JW Forces Release of Clinton
State Department Conflict of
Interest Docs
Documents Detail Road Map of over 200 Conflict-of-Interest Rulings that led to $48 Million in Income for Clinton Entities
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/clinton-conflict-of-interest/
(Washington, DC)—Judicial Watch announced today the release of more than 200 conflict-of-interest reviews by State Department ethics advisers of proposed Bill Clinton speaking and consulting engagements during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. The documents were obtained as result of a federal court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department on May 28, 2013 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00772)). The lawsuit is ongoing.
June 2011 documents show that the State Department approved a consulting arrangement with a company, Teneo Strategy, led by controversial Clinton Foundation adviser Doug Band. The Clintons ended the deal after only eight months, as criticism mounted over Teneo’s ties to the failed investment firm, MF Global.
Mr. Clinton’s office proposed 215 speeches around the globe. And 215 times, the State Department stated that it had “no objection.”
Mr. Clinton’s speeches included appearances in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Central America, Europe, Turkey, Thailand, Taiwan, India and the Cayman Islands. Sponsors of the speeches included some of the world’s largest financial institutions—Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, American Express and others—as well as major players in technology, energy, health care and media. Other speech sponsors included a car dealership, casino groups, hotel operators, retailers, real estate brokers, a Panamanian air cargo company and a sushi restaurant.
“These documents are a bombshell and show how the Clintons turned the State Department into a racket to line their own pockets,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “How the Obama State Department waived hundreds of ethical conflicts that allowed the Clintons and their businesses to accept money from foreign entities and corporations seeking influence boggles the mind. That former President Clinton trotted the globe collecting huge speaking fees while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy is an outrage. No wonder it took a court order to get these documents. One can’t imagine what foreign policy issues were mishandled as top State Department officials spent so much time facilitating the Clinton money machine.”
Under established protocols of the State Department, and supplemented by a December 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between the Clinton Foundation and Obama Presidential Transition Team, a designated ethics official from the State Department’s legal office was assigned to review any “potential or actual conflict of interest” for Mrs. Clinton while she served as secretary of state. Copies of all decisions were sent to a top adviser to Secretary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, who served as counselor and chief of staff at the Department of State.
The Washington Examiner published a report today on the documents by Judicial Watch Chief Investigative Reporter Micah Morrison and Examiner Senior Watchdog Reporter Luke Rosiak. Morrison and Rosiak note that Mr. Clinton “earned $48 million while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy, raising questions about whether the Clintons fulfilled ethics agreements related to the Clinton Foundation during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.”
According to the State Department documents:
- Mr. Clinton spoke before a UBS Wealth Management audience in Chicago in April, 2012. The State Department document notes that attendees would be “approximately 300-400 ultra-high net worth clients, prospective clients, and UBS Financial Advisers.”
- Mr. Clinton spoke to an event hosted by Wells Fargo in San Francisco in October, 2011. The State Department document notes that the event is “being held for Wells Fargo Private Bank and Wells Fargo Family Wealth Group clients, which are clients that have at least $5 million and $50 million in assets respectively.”
- At a “mutually agreeable date” in April 2010, Mr. Clinton was due to speak at Mohegan Sun Casino in Connecticut. “This would be a private speech of up to 350 friends and patrons on Mohegan Sun,” the State Department document noted. “The event will not be open to the public. The event will not be publicly advertised.”
- For a speech in Moscow in June 2010 sponsored by the investment bank Renaissance Capital, Mr. Clinton would address the theme of “Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States: Going Global.” The document notes that “Renaissance Capital is an investment bank focused on the emerging markets of Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and sub-Saharan Africa.”
- At the Ritz Carlton in Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, Mr. Clinton spoke at a March 2011 ticketed event targeting “the business community in Grand Cayman.”
The potential for conflicts of interest between Hillary Clinton’s role as Secretary of State and Bill Clinton’s international ventures grew increasingly controversial in late 2008 when the former president released a list of donors to his library and foundation in what he termed “a deal between” Obama “and Hillary.” According to an AP wire story, “Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to $25 million to the foundation. Other government donors include Norway, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman …” CNN at the time warned that Clinton’s “complicated global business interests could present future conflicts of interest that result in unneeded headaches for the incoming commander-in-chief.”
The controversy deepened further when it was revealed that among those vetting Mrs. Clinton for the job of Secretary of State was Bill Clinton’s former deputy White House counsel Cheryl Mills, a longtime Clinton family confidant, who, the Washington Postwrote in 1999 “endeared herself to the Clintons with her never-back-down, share-nothing, don’t-give-an-inch approach …” After clearing Mrs. Clinton for the DOS job, Mills was named the incoming Secretary’s Chief of Staff. Ms. Mills was a featured speaker at Bill Clinton’s 2012 Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting.
In an April 28, 2008, ruling relating to Ms. Mills conduct as a White House official in responding to concerns about lost White House email records, Judge Royce C. Lamberth called Cheryl 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.” Ms. Mills is currently on the Board of Directors of BlackRock, a leading investment firm. BlackRock is run by Larry Fink who reportedly wanted to be Treasury Secretary for Barack Obama and now, according to another report, is “angling for the job” in a Hillary Clinton administration.
###
Judical Watch Released FBI Doc
FBI Concerned About Preventing Damage from Leakers
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 29 pages of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) documents related to the June 27, 2016, tarmac meeting between former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. The documents show that FBI officials were more concerned about leaks than the actual meeting itself. The new documents also show that then-FBI Director Comey seemed to learn of the meeting from news reports.
The new documents were obtained by Judicial Watch in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02046)) filed after the Justice Department failed to comply with a July 7, 2016, FOIA request seeking:
- All FD-302 forms prepared pursuant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure.
- All records of communications between any agent, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding, concerning, or related to the aforementioned investigation. This request includes, but is not limited to, any related communications with any official, employee, or representative of the Department of Justice, the Executive Office of the President, the Democratic National Committee, and/or the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.
- All records related to the meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016.
The new FBI documents show FBI officials were concerned about a leak that Bill Clinton delayed his aircraft taking off in order to “maneuver” a meeting with the attorney general. The resulting story in the Observer is seemingly confirmed and causes a flurry of emails about the source of the article. FBI official(s) write “we need to find that guy” and that the Phoenix FBI office was contacted “in an attempt to stem any further damage.” Another FBI official, working on AG Lynch’s security detail, suggests instituting non-disclosure agreements. The names of the emails authors are redacted. There are no documents showing concern about the meeting itself.
The FBI originally informed Judicial Watch they could not locate any records related to the tarmac meeting. However, in a related FOIA lawsuit, the Justice Department located emails in which Justice Department officials communicated with the FBI and wrote that they had communicated with the FBI. As a result, by letter dated August 10, 2017, from the FBI stated, “Upon further review, we subsequently determined potentially responsive documents may exist. As a result, your [FOIA] request has been reopened…”
On June 27, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with former President Bill Clinton on board a parked plane at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona. The meeting occurred during the then-ongoing investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s email server, and only a few days before she was interviewed the Justice Department and FBI. (Judicial Watch filed a request on June 30 that the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General investigate that meeting.)
The tarmac meeting also came just days before former FBI Director James Comey held the July 5, 2016, press conference in which he announced that no charges would be filed against Mrs. Clinton. In his subsequent, May 3, 2017, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey said the Lynch-Clinton tarmac meeting was the “capper” among “a number of things” that had caused him to determine that Department of Justice leadership “could not credibly complete the investigation and decline prosecution without grievous damage to the American people’s confidence in the justice system.”
“These new FBI documents show the FBI was more concerned about a whistleblower who told the truth about the infamous Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting than the scandalous meeting itself,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The documents show the FBI worked to make sure no more details of the meeting would be revealed to the American people. No wonder the FBI didn’t turn these documents over until Judicial Watch caught the agency red-handed hiding them. These new documents confirm the urgent need to reopen the Clinton email scandal and criminally investigate the resulting Obama FBI/DOJ sham investigation.”
###
Judicial Watch:
At Least 18 Classified
Emails Found on
Weiner’s Laptop
JANUARY 04, 2018
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-least-18-classified-emails-found-weiners-laptop/?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=press%20release
State Department Releases 147 New Huma Abedin Work-Related Emails, 806 Total Emails
State Department Releases 147 New Huma Abedin Work-Related Emails, 806 Total Emails
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch revealed today that there are at least 18 classified emails in the 798 documents recently produced by the State Department from the FBI’s investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s elicit email system. The emails were found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, who is the estranged husband of former Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
Abedin was Clinton’s deputy chief of staff. Weiner is a disgraced former congressman and New York mayoral candidate who pleaded guilty to transferring obscene material to a minor. Abedin kept a non-State.gov email account on Hillary Clinton’s notorious email server that she used repeatedly for government business.
There are five new classified emails among 147 new Abedin work-related documents released by the State Department on Friday, December 29, 2017.
Thirteen emails containing classified information were also found on the Weiner laptop computer that had already been released to the public. This classified material includes discussions about Saudi Arabia, The Hague, Egypt, South Africa, Zimbabwe, the identity of a CIA official, Malawi, the war in Syria, Lebanon, Hamas, and the PLO.
On two occasions, classified material was sent by Abedin on her clintonemail.com account to Weiner’s laptop (sent to “Anthony Campaign”) on November 25, 2010. The email discusses an upcoming call with Prince Saud of “expected WikiLeaks leaks.” Abedin sent classified information the following day to Weiner’s laptop concerning a call that “Jeff” (presumably then- US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman) had with United Arab Emirates Prime Minister Abdullah bin Zayed.
The Weiner laptop also contains classified material from Abedin’s Blackberry. A July 9, 2011, email contained classified information regarding a then-upcoming call between Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. On November 25, 2011, classified information was sent regarding Feltman’s notes on the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs impression of the Hamas- Palestine Liberation Organization talks. On May 4, 2012, additional classified material from the BlackBerry backup was sent.
“Judicial Watch’s work in federal court holding the government accountable to the rule of law has forced the State Department to finally release these documents,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The classified information on Weiner’s laptop is part of a pattern of mishandling national security material by Clinton and her aides. The Weiner emails emphasize the need for the Justice Department to conduct a fresh, serious investigation of Hillary Clinton’s and Huma Abedin’s obvious violations of law. That’s why we are pleased to learn that the Justice Department has reportedly at least begun asking questions about the Clinton classified material. Judicial Watch has no doubt that the Justice Department is taking these steps due to the ongoing disclosures of Clinton email misconduct from Judicial Watch’s lawsuits.”
In September 2017 Judicial Watch made public Abedin’s use of the unsecure Clinton email system for the transmission of sensitive passwords.
On August 18, 2009, confidential assistant Monica Hanley provided Abedin with laptop and fob (a physical device that provides a login code) logins and passwords to log onto a laptop, as well as a secure State Department website at https://one.state.gov. Included were a PIN number and instructions on how to access her email from the secure State Department website. Abedin forwarded this information to her unsecure account.
On January 2, President Trump tweeted: “Crooked Hillary Clinton’s top aid, Huma Abedin, has been accused of disregarding basic security protocols. She put Classified Passwords into the hands of foreign agents. Remember sailors’ pictures on submarine? Jail! Deep State Justice Dept must finally act? Also on Comey & others.”
The documents produced on December 12, 2017, are part of a court ordered production of documents. A State Department court filing states: “The State Department “identified approximately 2,800 work-related documents among the documents provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”
The documents were produced in a May 5, 2015, lawsuit Judicial Watch filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)). Judicial Watch sued after the State Department failed to respond to a March 18, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking: “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 previously released 20 productions of documents in this case that show examples of mishandling of classified information and instances of pay to play between the Clinton State Department and the Clinton Foundation. Also, at least 627 emails were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over, and further contradict a statement by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails had been turned over to department.
To see examples of previously released documents containing classified and sensitive information sent through the Clinton non-government server, click here.
###
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch ist eine konservative Stiftung in Washington, D.C., die es sich nach eigenen Angaben zur Aufgabe gemacht hat, „hohe ethische und moralische Standards im öffentlichen Leben einzufordern und sicherzustellen, dass Beamte aus Politik und Rechtspflege nicht die Macht missbrauchen, die ihnen vom amerikanischen Volk anvertraut wurde“. Judicial Watch nutzt das Informationsfreiheitsgesetz und andere Mittel, um Fehlverhalten von Regierungsbeamten zu untersuchen.[1]
Geschichte
Die Organisation wurde 1994 von Larry Klayman, einem konservativen Anwalt, gegründet; dieser führte dutzende Prozesse gegen die Regierung von Bill Clinton. 2003 verließ Klayman die Stiftung, um sich für einen Sitz im US-Senat zu bewerben. 2006 verklagte er die Stiftung unter anderem wegen seiner Abfindung.[2] 2009 befand ein Gericht, dass Klayman gegen die Vereinbarungen zur Abfindung verstoßen habe.[3]
Finanzierung
Größter Spender ist die Stiftung des konservativen Unternehmers Richard Mellon Scaife.[4]
Judicial Watch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (October 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|
 | |
| Motto | Because no one is above the law! |
|---|---|
| Formation | July 29, 1994; 23 years ago |
| Type | 501(c)3 |
| Purpose | Government Watchdog |
| Headquarters | 425 Third Street, SW Washington, D.C., U.S. 20024 |
| Location |
|
President
| Tom Fitton |
| Website | www |
Judicial Watch is an American conservative non-partisan[1] watchdog group that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate alleged misconduct by government officials.[2]
Founded in 1994, it has primarily investigated Democrats, in particular the Clinton administration, Obama administration and Hillary Clinton. It has also filed lawsuits against government climate scientists; Judicial Watch has described climate science as "fraud science". The group has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, which have been picked up by right-wing news outlets. Most of its lawsuits have been dismissed.[2]
History[edit]
Judicial Watch was founded in 1994 by attorney and right-wing activist Larry Klayman, who hired the current president Tom Fitton before leaving in 2003.[2] Klayman has since accused Fitton of claiming credit for the early successes of Judicial Watch.[3]
Clinton Administration[edit]
Judicial Watch came to public attention after filing 18 lawsuits against the administration of Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton and other figures in the Clinton administration. An early lawsuit was filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of the Western Center for Journalism (WCJ) in 1998. The lawsuit alleged a retaliatory audit by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The WCJ was investigating the death of Clinton deputy White House counsel Vince Foster at the time.[4]
The organization received considerable financial support from prominent Clinton critics, including $7.74 million from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.[5]This led Clinton administration officials to accuse Judicial Watch of "abusing the judicial system for partisan ends".[6]
Bush Administration[edit]
In July 2003 Judicial Watch joined the environmental organization Sierra Club in suing the George W. Bush administration for access to minutes of Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force.[7] Judicial Watch was involved in a similar legal dispute with Vice President Dick Cheney in 2002 when the group filed a shareholder lawsuit against Halliburton. The lawsuit, which accused Halliburton of accounting fraud, alleged that "when Mr. Cheney was chief executive of Halliburton, he and other directors inflated revenue reports, boosting Halliburton's share price."[8] As reported by the Wall Street Journal the court filing claims the oil-field-services concern overstated revenue by a total of $445 million from 1999 through the end of 2001.[9]
In 2006, Judicial Watch sued the Secret Service to force the release of logs detailing convicted former lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits to the White House. This resulted in the release of a number of documents.[10]
Major investigations and lawsuits[edit]
According to The Washington Post, "Judicial Watch’s main targets have been Democrats, particularly the Clintons and the administration of President Obama."[11]
Commerce Department trade mission scandal[edit]
Main article: Commerce Department trade mission controversy
In 1995, Judicial Watch, Inc. filed an action in the District Court under the FOIA, seeking information from the Department of Commerce (DOC) regarding DOC's selection of participants for foreign trade missions. In May 1995, following a search in response to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests, DOC produced approximately 28,000 pages of nonexempt information and withheld about 1,000 documents as exempt. Disputes arose between the parties over the adequacy of DOC's search, and Judicial Watch charged that some DOC officials had destroyed or removed responsive documents. In December 1998, following discovery, the District Court granted partial summary judgment to Judicial Watch and ordered DOC to perform a new search.[12] During the investigation, Nolanda B. Hill, a business partner of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown testified that Brown had told her that first lady Hillary Clinton was the driving force behind the efforts to raise as much money as possible for President Clinton's reelection and the DNC. And further that, "...companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department." [13]
Vince Foster conspiracy[edit]
Judicial Watch helped stir the conspiracy theory that Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintons.[14]
White House visitor logs[edit]
August 10, 2009 Judicial Watch sent a FOIA request to the US Secret Service asking that official White House visitor logs be made public.[15] In August 2011, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ordered the agency to process the group's data request.[16] The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia partially affirmed the decision, holding that the Secret Service did not have to produce records of visitors to the president's office.[16]
False Nancy Pelosi claims[edit]
In 2010, Judicial Watch made inaccurate claims about air travel spending by Nancy Pelosi's congressional delegation; Judicial Watch's claims were picked up by the conservative conspiracy site WorldNetDaily.[17] Judicial Watch made false claims about Pelosi's air travel in 2008 too.[18][19]
Operation Neptune Spear[edit]
Osama bin Laden, leader of the terror group al-Qaeda, was killed in Pakistan on May 1, 2011 in a joint operation by the United States Navy SEALs and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This operation was code-named Operation Neptune Spear.[20] On May 2, 2011 Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request with the Department of Defense and the CIA for photographs and videos of bin Laden taken during or after the operation.[21]
The Federal Government failed to produce any records within the required 20-day time period. In order to force compliance, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the DOD and CIA on June 8, 2011. On January 31, 2014, after legal wrangling, the Pentagon was forced to release Operation Neptune Spear documents to Judicial Watch. One obtained email had the subject line OPSEC Guidance / Neptune Spear and is proof that days after the original FOIA request U.S. Special Operations Commander, Admiral William McRaven ordered his subordinates to immediately destroy any Osama bin Laden photos they may have had.[22]
Kennedy assassination records[edit]
Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to obtain the records from Robert F. Kennedy's tenure as the U.S. Attorney General. The records covered sensitive intelligence operations conducted during the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson administrations.[23]
Hillary Clinton email lawsuits[edit]
Judicial Watch filed a number of lawsuits to obtain Hillary Clinton's correspondence from her private email account during her time as Secretary of State. proceeded to file ten FOIA lawsuits against the State Department seeking the records that she had turned over to them.[24] After this initial set of lawsuits the U.S. District Court agreed to re-open two Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuits that had been closed a year prior, a move considered unprecedented by the organization. They would also proceed to file further FOIA lawsuits seeking information on former Secretary Clinton's use of an iPhone and iPad for official business, the metadata of the emails turned over to the State Department, the nature of Bryan Pagliano's hiring to manage Clinton's private server, and whether Secretary Clinton had received mandatory training on handling classified information. Judicial Watch has currently filed twenty FOIA lawsuits involving the former Secretary's emails.[25][26]
On February 8, 2015 the FBI confirmed it was investigating Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State. The Bureau was forced to formally acknowledge the investigation due to an ongoing FOIA lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch. The FBI had previously declined to confirm or deny the existence of the Clinton probe.[27][28]
A federal judge ruled on February 23, 2016 that top aides to Hillary Clinton could be questioned under oath by Judicial Watch about her use of a private email server as secretary of state. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch's motion for discovery into whether the State Department and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton deliberately thwarted the Freedom of Information Act by using a private email server to obscure her communications from public records requests.[29]
In a separate case, on March 29, 2016 U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted Judicial Watch limited discovery, citing potential bad faith by the government in responding to requests for documents related to talking points provided to Susan Rice in response to the Benghazi attack.[30]
False claims about George Zimmermann protests[edit]
In 2013, Judicial Watch claimed that the Department of Justice under the Obama administration organized protests against George Zimmermann after the Trayvon Martin shooting; PolitiFact said that this "mostly false" and that while Justice Department employees were sent to Florida, they "were sent with the idea of keeping the situation peaceful and calm, not to instigate or condone protests or violence."[31]
IRS targeting scandal[edit]
On May 10, 2013 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official Lois Lerner admitted to inappropriately targeting Tea Party affiliated entities for extra scrutiny between 2010 and 2012,[32] in addition to other political groups.[33][34] Judicial Watch filed a number of FOIA requests and lawsuits to obtain records to the controversy.[35][36]
ISIS in Mexico scares[edit]
In 2014 and 2015, Judicial Watch falsely claimed that ISIS had set up camp in Mexico; Judicial Watch's claims were picked up by several right-wing news outlets.[37][38][39][14][40]
Collaboration with Steve Bannon and Breitbart News[edit]
In 2013, Judicial Watch collaborated with Steve Bannon, executive chairman of the alt-right website Breitbart, on the film "District of Corruption", which critiqued the Obama administration.[41] Judicial Watch paid Bannon's group Victory Film Project $382,143 for the film.[41] Politico described the film as an "infomercial for the work of Judicial Watch".[42]
Judicial Watch has for a number of years advertised on Breitbart News, the alt-right website run by Steve Bannon.[43] Judicial Watch's president Tom Fitton said "Liberal activists want to destroy Breitbart, but we won’t be cowed".[43]
Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theory[edit]
In 2017, Judicial Watch requested documents related to the death of DNC staffer Seth Rich; Seth Rich's death lead to debunked rightwing conspiracy theories which alleged that Hillary Clinton or the Democratic Party had him killed.[44]
False voter fraud claims[edit]
In August 2017, Judicial Watch falsely alleged that 11 California counties had more registered voters than their estimated populations of citizens eligible to vote; the claims were picked up by outlets such as Breitbart News and the Russian government's propaganda network RT (Russia Today).[45] Judicial Watch counted "inactive voters" in its tally, which is a list of people that California maintains of people who have been removed from active rolls after a mail ballot, voter guide or other official document was returned as undeliverable; California keeps such a list as a fail-safe in case eligible voters have been erroneously categorized as "inactive".[45] California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said Judicial Watch's claims were "baseless", and "bad math and dubious methodology".[45][46] When the Los Angeles Times asked Judicial Watch to share its analysis of voter registration in California, Judicial Watch declined.[46] Judicial Watch's voter fraud claims came in the wake of President Donald Trump's false claims of extensive voter fraud in California during the 2016 presidential election.[46]
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton has made alarmist claims about voter fraud, saying "We have all heard about voter fraud and the attempts by liberal media organs like the New York Times and Ivory Tower academics to dismiss it as a nonexistent problem. But is it real, widespread, and substantial to the point that it can decide elections."[47]
False claims about Trump Nazi billboard[edit]
In 2017, Judicial Watch falsely claimed that taxpayer money went into a billboard which depicted President Donald Trump as a Nazi; FactCheck.org noted that this was false.[48]
Lawsuits against climate scientists[edit]
Judicial Watch, which has claimed that climate science is "fraud science", has filed lawsuits seeking to force the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to release the correspondence of climate scientists who published a 2015 study in the journal Science.[49][50] The study had debunked one of the common claims made by those who reject the scientific consensus on climate change, namely that there existed global warming "hiatus" between 1998-2012.[49] The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF), American Meteorological Society and Union of Concerned Scientists condemned Judicial Watch, saying that the disclosure of private communications between scientists "would harm (or halt altogether) government scientists' ability to collaborate with colleagues, damage the government's ability to recruit or retain top scientists, and deter critically important research into politically charged fields like climate change".[49] The Judicial Watch lawsuit was inspired by Rep. Lamar Smith, a climate change denier, who had accused the authors of the study of "alter[ing] data" to "get the politically correct results they want."[49]Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said "There has been scandal after scandal involving climate data and we are skeptical of government agencies that won’t tell people what they are up to... I’m sure scientists are concerned that funding for dubious research will be cut, but the truth will win out in the end."[51]
Positions[edit]
The bulk of Judicial Watch's cases involve transparency in government and government integrity, and the organization has taken positions on a wide range of issues.[52] Judicial Watch is conservative and avows a belief in limited government, individual liberty, the free market, traditional values, and a strong national defense. However, Judicial Watch recognizes that corruption is nonpartisan and nonideological.[53]
According to David Corn, Judicial Watch uses litigation as its primary tool.[54]
In 2015 it falsely said on its website that ISIS was operating a camp in Mexico a few miles from El Paso, Texas.[55]
Larry Klayman lawsuits[edit]
In September 2003, Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman left the organization to run for the United States Senate from Florida.[56] In 2006 Klayman sued Judicial Watch and its president Tom Fitton. The lawsuit charged Fitton with misrepresentation of his academic and professional credentials upon hiring, and upon assuming his position engaged in false and misleading fund raising, misuse of donor money, failure to appoint an attorney as Chairman, failure to comply with a promised severance package to Klayman, and other actions which damaged Judicial Watch, the donors and Klayman.[57][58] The majority of Klayman's claims have been dismissed, including all claims against Fitton and the other officers of the organization.[59] The only claims by Klayman that remain pending before the Court consist of allegations that Judicial Watch breached a severance agreement with Klayman.[60]
Judicial Watch has asserted several claims against Klayman.[61] On October 14, 2009, the Court found that Klayman breached the severance agreement by failing to pay Judicial Watch, $69,358.48 in un-reimbursed personal expenses.[62] The remainder of Judicial Watch's claims against Klayman, which include additional claims of breaches of the severance agreement and trademark infringement, remain pending before the Court as of October 5, 2010.[63]
In 2012, a Judicial Watch employee falsely told Orly Taitz that Klayman had been convicted of not paying child support (Klayman had been indicted, but the charges were later dismissed). Taitz then published the employee's comment on her website. Klayman sued Judicial Watch for defamation, and in 2014, a federal jury awarded Klayman $156,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages.[64]
In 2014, Klayman agreed to be publicly censured by the D.C. Bar. Klayman represented three individuals who had sued Judicial Watch, his former employer and client, but he failed to obtain Judicial Watch's consent to waive his conflict of interest. Klayman maintained that the bar "recognized there was no evidence of dishonesty or personal gain".[65] In June 2017, however, the discipline committee recommended that Klayman be suspended from practicing law for 90 days.[66][67]
In July 2017, Freedom Watch (Klayman's successor organization to Judicial Watch) sued Judicial Watch and the American Conservative Union (ACU), alleging they violated the Sherman Act by colluding to prevent Freedom Watch from participating at the ACU's Conservative Political Action Conference.[68]
Peter Paul lawsuit[edit]
In 2007 former donor Peter F. Paul sued Judicial Watch, accusing it of using his name to raise more than $15 million to support his lawsuit against Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton while doing little to advance his case.[69][70][71] All of Paul's claims have been dismissed.[72]
Funding[edit]
Judicial Watch has an annual budget of about $35 million.[2] Between 1997 and 2002 Judicial Watch received $7,069,500 in 19 grants from a handful of foundations. The bulk of this funding came from three foundations: the Sarah Scaife Foundation, a funder of politically conservative causes;[73] The Carthage Foundation, which merged into the Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2014;[74] and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.,[citation needed] another conservative foundation which folded in 2005.[75] As of 2010, the Sarah Scaife Foundation was the group's largest contributor.[76]
See also[edit]
###
FBI launches new Clinton Foundation investigation
The Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of State, law enforcement officials and a witness tells The Hill.
FBI agents from Little Rock, Ark., where the foundation was started, have taken the lead in the investigation and have interviewed at least one witness in the last month, and law enforcement officials said additional activities are expected in the coming weeks.
The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the probe is examining whether the Clintons promised or performed any policy favors in return for largesse to their charitable efforts or whether donors made commitments of donations in hopes of securing government outcomes.
One witness recently interviewed by the FBI described the session to The Hill as “extremely professional and unquestionably thorough” and focused on questions about whether donors to Clinton charitable efforts received any favorable treatment from the Obama administration on a policy decision previously highlighted in media reports.
The witness discussed his interview solely on the grounds of anonymity. He said the agents were from Little Rock and their questions focused on government decisions and discussions of donations to Clinton entities during the time Hillary Clinton led President Obama's State Department.
The FBI office in Little Rock referred a reporter Thursday to Washington headquarters, where officials declined any official comment.
Clinton's chief spokesman, Nick Merrill, on Friday morning excoriated the FBI for re-opening the case, calling the probe "disgraceful" and suggesting it was nothing more than a political distraction from President Trump's Russia controversies.
"Let’s call this what it is: a sham," Merrill said. "This is a philanthropy that does life-changing work, which Republicans have tried to turn into a political football. It began with a now long-debunked project spearheaded by Steve Bannon during the presidential campaign. It continues with Jeff Sessions doing Trump’s bidding by heeding his calls to meddle with a department that is supposed to function independently."
Foundation spokesman Craig Minassian took a more muted response, saying the new probe wouldn't distract the charity from its daily work.
“Time after time, the Clinton Foundation has been subjected to politically motivated allegations, and time after time these allegations have been proven false. None of this has made us waver in our mission to help people," Minassian said. "The Clinton Foundation has demonstrably improved the lives of millions of people across America and around the world while earning top ratings from charity watchdog groups in the process."
The Wall Street Journal reported late last year that several FBI field offices, including the one in Little Rock, had been collecting information on the Clinton Foundation for more than a year. The report also said there had been pushback to the FBI from the Justice Department.
A renewed law enforcement focus follows a promise to Congress late last year from top Trump Justice Department officials that law enforcement would revisit some of the investigations and legal issues closed during the Obama years that conservatives felt were given short shrift. It also follows months of relentless criticism on Twitter from President Trump, who has repeatedly questioned why no criminal charges were ever filed against the “crooked” Clintons and their fundraising machine.
For years, news media from The New York Times to The Daily Caller have reported countless stories on donations to the Clinton Foundation or speech fees that closely fell around the time of favorable decisions by Clinton's State Department. Conservative author Peter Schweizer chronicled the most famous of episodes in his book "Clinton Cash" that gave ammunition to conservatives, including Trump, to beat the drum for a renewed investigation.
Several GOP members of Congress have recently urged Attorney General Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel to look at the myriad issues surrounding the Clintons. Justice officials sent a letter to Congress in November suggesting some of those issues were being re-examined, but Sessions later testified the appointment of a special prosecutor required a high legal bar that had not yet been met.
Officials also said the Justice Department was re-examining whether there are any unresolved issues from the closed case into Clinton's transmission of classified information through her personal email server. Former FBI Director James Comey in 2016 concluded Clinton was “extremely careless” in handling that classified information and that there was some evidence of legal violations, but he declined to recommend charges on the grounds that he could not prove Clinton and her top aides intended to break the law.
His decision was roundly criticized by Republicans, and recent revelations that his statement was watered down by edits and that he made the decision before all witness interviews were finished have led to renewed criticism.
A senior law enforcement official said the Justice Department was exploring whether any issues from that probe should be re-opened but cautioned the effort was not at the stage of a full investigation.
One challenge for any Clinton-era investigation is that the statute of limitations on most federal felonies is five years, and Clinton left office in early 2013.
Updated 7:35 a.m. on Jan. 5.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen