Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that on November 3^rd it filed a "Notice of Appeal" as a first step in asking the United States Supreme Court to consider its lawsuit filed on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer David C. Rodearmel challenging Hillary Clinton's constitutional eligibility to serve as Secretary of State [Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (Civil Action No.09-171) (D.D.C.)]. Following oral argument on September 16, a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the challenge on October 29^th, ruling that Mr. Rodearmel lacked "standing" to bring the lawsuit. The panel did not rule on the constitutional merits of the lawsuit.

Judicial Watch's lawsuit, filed on January 29, 2009, maintains that the "Ineligibility Clause" of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Hillary Clinton from serving as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States.

According to Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." The text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions. However, as Judicial Watch notes in its complaint for Mr. Rodearmel, "the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Mrs. Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate, including as many as three times during the second, six-year term to which she was elected."

Congress attempted to circumvent this constitutional provision by "rolling back" compensation for the position of Secretary of State to the level in effect on January 1, 2007. Judicial Watch's complaint maintains: "This [fix] does not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Mrs. Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate."

With respect to the issue of standing, Judicial Watch contends that Mr. Rodearmel "has demonstrated that he is being injured in his employment by being required to serve under, take direction from, and report to a constitutionally ineligible superior, Mrs. Clinton" and that he has "been placed in a position where he either must violate his oath of office or risk substantial, adverse consequences to his employment."

The "Ineligibility Clause" is seen by many as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption, limit the size of government, and ensure the separation of powers among the three branches of government. At least two other presidential appointees, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Army Secretary John McHugh are also ineligible to serve in their positions under the "Ineligibility Clause."

The lawsuit was reviewed on an expedited basis by a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Under applicable law, any appeal goes directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Our client's goal is to vindicate the U.S. Constitution," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The Constitution clearly prohibits Hillary Clinton from serving as Secretary of State until 2013. We hope the Supreme Court assumes jurisdiction over this matter and puts a stop to this attempt to do end-run around the Constitution."

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained new documents from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) regarding the results of the detainee interrogation program. The documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed on July 14, 2009, include two new versions of a report previously released to Judicial Watch in August, entitled, "Detainee Reporting Pivotal for the War Against Al-Qa'ida."

These new reports, dated June 1, 2005 and July 12, 2005, contain some different information than the previously released report, dated June 3, 2005. Notably, the June 1, 2005 report concludes that "Detainee reporting accounts for more than half of all HUMINT reporting on al-Qa'ida since the program began..." This fact is missing from the other two later reports.

The June 1, 2005 report also has additional pages of redacted material. All three reports conclude: "One of the gains to detaining the additional terrorists has been the thwarting of a number of al-Qa'ida operations in the United States and overseas."

(The previously released June 3, 2005 report notes "...detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of approximately 70 individuals – many of whom we had never heard of before – that al-Qa'ida deemed suitable for Western operations.")

On March 31, 2009, Vice President Cheney personally issued a request to the National Archives Presidential Libraries section for declassification review of the June 1, 2005 and another detainee program report. The Archives then passed on the request to the CIA for review on April 8, 2009. Judicial Watch sought these reports after it became apparent that they would not be released by the Obama administration in a timely fashion. Only last week was the specific June 1, 2005 report that Vice President sought evidently released to Judicial Watch. Vice President Cheney said these documents show the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques that were used on some detained terrorists, such as Khalid Shaykh Muhammad and Abu Zubaydah.

In March, President Obama overruled objections from national security officials and released documents detailing the government's enhanced interrogation program of terrorists (the so-called "torture" memos). However, President Obama initially withheld information detailing the results of this program, including alleged terrorist plots that the program prevented.

"All of these CIA documents come to the same conclusion: Detainee interrogations are effective and have helped save lives in the United States and overseas," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The Obama administration initially attempted to conceal the effectiveness of detainee interrogations by cherry picking documents to support its view on the interrogation program. We're pleased we have been able to provide the American people with more of the truth about the effectiveness of terrorist detainee interrogations."

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it obtained more documents from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests related to the NEA's controversial August 10 conference call encouraging artists to create work that promotes the Obama agenda. The documents consist of internal NEA emails indicating the idea for the NEA propaganda effort grew out the Obama campaign while also providing new details regarding White House involvement. The Corporation for National and Community Service, which runs the AmeriCorps program, was represented during the call. The agencies and the White House were supposedly promoting the administration's United We Serve political initiative. The emails include the actual conference call invitation, which details the controversial policy agenda that was being promoted. (The controversial call was first uncovered by www.BigGovernment.com. Other documents about the call were first released last week by Judicial Watch.)

The following are email excerpts:

• July 28, 2009, 4:47 pm, Email from unknown Obama campaign activist to Yosi Sergant, former NEA Communications Director: "It was good to see you a few weeks ago in Washington. After our conversation, I thought it would be a really good idea to convene via a conference call some significant tastemakers/producers who can support United We Serve. As many of us contributed our services to the campaign, I would love to gather some of those folks to use their enthusiasm to get behind the President's very important service initiative. Here are some people who I think should be part of the call. [Names redacted.]"
• August 6, 2009, Conference Call Invitation sent via email by Yosi Sergant: "A call has come in to our generation. A call from the top. A call from a house that is White. A call that we must answer. And to answer it, we need you...United We Serve is President Obama's call to service challenging all Americans to engage in sustained, meaningful community service. With the knowledge that ordinary people can achieve extraordinary things when given the proper tools, President Obama is asking us to come together to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal."
• August 6, 2009, 9:46 pm, Email from Unknown to Yosi Sergeant: "How can I get down Yosi? I'm working with [redacted] doing brand consulting and event production for [redacted]. Love to see how we could collaborate our corporate funds with what you're working on."
• August 12, 2009, 3:30 pm, Follow-up Email from Unknown participant to Yosi Sergant: "As per a suggestion on the call, below is a list of action items that might be helpful to inspire an idea on how you can participate in the campaign...Ex) If you are a graphic designer tap into your professional network and organize other designers to create a series of United We Serve posters that can be featured in print, through social media and on serv.gov. Ex) If you are a DJ, tap into your professional network and organize other DJs to promote Serve.gov or a specific local opportunity on the radio or at a club."

The documents also detail the use of the 9/11 anniversary as a vehicle for this political effort.

"These new documents leave little doubt that the NEA conference call and the ongoing United We Serve effort are direct extensions of the Obama presidential campaign. Taxpayers should be outraged that their tax dollars were used to promote political 'art' for the Obama big government agenda," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that the Obama administration argued in a recent court filing that the Privacy Act does not apply to the Executive Office of the President (EOP). This court filing came in a Judicial Watch lawsuit filed in 1996 against the Clinton White House related to a scandal known as "Filegate," where the Clinton White House obtained and maintained the private FBI files of hundreds of former Reagan and Bush officials [Alexander v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Civil Action No. 96-2123/97-1288 (RCL)].

In the Obama administration's "Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 17, the Obama Justice Department stated the following: "The White House is not an agency under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and it necessarily follows that it is not an agency subject to the Privacy Act." However, the Privacy Act specifically lists the "Executive Office of the President" as an agency subject to the Act's provisions.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth had repeatedly rejected this same legal argument, most recently in 2008 when the court ruled against a government motion that would have dismissed the lawsuit: "...this court holds that under the Privacy Act, the word 'agency' includes the Executive Office of the President, just as the Privacy Act says."

While the Obama administration continues to advance the legal and political argument that the White House and the FBI should not be held accountable for the Filegate scandal, former President Bill Clinton apparently disagrees. Clinton told historian Taylor Branch in preparation for a recently published book, "those files did not belong at The White House," and that they "should have been isolated and returned immediately." According to Branch, Clinton also said "[h]is administration should and would be held accountable."

"What the Obama administration is effectively saying here is that if the White House decides to illegally compile FBI files and violate your privacy rights, tough luck," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "It is disturbing that the Obama administration has taken the legal position that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House and the Clinton FBI files scandal was not a scandal. It is worrying to those of us concerned about the Obama White House's collecting "fishy" emails and compiling an enemies list of new organizations, radio hosts, businesses, and industry associations to attack and smear. Is the Obama defense of the FBI files scandal less about that Clinton scandal and more about what his White House is up to now?"