Category Archives: Hillary Clinton

U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras: “If documents are destroyed between now and August 17” – “the Hillary email government will have to answer for that, and, you know, if they don’t want to do anything out of the ordinary to preserve between now and then, they can make that choice. I will allow them to make that choice, but they will answer for it, if something happens.” “I am a little bit mystified that the government is not more forthcoming in just answering questions that will help this case proceed on a systematic basis, and on a basis that will allow everyone to get the answers that will eventually help resolve these cases” July 20, 2015 (Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton Hillary Rodham Clinton) U.S. State Department

In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Judicial Watch, Inc.,

Plaintiff

vs.

U.S. Department of State

Civil Action No. 15-688 (RC)

Status Conference

Washington, DC

Date: July 9, 2015

Time: 10:01 a.m.

_________________________________________________
Judicial Watch: Federal Judge Declares State Department Will “Answer For” Any Destruction of Clinton Emails
………………………………………………..
Judicial Watch (@JudicialWatch)

JULY 20, 2015
——————————————————————
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-federal-judge-declares-state-department-will-answer-for-any-destruction-of-clinton-emails/
_________________________________________________
image

image
_________________________________________________
(WHEREUPON, commencing at 10:01 a.m., the following proceedings were had in open court, to wit:)

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:

Civil Action 15-688 Judicial Watch Inc. v. US Department of State

Counsel, please step forward to the podium and state your appearance for the record

MR. FEDELI:

Good Morning, Your Honor

Chris Fedeli for plaintiff Judicial Watch

THE COURT:

Good morning

MR. RIESS:

Good Morning, Your Honor

Daniel Riess for the defendant

THE COURT:

Good morning

All right

I got a status report in which the parties took very differing positions, so let’s talk about the various issues

Who wants to go first?

You want to go first since it is your FOIA request?

MR. FEDELI:

Yes, Your Honor

So what I would like to talk about is three of the four questions I posed to defense counsel were about preservation of records, the fourth being about search terms

Now, ordinarily, in a FOIA case, I never ask opposing counsel if they are preserving records, but there are very unusual facts underlying this FOIA case
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
The request was an attempt to narrow the issues and get assurances so we didn’t have to come to the Court about preservation issues

Opposing counsel was unwilling to provide those assurances so I wanted to make the Court aware that we have concerns about preservations

We think they are reasonable concerns, given what’s gone on and what’s been reported about how documents were managed by the State Department

And we feel that the records we seek are very likely to include high-level discussions about conflicts between the Secretary and the Clinton Foundation

They may be the records which have been reported to have been kept off-site and managed in unusual ways

So we think it is reasonable to ask for those assurances and to get assurances the records are being preserved

And the preservation requirements here we believe are also a little bit unusual

Ordinarily, preservation is you send out a memo saying,

“Please, nobody delete anything”

In this case, I think active steps are going to be required for defendant to make assurances that all records are being preserved

And those active steps I’ve outlined in the questions I’ve posed

THE COURT:

Okay

Now with respect to whatever areas, if any, the parties may be in agreement on, is there anything about the government’s proposal that you think you can live with?
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
MR. FEDELI:

I thought the proposal regarding the timing of the, you know, the initial search and the 250 pages is reasonable,, assuming, of course, obviously, we want that search to be as broad as possible and it’s going to include documents that we don’t yet know are, you know, secured and being preserved and have been obtained by the State Department

We do understand as of two days ago in a filing in another case involving the State Department and Judicial Watch, another FOIA case, that defendant has taken the steps of contacting former officials, three former officials —

THE COURT:

Which case was that?

MR. FEDELI:

I have it right here

It was a case before Judge Lamberth

And I have the case number, if you would like me to grab that

THE COURT:

I would

MR. FEDELI:

This is Case No. 14-1242

And in that filing on July 7 —

THE COURT:

Are you the party in that case?

MR. FEDELI:

Judicial Watch is the party, yes

THE COURT:

Okay

MR. FEDELI:

And in that filing, the State Department attached a declaration indicating they have already sent letters to former State Department officials, Ms. Mills, Mr. Sullivan, and Ms. Abedin, who were reported

to be using e-mails, and that as of a week ago, two of the three had turned over documents to the State Department, work related e-mails

And one of those was responsive to the FOIA request in that case

non-state.gov

So apparently defendant agrees with me, at least to an extent, that there are unusual steps necessary here for preservation

Ordinarily, when you get a FOIA request, you would not pick up the phone and start calling former employees and saying

“Can you please bring back those documents”

Here, we think the duty of preservation would include steps such as these

THE COURT:

Okay

Let me hear from the government

Thank you

Before you get started, at the beginning of the Leopold case, in which I am on as well and which you cited in the status report, I asked the government whether the government — because there’s a number of these cases out there now, whether the government plans to do anything to consolidate these because it doesn’t make a lot of sense for six different judges to be ordering six different things, to a certain extent

Has the government given that any thought?

MR. RIESS:

To my knowledge, Your Honor, there hasn’t been any talk of consolidation of the cases

THE COURT:

Okay

Well, as you know, these are
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
very unusual circumstances, and it would not take a wild imagination to think that there will be some discovery in these FOIA cases, and if six different judges start ordering six different forms of discovery, that’s going to be impossible to manage for everybody

So give that some thought

MR. RIESS:

I understand, Your Honor

We will

THE COURT:

All right

MR. RIESS:

Just briefly, with respect to the questions, there are a number of questions — as Your Honor mentioned, there are about, I believe, 35 cases at last count, mostly against the State Department, that are seeking records related to the former Secretary Clinton’s e-mails

At least 8 to 10 of them are brought by Judicial Watch as a plaintiff

And in each one of those, at least 8 to 10, they are propounding questions

And so the position we have is that we don’t want to set a precedent

The purpose of FOIA is to search for responsive records and provide them to the requester, not to go beyond that and respond to what is, in effect, interrogatories

THE COURT:

Questions about preservation are not interrogatories, are they?

Isn’t that the normal meet and confer requirement that every party takes at the beginning of a case?
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
MR. RIESS:

In civil litigation, I believe, I mean, there are litigation holds, but, to my knowledge, in FOIA cases, I have not seen, let’s see, a request that there be preservation of records

I have seen it typically proceed that the requester asks for records, we conduct the search and process the documents and provide them

THE COURT:

All right

If an agency receives a request for documents, and subsequent to that point the documents are destroyed, isn’t that a violation of FOIA?

MR. RIESS:

I think that it could be construed as that, yes, Your Honor

THE COURT:

So there’s some duty to preserve, you have to concede that, don’t you?

MR. RIESS:

Yes

I think, though, in this instance, since we are talking about at least in this case a relatively quick turn over, and in the Leopold case we are talking about production on a rolling basis until January 29, I don’t think there’s a realistic expectation that people are going to go out and destroy records between now and then

And as to the extent of this that’s not seeking Clinton e-mails, we’ve — my client has said they can perform the search by mid August

And the only question is just they don’t know the number — the volume of responsive documents, and they have asked for a little bit of leeway, depending on how many documents it turns out not related to

the e-mails that are responsive

THE COURT:

Okay

Counsel for Judicial Watch mentioned this case in front of Judge Lamberth, which I am unfamiliar with

In that case, the government reached out to former employees to secure official documents?

MR. RIESS:

Yes, I believe that’s right

They filed a summary judgment motion in No. 14-1242 on July 7, I believe

So that case was actually at a more advanced stage

THE COURT:

So the representations about who was — former employees that were reached out to was in the context of declarations for summary judgment?

MR. RIESS:

I believe that’s correct, Your Honor

THE COURT:

All right

Have any efforts in this case been made to reach out to former employees?

MR. RIESS:

No

Not in this case, Your Honor
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________

THE COURT:

Hold on

MS. SHAPIRO:

Sorry

I am sorry to jump in, Your Honor

THE COURT:

Not at all

That’s why I wish there would be more coordination

It seems like when it is convenient to refer to other cases, it is done, but when it is not, it is not done

So, you know, I would like to get answers

MS. SHAPIRO:

Right

And I jumped up because I think I can give you a little more of a bird’s-eye view

THE COURT:

Are you supervising all of the Clinton e-mails cases?

MS. SHAPIRO:

Not all of them, but one of two, that would be — and I think we do have a bird’s-eye view of all of them

And there are approximately 35 at various stages and in various forms, and we have carefully thought about consolidating

There are difficulties in terms of how they would be consolidated, and since some of them are different claims, there are different parties, there are different stages

So the mechanics of that have eluded us to date, but we haven’t given up on the idea

With respect to the reaching out to the third parties, I think, here, we didn’t view Judicial Watch’s questions about preservations

I think the reaching out to the third parties was not done in any specific case

It was

done as a matter of choice that the State Department decided that it should and did, irrespective of any litigation, reach out to these people

They are differently situated than the Hillary Clinton situation because they all maintain state.gov e-mails and used those e-mail accounts

So they are more in the nature of ordinary government employees that have government e-mail accounts that are searched

However, because —

THE COURT:

To your knowledge, did any of those individuals use Clinton e-mail servers?

MS. SHAPIRO:

Yes

And because of that —

THE COURT:

I am not saying not in sending things to that server, but used it as their platform for sending their own e-mails?

MS. SHAPIRO:

Separate and apart from communicating with —

THE COURT:

Correct

MS. SHAPIRO:

I am not positive of the answer to that

But because we know that they do appear in the Hillary Clinton e-mails and in using that server the State Department reached out to them and have received documents back from two of them

And those are now in the State Department’s possession, and will be searched like the Hillary Clinton

_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________

e-mails are being searched

But that will be done across all the cases, not in any particular case, where documents — it would be reasonable to think that documents would be found among that collection

THE COURT:

Uh-huh

Okay

MS. SHAPIRO:

And with respect to the summary judgment motion that was filed, that case related to one of the Benghazi related requests, and all the searches have been done for all of the e-mails that are in the possession of the State Department now, including the ones that were recently received from the two additional employees

THE COURT:

Okay

With respect to the 55,000 or so Hillary Clinton e-mails that she provided from her server, is my recollection correct that those were digitized as of approximately mid June, and they are searchable, and are being searched and reviewed in response to your order in the other case that —

THE COURT:

Leopold

MS. SHAPIRO:

— right, that captures all 55,000

THE COURT:

So given that these are separate cases and they are not being consolidated, and given that it is this case, this case here today, is a relatively narrow case, why is the State Department reluctant to make a search

_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________

for the Foundation conflict documents, which sounds like a relatively straightforward process?

MS. SHAPIRO:

One, it is not clear that it is a
relatively straightforward process about how to construct a search that would be likely to capture those records and then deal with whatever comes back, both in terms of responsive records and nonresponsive records that are just caught up in the search

So that is a time-consuming process

And the resources of the State Department right now are so taxed that any sort of side search for a sort of, you know, even discrete, would take resources away from what is an extremely burdensome but also very taxing process right now to the department

So that to the extent that even one person’s time or two people’s time in order to process another request, it disrupts the entire chain of the way these e-mails are being moved from station to station in response to Your Honor’s other order

And I just add that, as Mr. Riess mentioned, with the number of cases both being brought by Judicial Watch and others where the argument is this a discrete search, you the have 8, 10, 15 discrete searches, and to take each one of those and say that they are discrete in isolation, it becomes no longer discrete and would completely derail, I think, the process that — where that’s really very little room for disruption in order to —

_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________

With respect to the 55,000 Clinton e-mails from her server, I want the parties to meet and confer within the next two weeks and try to agree on search terms, and then file, to the extent you are in agreement or to the extent you are not in agreement, file a joint status report at that point with the court, and then I will decide at that point what to do with that, but I will say my inclination is to have a search done of the Clinton e-mail database that’s digitized and searchable for this relatively narrow, in my view, relatively narrow request

Is there any universe that’s not covered yet that you want the questions answered?

MR. FEDELI:

Well, if I may, Your Honor, I think —

THE COURT:

July 23 is two weeks

MR. FEDELI:

As far as the preservation issues, we do think those are important

Counsel suggested that the Court can’t really do anything about that without a motion

We would be happy to file one

THE COURT:

But if everyone files motions, August 17 will be here and that just adds more paper to it

I think August 17 is close enough that there’s no point in a lot of motions work

Do you agree with that?

MR. FEDELI:

Certainly understand that, Your Honor

The concerns that we have about preservation do

_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
remain outstanding for us

THE COURT:

I’m sorry?

MR. FEDELI:

The concerns we have about preservation, having not been really fully addressed yet, remain outstanding for us

THE COURT:

I understand that, and I am concerned about that as well

If documents are destroyed between now and August 17, the government will have to answer for that, and, you know, if they don’t want to do anything out of the ordinary to preserve between now and then, they can make that choice

I will allow them to make that choice, but they will answer for it, if something happens

MR. FEDELI:

Thank you, Your Honor

THE COURT:

They are prudent people

MS. SHAPIRO:

Sorry, just one note to the preservation point

THE COURT:

Sure

MS. SHAPIRO:

Again, I don’t think we construed the questions that were asked as preservation related questions

There’s no question that the government will preserve every record in its possession that relates to this and all the other requests —

THE COURT:

Now “possession” is probably a term of art in this context

What does the government consider its possession, and does it also include custody or control?
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
MS. SHAPIRO:

Well, custody and control are — again, they’re legal terms

THE COURT:

Sure

MS. SHAPIRO:

The State Department will not be destroying anything that relates to any of these cases

With respect to individuals over which the State Department has no control, because they are former government employees —

THE COURT:

But to the extent that they have official government records, what do you believe is the State Department’s duty?

MS. SHAPIRO:

The State Department has asked for the return of those records

THE COURT:

Okay

MS. SHAPIRO:

And those individuals have that correspondence, and anything that comes back to the government, of course, will be preserved and maintained

And, you know, we can put that assurance in an e-mail to the plaintiffs, if that makes them more comfortable

I think there should be no question that the government is preserving records and satisfying its litigation obligation

THE COURT:

You know, I understand everyone’s position, and it is to state the obvious that this is not an ordinary case, and everyone should be working to make sure that whatever documents exist today remain in existence

I

understand the government’s position that discovery is extraordinary in FOIA cases

But I am a little bit mystified that the government is not more forthcoming in just answering questions that will help this case proceed on a systematic basis, and on a basis that will allow everyone to get the answers that will eventually help resolve these cases, all 35 of them

MS. SHAPIRO:

They are doing the best they can under trying circumstances, Your Honor

THE COURT:

Okay

Is there anything else we need to cover today?

MR. FEDELI:

No, Your Honor

MR. RIESS:

No, Your Honor

THE COURT:

Okay

Thank you

(WHEREUPON, at 10:24 a.m. the proceedings were concluded)
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image

Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton Hillary Rodham Clinton) LIES in Mexico City, Mexico, March 26, 2009, about the Ninety percent (90%) and Fast and Furious

We’re going to start tracing these guns, we’re going to start cracking down on illegal gun sales, we’re going to go after the straw men and women who go in and buy these guns

We’re going to use every tool at our disposal

90 percent

guns that are used by the drug cartels against the police and the military

come from America

Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police, of soldiers and civilians
_________________________________________________
‘Hardball with Chris Matthews’ for Thursday, March 26, 2009
………………………………………………..
updated 3/30/2009 10:36:37 AM ET
——————————————————————http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29914041/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-thursday-march/
_________________________________________________
The Myth of 90 Percent:

Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
………………………………………………..
William La Jeunesse
——————————————————————
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come.html
_________________________________________________
Debunking the “90 percent of guns used in Mexican crimes are American” lie
………………………………………………..
Michelle Malkin
——————————————————————http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/02/debunking-the-90-percent-of-guns-used-in-mexican-crimes-are-american-lie/
_________________________________________________
EDITORIAL:

Obama’s bogus gun statistics
………………………………………………..
The Washington Times

Tuesday, April 14, 2009
——————————————————————
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/obama39s-bogus-gun-statistics-mexican-crime-is-not/
_________________________________________________
Obama claims 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico come from U.S.
………………………………………………..
Robert Farley

Thursday, April 16th, 2009 at 8:26 p.m.
——————————————————————
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/16/barack-obama/Obama-claims-90-percent-guns-used-Mexico/
_________________________________________________
Counting Mexico’s Guns

President Obama says 90 percent of Mexico’s recovered crime guns come from the U.S.

That’s not what the statistics show.
………………………………………………..
Posted on April 17, 2009 |

Corrected on April 22, 2009
——————————————————————
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/
_________________________________________________
Where Drug Cartels Really Get Their Arms

The “blame America first” strategy is no match for the truth.
………………………………………………..
Ryan Mauro

April 18, 2011
——————————————————————http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/90583/where-drug-cartels-really-get-their-arms-ryan-mauro
_________________________________________________
Mexican Criminals, American Guns
………………………………………………..
By David Rittgers

This article appeared on National Review (Online) on March 21, 2011

Did the ATF help create its own crisis?
——————————————————————https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/mexican-criminals-american-guns
_________________________________________________
Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
………………………………………………..
17 percent guns Mexican crime
——————————————————————
https://democrats-foreignaffairs.house.gov/sites/democrats.foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/01-16%20GAO%20Report%20on%20US%20Efforts%20to%20Combat%20Firearms%20Trafficking%20to%20Mexico.pdf
_________________________________________________
WikiLeaks diplomatic cable ID 09Mexico808
………………………………………………..
90 percent cartels Mexican
——————————————————————
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07MEXICO6049_a.html
_________________________________________________

Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse), Congressman, Utah, Republican, tries to get a straight answer from Fumbling, Rumbling, Stumbling, Mumbling, State Department Inspector General, Steve Linick, about Hillary Clinton’s (@HillaryClinton Hillary Rodham Clinton’s) Email, and a Video

10/28/2016 3:55 Jason Chaffetz Grills Hotshot OIG Agent Over Hillary Clinton’s Emails

U.S. Congressman Jason Chaffetz:

Um

Mr. Costello, um, electronic records fall under, electronic records fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Records Act

Correct❓
………………………………………………..
Ms. Costello:

Pardon
………………………………………………..
U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz:

Sorry
………………………………………………..
Costello:

It’s okay

Uh

Yes they do
………………………………………………..
Congressman Jason Chaffetz:

Um

Mr. Linick, do you believe

I’m going to ask you both questions

So go ahead and stay

Does this include

So, electronic records fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Records Act

Right, Mr.❓
………………………………………………..
U.S. State Department Inspector General Steve Linick:

So long as they contain work-related materials

Yes
………………………………………………..
Representative Jason Chaffetz:

Does this include video❓
………………………………………………..
U.S. State Department Inspector General Linick:

Well, if you’re

If you’re asking about the, the videotape, um, the, uh, separate issue

I’m

That’s something we’re looking at, and we’re not really able to comment on it at this time

That’s an ongoing matter
………………………………………………..
Congressman Chaffetz:

Is

Are
………………………………………………..
State Department Inspector General Steve Linick:

Whether, whether, whether
………………………………………………..
Representative Chaffetz:

( ❓ )
………………………………………………..
State Department Inspector General Linick:

videos are, are records

But we’re looking at that issue
………………………………………………..
Rep. Jason Chaffetz:

Uh

Let’s get

Is this relating to the eight (8) minutes
………………………………………………..
Inspector General Steve Linick:

Right
………………………………………………..
Rep. Chaffetz:

of deleted videos❓
………………………………………………..
Inspector General Linick:

Right
………………………………………………..
Jason Chaffetz:

So, the Inspector General is doing an investigation❓
………………………………………………..
U.S. State Department I.G. Steve Linick:

Well, we’re looking

Where we’ve done it

We’ve started a preliminary review and we’re, we’ve, we’ve, we’ve, looking into that matter at this point

We have not opened an in, invest, a full-bu, blown investigation, but we are looking to see, sort of what the issues are and we’ve interviewed some people
………………………………………………..
J. Chaffetz:

Well, we also have, uh, jurisdiction and we, we would like to know

So, my

My question is, uh

If the electronic record is video is it treated differently than if it’s, text❓
………………………………………………..
U.S. State Department I.G. Linick:

I’m not able to answer that question …
………………………………………………..
Chaffetz:

Why not❓
………………………………………………..
State Department I.G. Steve Linick:

Because
………………………………………………..
Chaffetz:

Why not❓
………………………………………………..
State Department I.G. Linick:

I don’t

I don’t have an answer for you

I

Eh

Again, we’re

We’re sort of in the middle of looking at those issues

It’s not part of the report that we issued
………………………………………………..
Chaffetz:

Right
………………………………………………..
Inspector General Steve Linick:

and I can only talk about what my work supports, but
………………………………………………..
Chaffetz:

So if the
………………………………………………..
Inspector General Linick:

I wouldn’t want to venture a guess if the

President (@POTUS) Barack Obama (@BarackObama Barack Hussein Obama), Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton Hillary Rodham Clinton), and Susan Rice LIE to the American public about what happened in BENGHAZI, Libya

DECEPTION:  THE MAKING OF THE YOUTUBE VIDEO HILLARY and OBAMA BLAMED FOR BENGHAZI - KENNETH R. TIMMERMAN (POST HILL PRESS)