Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • Weekly Update: New Lawsuit for Clinton-Dossier Docs

Weekly Update: New Lawsuit for Clinton-Dossier Docs

Weekly Update: New Lawsuit for Clinton-Dossier Docs

MAY 04, 2018

Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for FISA Court Transcripts Tied to Clinton-DNC Dossier
Judicial Watch Defends Voter ID in Alabama
The Zombie Afterlife of the Clinton Global Initiative

 

Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for FISA Court Transcripts Tied to Clinton-DNC Dossier

One of the many institutions the plotters of the slow-motion coup against President Trump have egregiously corrupted is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was created in 1978 to oversee the extraordinary powers of our spy agencies. Having used this court for political purposes the Deep State cabal is now trying to cover up its misdeeds.

We have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for all hearing transcripts of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants related to Carter Page and Michael Flynn (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-01050)).

We sued after the DOJ failed to respond to a February 26, 2018, FOIA request for:

Copies of all transcripts of hearings before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court regarding applications for or renewals of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants relating to Carter Page and/or Michael Flynn.

On February 7, 2018, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes wrote a letter to Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, the presiding judge at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) requesting transcripts of “any relevant FISC hearings associated with the initial FISA application or subsequent renewals related to electronic surveillance of Carter Page.” Page is a former foreign affairs advisor to President Trump

On February 15, Judge Collyer replied that the FBI and DOJ “possess most, if not all, of the responsive materials the Court might possess, and we have previously made clear to the Department, both formally and informally, that we do not object to any decision by the Executive Branch to release any such FISA materials to Congress.”

It is outrageous that the Justice Department is covering up key FISA court transcripts that would shed light on how the Clinton-DNC dossier was used to obtain surveillance of the Trump team. Frankly, President Trump should order that the DOJ and FBI release all documents about the FISA court process that was subverted by the corrupt use of the Clinton-DNC dossier.

In January 2018, we sued the DOJ for text messages and other records of FBI official Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)). Strzok reportedly oversaw the FBI’s interviews of former National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn; changed former FBI Director James Comey’s language about Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding her illicit email server from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless;” played a lead role in the FBI’s interview of Clinton; and is suspected of being responsible for using the unverified dossier to obtain a FISA warrant in order to spy on President Trump’s campaign.

In February 2018, we sued the DOJ for FBI documents regarding the FISA warrant application submitted to – and responses from – the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court related to alleged collusion between Russia and Trump campaign associates (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00245)).

In May 2017, we sued the DOJ for records of communications and payments between the FBI and former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and his private firm, Orbis Business Intelligence (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-00916)).

And last month, we sued the DOJ for records about top Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr’s involvement in the Trump dossier authored by Christopher Steele (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No.1:18-cv-00490)) and (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No.1:18-cv-00491)).

As the rest of Washington pretends to be concerned about Stormy Daniels, Judicial Watch stays focused on the core government corruption issue of our time – the Deep State attack on our constitutional system of government.

 

Judicial Watch Defends Voter ID in Alabama

Banners, rallies and debates are just the tip of the election iceberg. Because without the rule of law that protects elections from fraud, elections could be meaningless shams.

For example, we have now joined with the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) in filing an amici curiae brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit urging it to sustain a district court decision rejecting a lawsuit challenging Alabama’s voter ID law. (Greater Birmingham Ministries, et al. v. Secretary of State for the State of Alabama (No. 18-10151)).

We argue that, contrary to the plaintiffs’ claims in the trial court, there is no evidence that the enforcement of Alabama’s photo ID law has caused any harm to minority voters. The U.S. District Court of the North District upheld the voter ID law earlier this year. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the other plaintiffs then filed their appeal.

In its brief, Judicial Watch argues that an earlier Fifth Circuit Court ruling (Veasey v Abbott) upon which the NAACP based its case was “fatally flawed, unworkable, and contrary to precedent.” In that ruling, the Fifth Circuit broke with standing law requiring that a challenged voting practice or procedure must be shown to actually cause a disproportionate racial impact in order to violate the federal Voting Rights Act.

Our brief argues that several other court decisions “rightly require that a challenged voting practice or procedure cause a particular, discriminatory result” that causes the loss of equal opportunity to vote.

Opinions in this Circuit and in five others rightly require that a challenged voting practice or procedure cause a particular, discriminatory result, which is significant enough to constitute a loss of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. This standard … properly restricts its use to actual instances of voting-relating discrimination.  By contrast, the Fifth Circuit merely requires proof that a challenged procedure disproportionately impacts members of a protected class and that this impact is “linked to” or “interacts” with a history of discrimination against that class.

The brief further argues that all elections laws could be overturned if the courts adopt the new legal standard urged by the progressive groups challenging the Alabama voter ID law:

Every single voting procedure has a differential effect by race, for every race we choose to consider. This is true of even the most mundane rules concerning clerks’ office hours, the contents of mailings, written materials at the polls, the structure of ballots, translations, kinds of physical accommodations, registration and voting deadlines of every description, and allowable conduct in or near a polling place … If every existing law, and every proposed amendment to existing law, were subject to legal challenge … whenever a social scientist was willing to say that its impact differed by race and “interacted” with our history, the orderly administration of elections would become impossible. Congress never intended this outcome, and the problem of combatting true instances of racial discrimination in voting is hindered, not helped, by such a chaotic state of affairs.

The Left is playing the race card to try to shut down voter ID laws across the nation. There is no evidence that the enforcement of Alabama’s photo ID law has resulted in minority voters being denied an equal opportunity to vote. Voter ID laws secure the votes of all Americans, no matter their race.

Race baiting in elections is hardly new, but we don’t think voter ID laws discriminate. For example, in North Carolina, contrary to dire predictions by the Obama Department of Justice, minority voter turnout actually increased after the passage of North Carolina’s election integrity bill.

We have taken the lead nationwide in defending state voter ID laws and other commonsense election integrity measures, filing amicus briefs in the Supreme Court and in several circuit courts of appeal and trial courts. In December 2012, we filed a Supreme Court amicus curiae brief in support of Arizona’s proof of citizenship voter registration law.

In January 2014, we supported Arizona’s and Kansas’ follow-up to that litigation in their efforts to gain approval from the Obama administration’s Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to change the “federal” voter registration form to include a proof-of-citizenship requirement. JW and AEF then supported the states’ challenge to the EAC with an amici brief  before the Tenth Circuit in July, 2014. Judicial Watch and AEF have filed a number of amici briefs supporting North Carolina’s implementation of its election integrity reform law, most recently filing in the Supreme Court in March 2017.

The Allied Educational Foundation is a charitable and educational foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life through education. In furtherance of that goal, the Foundation has engaged in a number of projects, which include, but are not limited to, educational and health conferences domestically and abroad. We have partnered frequently with AEF to fight government and judicial corruption and to promote a return to ethics and morality in the nation’s public life.

 

The Zombie Afterlife of the Clinton Global Initiative

Recently, Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton invited their followers to a reception in New York City for which contributions ranging from $2,500 to $100,000 will be graciously accepted.

They’re back!

Of course, she never went away. Micah Morrison, our chief investigative reporter, has even more of the Clintons’ doings in his Investigative Bulletin.

The summons from Chelsea Clinton came via email, an invitation to “be the change.”

“I am so excited about the Clinton Global Initiative University,” Chelsea wrote. In October, student leaders from “CGI U” will converge on Chicago, working on “projects big and small to address climate change, poverty, gender inequality, and other pressing issues facing their generation — and all of us.” The email provided four opportunities to donate to the Clinton Foundation. “None of this great work would be possible without you and your continued support.”

In January 2017, the New York State Labor Department issued a statutory notice that the Clinton Global Initiative—the annual glitterati schmooze fest that brought hundreds of millions of dollars into Clinton coffers—would be laying off twenty-two employees. The news went out: CGI was dead. Hillary would not be president; the gravy train had run out of steam. The Clintons closed up shop.

But in fact, reports of the death of the Clinton Global Initiative were greatly exaggerated. It continues in a kind of zombie afterlife, along with other Clinton Foundation efforts, including CGI U. “Building on the successful model of the Clinton Global Initiative,” the Clinton Foundation website says, “President Clinton launched the Clinton Global Initiative University in 2007 to engage the next generation of leaders on college campuses around the world.”

Mr. Clinton made a fortune from CGI U. His early partner in the project was the for-profit university system, Laureate Education. Laureate donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and signed Mr. Clinton up as “honorary chancellor” in 2010. Over the next five years, Laureate paid Mr. Clinton more than $17 million. That’s when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state and gearing up her presidential run. Laureate was controlled Doug Becker, a big Democratic donor. Becker stepped aside as CEO in 2017 with a $23 million package after taking the company public.

What does an honorary chancellor do to earn $17 million? Laureate told CNN that Mr. Clinton “inspired” people. The State Department stonewalled Judicial Watch’s attempt to uncover more details, eventually producing a heavily redacted contract that blacked out descriptions of the former president’s role. Laureate lately seems to have been shoved down the memory hole—it does not appear in current CGI U promotional material and both the Clinton Foundation and Laureate did not respond to requests for clarification. But Chelsea Clinton is carrying on the work. “We’re here with one of the most remarkable world leaders,” a Laureate student said in a video interview at a CGI U event reported by the Washington Post. “We’re here with Chelsea Clinton.”

The Clinton cash machine continues churning and you can bet there will be more attendant corruption!

 

Until next week…