws, just for us, and taking rights all “British Subjects” owned as the law of the land. Are we educated sufficiently to rise? Is this a people willing to secure their Rights when they realise the government they grew up under, is entirely criminal, and without any law over it? Are we still “Americans”, or have we become slaves to our own unconstrained passions, comforts and addictions to personal desires? If we are “Americans” we shall rise and take back our rightful authority, and return our government back under the law, after we erect the long row of gallows necessary to handle the hundreds of treasonous traitors who have filled most of the executive branch, well operate both houses of congress, and have assumed the roles of “justice” in the Judiciary.
The sole reason “Judical Watch” has had to do this is because “We, The People” weren’t willing to stand and demand the same, only the small coterie of “honor bound citizens” who have supported this and similar independent investigators have been willing to invest in finding the truth, and invest in forcing a fascist government to give up its secrets as it does its best to run away.
If it isn’t time to revolt, it will never be time for this People, we will have shown we’ve lost our zeal for liberty, we are willing to be subjects, and have our rights stripped from us, summarily, and watch the elite live in crime with impunity. We will have shown we are not “sovereign citizens” at all, but mere sheep.
Semper Fidelis,
John McClain
GySgt, USMC, ret.
Vanceboro, NC

“FBI has Leverage as Hillary’s Top Aides Could Be Indicted…”

According to Judge Andrew Napolitano: Hillary Clinton’s aides did not have the required security clearances to receive certain information contained in her emails” so it is possible Clinton’s aides will be indicted in order to gain more information about Hillary’s actions.

“The FBI now has leverage. The Justice Department can indict her top aides and trade with them. What would they want? Testimony against Clinton in return for a deal with them. This is the way the government works,” he said.