Category Archives: FBI

FBI must retrieve Christine Blasey Ford scrubbed social media data, Testimony: “I have been accused of acting out of partisan political motives. Those who say that do not know me. I’m an independent person and I am no one’s pawn.”

FBI must retrieve Christine Blasey Ford scrubbed social media data, Testimony: “I have been accused of acting out of partisan political motives. Those who say that do not know me. I’m an independent person and I am no one’s pawn.”

“Democrat mantra: The end justifies the means.”…Citizen Wells

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

Fact. Christine Blasey Ford lied before and during her testimony.

She admitted to scrubbing her social media accounts.

I tried unsuccessfully to retrieve remnants from the Wayback Machine and other sources. More often than not that is possible.

Her past appears to have been professionally scrubbed.

Once again I quote “1984.”

“The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had
actually been destroyed. For how could you establish, even
the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside
your own memory?”

Christine Blasey Ford has destroyed evidence, evidence that was needed during her testimony.

If this is a sincere effort to arrive at the truth, the FBI must get these records!

*** UPDATE  10/1/2018 9:00 AM  ***

I was given a heads up earlier.

Christine Blasey Ford during her testimony stated:

“I am a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.”

  • CA statutes are specific about who may use the title Psychologist.
  • Ms. Ford is not a licensed Psychologist.
  • In 2015 the Standford website listed her as: “RESEARCH PSYCHOLOGIST, PSYCH/GENERAL PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHOLOGY (ADULT)”
  • It currently describes her as: “AFFILIATE, PSYCHIATRY AND BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES”

I am not sure what this means.

Was she having another memory issue?

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Advertisements

Oleg Deripaska “colluded” with Obama Justice Dept. not Trump, 2009 to 2016, Robert Mueller was running the FBI, Trump’s alleged “back channel” to Putin was in fact an FBI asset

Oleg Deripaska “colluded” with Obama Justice Dept. not Trump, 2009 to 2016, Robert Mueller was running the FBI, Trump’s alleged “back channel” to Putin was in fact an FBI asset

“Why was Tony West, who helped Obama keep his records hidden at taxpayer expense, promoted to Acting Associate Attorney General, the third highest official at the Justice Department?”…Citizen Wells

“People need to understand that the Democrat Party today is not the Democrat Party of John F. Kennedy. The Democrat Party with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is more Marxist than anything else.  They think the Constitution should be a ‘progressive’ document.  In other words, the Constitution is outdated and should be redone. “…Kevin Shipp

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From Zero Hedge.

“Russian Oligarch And Putin Pal Admits To Collusion, Secret Meetings

Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a close associate of Vladimir Putin, has gone on record with The Hill‘s John Solomon – admitting to colluding with Americans leading up to the 2016 US election, except it might not be what you’re thinking.

Deripaska, rumored to be Donald Trump’s “back channel” to Putin via the Russian’s former association with Paul Manafort, says he “colluded” with the US Government between 2009 and 2016.

In 2009, when Robert Mueller was running the FBI, the agency asked Deripaska to spend $25 million of his own money to bankroll an FBI-supervised operation to rescue a retired FBI agent – Robert Levinson, who was kidnapped in 2007 while working on a 2007 CIA contract in Iran. This in and of itself is more than a bit strange.

Deripaska agreed, however the Obama State Department, headed by Hillary Clinton, scuttled a last-minute deal with Iran before Levinson could be released. He hasn’t been heard from since.

FBI agents courted Deripaska in 2009 in a series of secret hotel meetings in Paris; Vienna; Budapest, Hungary, and Washington. Agents persuaded the aluminum industry magnate to underwrite the mission. The Russian billionaire insisted the operation neither involve nor harm his homeland. -The Hill

In other words – Trump’s alleged “back channel” to Putin was in fact an FBI asset who spent $25 million helping Obama’s “scandal free” administration find a kidnapped agent. Deripaska’s admitted ”

“As the New York Times frames it, distancing Deripaska from the FBI (no mention of the $25 million rescue effort, for example), the Russian aluminum magnate was just one of several Putin-linked Oligarchs the FBI tried to flip.”

Read more:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-01/russian-oligarch-and-putin-pal-admits-collusion-secret-meetings

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Judge Amit Mehta ruling FBI Steele Dossier, James Madison Project v Department of Justice, Nunes and Schiff Memos constitute public acknowledgement of existence of records

Judge Amit Mehta ruling FBI Steele Dossier, James Madison Project v Department of Justice, Nunes and Schiff Memos constitute public acknowledgement of existence of records

“If This Story Gets Out, We Are Screwed”…Wikileaks: Doug Band to John Podesta

“James Comey’s decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.”…Daily Mail October 30, 2016

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
JAMES MADISON PROJECT, et al., ))
Plaintiffs, ))
v. ) Case No. 17-cv-00144 (APM)
)
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., ))
Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
INDICATIVE RULING AND ORDER AS TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Once more, this court is called upon to opine on the legal consequences of President Donald J. Trump’s declassification of information concerning the “Dossier”—the 35-page compilation of memoranda prepared by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele concerning Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and alleged ties between Russia and then
candidate Trump. Cf. BuzzFeed, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Case No. 17-mc-02429-APM, 2018 WL 3719231 (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2018). In this case, the court must decide whether the February 2018 public release of two congressionally drafted memoranda—popularly known as the “Nunes Memo” and the “Schiff Memo”—vitiates Defendants’ Glomar responses to Plaintiffs’ demand for
records concerning a “two-page synopsis” of the Dossier.

The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. See generally James Madison Project v. Dep’t of Justice (“James Madison I”), 302 F. Supp. 3d 12 (D.D.C. 2018), appeal docketed, No. 18-5014 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). It held that neither the President’s tweets and other public statements, nor the public statements of other high-ranking government officials,
constituted a public acknowledgment that the documents sought by Plaintiffs James Madison Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of
2
Project and Josh Gerstein in fact exist and are possessed by Defendant agencies. See id. Plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal, but shortly after moved for reconsideration in light of the Nunes Memo’s release. Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal, however, divested the court of jurisdiction over this matter. See United States v. DeFries, 129 F.3d 1293, 1302 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (“The
filing of a notice of appeal . . . ‘confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’” (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). Accordingly, Plaintiffs now ask the court to indicate, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, that it would grant their Motion upon remand. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(3). Defendants assert that reconsideration is not warranted
and urge the court to deny the Motion.

For the reasons that follow, the court finds that the disclosures contained in the Nunes and Schiff Memos do constitute a public acknowledgement of the existence of the records sought by Plaintiffs from Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and that the FBI therefore may no longer maintain its Glomar responses. Accordingly, the court indicates that, upon remand, the
court would grant Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Reconsideration as to the FBI. Plaintiffs’ Motion as to the remaining agency Defendants, however, is denied.

I.
The court already has written extensively about this matter, and so only will summarize the relevant facts and procedural history here.
A.
In January 2017, Plaintiffs submitted a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request to four federal agencies—the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 2 of 13
3
Agency, the National Security Agency (collectively, “Intelligence Community Defendants”), and the FBI—for the following information:
(1) The two-page “synopsis” provided by the U.S. Government to
President-Elect Trump with respect to allegations that Russian
Government operatives had compromising personal and financial
information about President-Elect Trump (“Item One”);
(2) Final determinations regarding the accuracy (or lack thereof) of
any of the individual factual claims listed in the two page synopsis
(“Item Two”); and
(3) Investigative files relied upon in reaching the final
determinations referenced in [Item Two] (“Item Three”).
James Madison I, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 17. These responses remained unanswered at the time Plaintiffs filed this action. See id. 17–18.

Thereafter, within the context of this litigation, Defendants responded to Plaintiffs’ FOIA demands. All Defendants asserted Glomar responses as to Items Two and Three—that is, they refused to admit or deny whether any responsive records even exist. See id. at 18. As to Item One, only the FBI advanced a Glomar response, while the Intelligence Community Defendants admitted the existence and their possession of the “two-page ‘synopsis’” but invoked FOIA Exemptions 1
and 3 to justify withholding the document in its entirety. See id. Defendants then moved for summary judgment, which the court granted in full on January 4, 2018. See id. at 17. The court held that: (1) Defendants’ Glomar responses to Items Two and Three were proper, see id. at 31–35; (2) the FBI’s Glomar response to Item One was appropriate, see id. at 29–31; and (3) the
Intelligence Community Defendants’ withholding of the two-page synopsis was justified, see id. at 35–36. Plaintiffs then noticed an appeal from the court’s ruling. See Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 38.
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 3 of 13

B.
But then the ground shifted. On February 2, 2018, President Trump authorized release of a memorandum prepared by the majority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, commonly referred to as the Nunes Memo. See Pls.’ Mot. for Recons., ECF No. 40
[hereinafter Pls.’ Mot.], Ex. 1, ECF No. 40-1 [hereinafter Nunes Memo]. Among other things, the Nunes Memo revealed that former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele drafted the Dossier; that, in October 2016, the FBI relied in part on portions of the Dossier’s contents to secure a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) warrant as to Carter Page, a former campaign
advisor to then-candidate Trump; that, in parallel with pursuing the Page FISA warrant, the FBI was undertaking efforts to corroborate the allegations contained within the Dossier; and, critically for this case, that “in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier.” See id. at 4–6.1

A few weeks later, the President authorized the declassification and release of even more information about the Dossier’s origin and use. On February 24, 2018, a rebuttal to the Nunes Memo, written by the minority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, became public. See Pls.’ Notice of Suppl. Info., ECF No. 41, Ex. 1, ECF No. 41-1 [hereinafter Schiff Memo]. The rebuttal, better known as the “Schiff Memo,” revealed, among other things,
that Steele shared his “reporting . . . with an FBI agent . . . through the end of October 2016”; and, importantly for this case, that “[t]he FBI has undertaken a rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele’s reporting.” Id. at 5, 8. As a result of the release of the Nunes and Schiff Memos, there is now in the public domain meaningful information about how the FBI acquired the Dossier and
how the agency used it to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
1 Citations to both the Nunes and Schiff Memos are to the page numbers electronically generated by CM/ECF.
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 4 of 13

Not surprisingly, after the release of the Nunes Memo, Plaintiffs asked this court to reconsider the validity of Defendants’ Glomar responses. See generally Pls.’ Mot. Moving under Rule 60(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs argued that the information contained in the Memos “undoubtedly would have conclusively and substantively changed the outcome of the present case if it had been available prior to this Court’s” summary judgment ruling.
Id. at 6. Defendants opposed Plaintiffs’ motion, arguing that “nothing to which [Plaintiffs] refer in the Nunes Memo or in the Schiff Memo addresses the two-page synopsis that is the subject of plaintiffs’ request.” Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 43 [hereinafter Defs.’ Opp’n], at 2. As Defendants put it: “The Schiff Memo, like the Nunes Memo, is devoid, in fact, of any reference
to the two-page synopsis” and thus “[n]o waiver of the Glomar responses . . . results[.]” Id. at 3.

In view of the parties’ positions, the issue before the court is: Does the President’s approved release of the information contained in the Nunes and Schiff Memos constitute an official acknowledgement of the existence of records requested by Plaintiffs, such that Defendants’ Glomar responses are now invalid? The court turns now to answer that question.

II.
A.
Rule 60(b)(2) allows for relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding based on “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). In order for evidence to meet the requirements of Rule 60(b)(2), the following criteria must be met:
(1) the newly discovered evidence is of facts that existed at the time
of trial or other dispositive proceeding; (2) the party seeking relief
was justifiably ignorant of the evidence despite due diligence;
(3) the evidence is admissible and is of such importance that it
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 5 of 13

probably would have changed the outcome; and (4) the evidence is
not merely cumulative or impeaching.
West v. Holder, 309 F.R.D. 54, 57 (D.D.C. 2015) (citation omitted).
There is no dispute here that both the Nunes and Schiff Memos satisfy the first, second, and fourth prongs for purposes of Rule 60(b)(2). See Bain v. MJJ Prods., Inc., 751 F.3d 642, 647 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (defining “newly discovered evidence”). Thus, the sole question for the court is whether those Memos are “of such importance that it probably would have changed the outcome” of the court’s summary judgment ruling. West, 309 F.R.D. at 57; see also In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 156 F.R.D. 18, 22 (D.D.C. 1994) (noting that evidence is “newly discovered” under Rule 60(b)(2) if it is “of such a material and controlling nature as will probably change the outcome” (citing Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 371 n.12 (D.C. Cir. 1978)).
B.
It is helpful to start with a recap of the principles that govern how to evaluate a Glomar response. To overcome a Glomar response, the plaintiff can either challenge the agency’s position that disclosing the existence of a record will cause harm under the FOIA exemption asserted by the agency, or the plaintiff can show that the agency has “officially acknowledged” the existence
of records that are the subject of the request. See James Madison I, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 20. If the requester takes the second route—as Plaintiffs do here—she “must pinpoint an agency record that both matches the plaintiff’s request and has been publicly and officially acknowledged by the agency.” Id. at 21 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Moore v. CIA, 666 F.3d 1330, 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2011)).2
2 Although drafted by Legislative Branch staff, Defendants here do not dispute that the Nunes and Schiff Memos constitute official public statements of the President that could give rise to a Glomar waiver. Cf. James Madison I,
302 F. Supp. 3d at 24 (The D.C. Circuit has recognized that ‘[a] disclosure made by the President, or by [an] advisor acting as “instructed” by the President,’ is attributable to executive branch agencies for purposes of the official
acknowledgement doctrine.” (quoting Am. Civ. Liberties Union (ACLU) v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422, 429 n.7 (D.C. Cir. Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 6 of 13

Generally speaking, there are two ways in which a plaintiff can establish that a public statement officially acknowledges the existence of a document. The plaintiff can either (1) identify a statement that “on [its] face” constitutes an official acknowledgement of a document’s existence, or (2) point to a statement that, when combined with the “context in which it is made,” leads to an
“inescapable inference that the requested record[ ] in fact exist[s].” See James Madison I, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 22. Under either approach, the “official acknowledgement” doctrine must be construed “strictly.” Id. at 23 (quoting Moore, 666 F.3d at 1333). And, “whether expressly or by inference, the official statement must render it ‘neither logical nor plausible’ for the agency to
justify its position that disclosure would reveal anything not already in the public domain.” Id. at 24 (quoting Am. Civ. Liberties Union (ACLU) v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422, 430 (D.C. Cir. 2013)).

III.
Plaintiffs argue that the Nunes and Schiff Memos, both directly and by way of inference, “pinpoint” the existence of agency records that “match” their FOIA requests. They contend that both Memos disclose the FBI’s efforts to verify or refute the accuracy of the Dossier’s allegations, and note that the Nunes Memo expressly mentions “a source validation report conducted by an
independent unit within [the] FBI [that] assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated.” Nunes Memo at 6 (emphasis added); see Pls.’ Mot. at 2–3. The referenced “source validation report,” they assert, “matches” their requests for “final determinations regarding the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the allegations summarized in the two-page synopsis, as well as 2013)). In fact, the Nunes Memo’s release caused the Department of Justice to withdraw its Glomar response in a different FOIA case before this court, involving a demand for records relating to the Carter Page FISA warrant application. See James Madison Project v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Case No. 17-cv-00597-APM (D.D.C.), Def.’s Resp. to Order, ECF No. 32, at 1 (“Defendant withdraws the Glomar response as to the existence of the Page FISA applications and orders identified in the Nunes Memo.”). Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 7 of 13

investigative files (if any) relied upon in rendering those final determinations.” Pls.’ Mot. at 2–3 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also James Madison I, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 17.

Defendants’ response is straightforward. Distinguishing the Dossier from the two-page synopsis, they concede that both Memos disclose the FBI’s efforts to corroborate the Dossier’s allegations, but assert that nothing in the Memos “addresses the two-page synopsis that is the subject of plaintiffs’ requests.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 2. In other words, they argue, neither the Nunes Memo nor the Schiff Memo contains reference to any document that matches the “final
determinations” or “investigative files” about the synopsis that Plaintiffs seek, so their Glomar responses remain on firm ground.

Plaintiffs have the better of the argument.
A.
Item One: The Two-Page Synopsis. Recall, only the FBI asserted a Glomar response to Plaintiffs’ demand for a copy of the two-page synopsis presented to President-elect Trump. James Madison I, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 18. The Nunes Memo makes the FBI’s position no longer tenable because it expressly refers to the document Plaintiffs seek. Specifically, the Nunes Memo states:
“[I]n early January 2017, [FBI] Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—‘salacious and unverified.’” Nunes Memo at 6 (emphasis added). Read in context, the Nunes Memo’s reference to “a summary of the Steele dossier” presented to President-elect Trump in “early January 2017”
matches Plaintiffs’ first demand: a “two-page ‘synopsis’ provided by the U.S. Government to President-Elect Trump with respect to allegations that Russian Government operatives had compromising personal and financial information about President-Elect Trump.”
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 8 of 13

To begin with, the phrase “a summary of the Steele dossier” clearly refers to a written summary. Interpreting that phrase to refer to an oral summary would be grammatically unnatural.

The Nunes Memo uses the past tense of the verb “brief,” the preposition “on,” and the article “a” before “summary” to describe what Director Comey did with respect to “a summary of the Steele Dossier.” Reading those terms together conveys that Director Comey dispensed information as to some tangible object—a briefing “on” “a summary.” To say that the Director “briefed” the
President-elect “on” “an” oral summary would make little sense. If the briefing concerned only an oral summation, then the phrase “a summary of” to modify “the Steele Dossier” would be entirely unnecessary (“Director Comey briefed President Trump on . . . the Steele Dossier”). Thus, understanding “summary” to refer to a “written summary” is the natural reading.

Context supplies other evidence of a match between Plaintiffs’ Item One request and the Nunes Memo’s reference to “a summary of the Dossier.” The terms “synopsis”—used by Plaintiffs—and “summary”—used by the Nunes Memo—are, of course, synonyms. The interchangeability of those words points to the same document. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ demand for a document pertaining to “allegations that Russian Government operatives had compromising
and personal financial information about President-Elect Trump” is an unmistakable reference to what the Nunes and Schiff Memos identify as the Dossier. See Nunes Memo at 5 (stating that the “‘dossier’ [was] compiled by Christopher Steele” who was tasked with “obtain[ing] derogatory
information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia”); cf. Schiff Memo at 3–4 (“DOJ’s applications did not otherwise rely on Steele’s reporting, including any ‘salacious’ allegations about Trump, and the FBI never paid Steele for this reporting.”). And the Nunes Memo’s description of what Director Comey did with the “summary” is consistent with a January 10, 2017, CNN article that
Plaintiffs incorporated in their FOIA request to the agencies “for context.” See Answer, ECF No.
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 9 of 13

8, Ex. A, ECF No. 8-1 [hereinafter FOIA Request], at 2; Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 14, Ex. G, ECF No. 14-14 [hereinafter CNN Article]. The CNN article reported that allegations regarding Russian possession of “compromising personal and financial information” about the President-elect were “presented” in a two-page synopsis to President-elect Trump during the first
week of January 2017 by “four of the senior-most US intelligence chiefs,” including FBI Director Comey. CNN Article at 1–2; see also FOIA Request at 3 (stating the “two page synopsis included allegations derived from a 35 page ‘dossier’ allegedly compiled by a former British intelligence
operative” and published by BuzzFeed). The Nunes Memo confirms this description of events.

It places Director Comey in a briefing of President-elect Trump regarding a summary of the Dossier in January 2017. These parallels lead the court to conclude that the “synopsis” sought by Plaintiffs is in fact the “summary” acknowledged by the Nunes Memo.

It is true that the Nunes Memo does not use the word “synopsis.” But that is not fatal. The context in which the official acknowledgement was made leads to the obvious inference that the FBI possesses the two-page synopsis Plaintiffs seek. Is it reasonable to conclude that the synopsis does not exist or that the FBI does not possess it, even though the FBI has, in the words of the Nunes Memo, undertaken a “rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele’s reporting”? Of
course not. No reasonable person would accept as plausible that the nation’s top law enforcement agency does not have the two-page synopsis in light of these officially acknowledged facts of its actions. As the D.C. Circuit observed in ACLU, “[t]he Glomar doctrine is in large measure a judicial construct, an interpretation of FOIA exemptions that flows from their purpose rather than their express language.” 710 F.3d at 431. To accept the FBI’s Glomar response as to Item One in this case would “stretch that doctrine too far.” Id.
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 10 of 13

By authorizing the release of the Nunes Memo to make known the existence of the “summary” of the Dossier on which he was briefed, the President has publicly acknowledged the existence of the two-page synopsis in Director Comey’s possession. The FBI therefore can no longer assert a Glomar response to Plaintiffs’ demand for that record.
B.
Items Two and Three: Final Determinations and Investigative Files. For much the same reasons already discussed, it remains no longer logical nor plausible for the FBI to maintain that it cannot confirm nor deny the existence of documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ second and third requests: (1) “[f]inal determinations regarding the accuracy (or lack thereof) of any of the individual factual claims listed in the two page synopsis” and (2) the “[i]nvestigative files relied
upon in reaching [such] final determinations.”

The Memos reveal that the FBI has undertaken substantial efforts to confirm the accuracy of the Dossier’s reporting. The Nunes Memo expressly acknowledges the existence of “a source validation report,” conducted by an “independent unit within [the] FBI,” which “assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated.” Nunes Memo at 6. The Schiff Memo takes a more
favorable view of a portion of Steele’s reporting, and provides even more information about the FBI’s efforts. It explains that “Steele’s information about [Carter] Page was consistent with the FBI’s assessment of Russian intelligence efforts to recruit him and his connections to Russian persons of interest,” Schiff Memo at 6, and that the FBI had reached a sufficient level of confidence
in Steele’s reporting about Carter Page’s alleged coordination with Russian officials to include that information in a FISA warrant application, id. at 8. Additionally, the Schiff Memo states:
“The FBI has undertaken a rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele’s reporting, including with regard to Page.” Id. at 8. Unless the court is to believe that the FBI undertook these efforts Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 11 of 13

without creating any memoranda or other papers containing assessments about Steele’s reporting and did not gather files for that purpose—a wholly implausible proposition—the Nunes and Schiff Memos are “tantamount to an acknowledgment that the [FBI] has documents on [those] subject[s].” ACLU, 710 F.3d at 431.
Defendants counter that the absence of any express reference in the Memos to efforts to validate the synopsis, as opposed to the Dossier, allows them to stand on Glomar responses as to Items Two and Three. But that position defies logic. As a “summary” of the Dossier, Nunes Memo at 6, the synopsis undeniably contains some subset of the Dossier’s allegations. It is simply not plausible to believe that, to whatever extent the FBI has made efforts to verify Steele’s
reporting, some portion of that work has not been devoted to allegations that made their way into the synopsis. After all, if the reporting was important enough to brief the President-elect, then surely the FBI thought enough of those key charges to attempt to verify their accuracy. It will be up to the FBI to determine which of the records in its possession relating to the reliability of the
Dossier concerns Steele’s reporting as discussed in the synopsis. Accordingly, the FBI has waived its Glomar responses as to Items Two and Three of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request.

The same cannot be said, however, about the Intelligence Community Defendants. Neither the Nunes Memo nor the Schiff Memo makes any reference to any effort by the Intelligence Community Defendants to determine the accuracy (or lack thereof) of any of the individual factual claims contained in the synopsis. Although an official presidential statement can vitiate a Glomar
response for an executive branch agency, see ACLU, 710 F.3d at 429 n.7, the court does not read Circuit precedent to go so far as to say that the President’s acknowledgment of the existence of records by one agency categorically precludes every part of the Executive Branch from asserting a Glomar response. Rather, if an official presidential acknowledgement is limited to a single
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 12 of 13

component of the Executive Branch, as is the case here, other unrelated components may still invoke Glomar. The court’s conclusion is consistent with the principle that, when the President makes an official acknowledgment as to a particular agency, in that capacity he acts solely as the “parent” of that agency and that agency alone—not the entire Executive Branch. Cf. id. (explaining
that the rule that one agency’s waiver of a Glomar response does not bind another, unrelated agency “does not apply . . . where the disclosures are made by an authorized representative of the agency’s parent. A disclosure made by the President, or by his counterterrorism advisor acting as ‘instructed’ by the President, falls on the ‘parent agency’ side of that line.” (internal citations
omitted)). To adopt the contrary rule would have far-reaching consequences that this court is not prepared to accept, in the absence of clear guidance from the Circuit. Accordingly, the court finds that disclosures contained in the Nunes and Schiff Memos are not official acknowledgements that preclude the Intelligence Community Defendants from maintaining Glomar responses as to Items
Two and Three of Plaintiffs’ request.

IV.
For the foregoing reasons, consistent with Rule 62.1, the court states that, on remand, the court would grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration as to all of the FBI’s Glomar responses.
The court, however, denies the Motion for Reconsideration as to the Intelligence Community Defendants’ Glomar responses to Plaintiffs’ second and third FOIA requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(2).

Dated: August 16, 2018 Amit P. Mehta
United States District Judge
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 13 of 13

https://www.scribd.com/document/386451281/FBI-Foia-Ruling#download&from_embed

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Justice Dept. enema required, Strzok firing not enough, J Christian Adams warning, Attorney Ty Clevenger FOIA requests and Transparency Project, DOJ blocking Set Rich info release

Justice Dept. enema required, Strzok firing not enough, J Christian Adams warning, Attorney Ty Clevenger FOIA requests and Transparency Project, DOJ blocking Set Rich info release

“Why was Tony West, who helped Obama keep his records hidden at taxpayer expense, promoted to Acting Associate Attorney General, the third highest official at the Justice Department?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has the Department of Justice not been cleansed (given an enema)?”…Citizen Wells

“I know that Seth Rich was involved in the DNC leak.”…Kim Dotcom

 

J. Christian Adams, former Justice Department attorney, warned us in 2010.

“On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter -intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.”
“Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department’s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.”

https://citizenwells.com/2014/06/09/j-christian-adams-explains-obama-use-of-alinsky-rules-for-radicals-challengers-to-obama-labeled-marginalized-compartmentalized-birthers-impeachment-proponents-made-to-look-crazy/

I have probably spent the greatest amount of time researching relative to reporting on the Seth Rich murder.

I vowed I would not forget it.

We deserve the truth.

There have been a number of FOIA requests for release of information regarding the Seth Rich murder and “investigations.”

I kept looking for a followup on the Judicial Watch request.

Attorney Ty Clevenger has made a number of FOIA requests as well as filing lawsuits and provided updates.

http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017.09.01-Seth-Rich-FOIA-request.pdf

“Federal lawsuit seeks records about Seth Rich murder”

“This morning I filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that asks a federal judge in Brooklyn to order the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice to release records concerning the murder of former Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich.

Back in October, I wrote about the U.S. Department of Justice ordering the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. to release records about the murder, but since that time not a single record has been produced.  Around the same time, the FBI refused to search for records in its Washington Field Office, even though that is where the records are most likely to be found.  The lawsuit notes that the FBI has a history of trying to hide records from FOIA requestors and Congress.

I also asked the court to order the National Security Administration to release all of its communications with members of Congress regarding Seth Rich, Julian Assange, and Kim Dotcom, among others.

As you are probably aware, Mr. Rich’s parents filed suit this week against Fox News, producer Malia Zimmerman, and frequent guest Ed Butowsky.  I think that was a serious tactical error.  All of the defendants now have the legal right to subpoena documents and witnesses, and you can be sure they will use that power aggressively.

THE TRANSPARENCY PROJECT

With help from several supporters, I’ve organized The Transparency Project, a nonprofit corporation headquartered in Texas. If you want to support the Seth Rich litigation, you can find out how at Tproject.org. The website is a little primitive, but I plan to update it soon.”

Read more:

http://lawflog.com/?p=1912

The Transparency Project

“The Transparency Project is a nonprofit organization that fights political corruption, particularly in the judiciary and the legal profession. TTP was organized by Ty Clevenger, an attorney who grew tired of watching judges and lawyers get away with things that would send most people to prison.  Ty has forced two federal judges into retirement, triggered a grand jury investigation of the Texas Attorney General (who was subsequently indicted), prompted the indictment and conviction of a corrupt district attorney, and sued bar prosecutors to force them to investigate Hillary Clinton’s lawyers for their roles in destroying email evidence.  TTP intends to purse similar cases.”

Read more:

http://tproject.org/

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Jack Burkman Seth Rich murder investigator alleges nearly killed by Kevin Doherty, Doherty briefly worked for Burkman’s Profiling Project, “This in my mind makes the whole Seth story stranger and stranger,”

Jack Burkman Seth Rich murder investigator alleges nearly killed by Kevin Doherty, Doherty briefly worked for Burkman’s Profiling Project, “This in my mind makes the whole Seth story stranger and stranger,”

“I know that Seth Rich was involved in the DNC leak.”…Kim Dotcom

“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,”
“And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ”…Attorney David Schippers, Clinton investigator

“Burkman said in an interview that he considered Selig like a brother and was badly shaken by his friend’s death.”
“The tragically ironic part is Glenn’s last words to me were, ‘Be careful,’” Burkman said. “It’s just a tragedy — terrible.””…Politico Jan. 24, 2018

 

From the Washington Post March 20, 2018.

“Lobbyist says he was nearly killed by man he hired to investigate Seth Rich’s death”

“Burkman, a conservative lobbyist who has also raised money for Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign official who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, and protested gay athletes in the NFL, is used to controversy. But Doherty’s arrest Saturday by Arlington County police on charges of malicious wounding and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony caps a saga stranger than Burkman’s own conspiracy theories.

“It’s a horror story,” Burkman, of Arlington, said in an interview Monday afternoon. He is still recovering after being shot several times and run over by an SUV last Tuesday.

Doherty briefly worked for Burkman’s Profiling Project, which was formed to build a psychological portrait of Rich’s likely killer. Burkman was offering a six-figure reward for information on the slaying of Rich, which police have determined was most likely a random robbery but many conservatives have claimed was part of a political conspiracy.

Burkman said Doherty presented an impressive resume — ex-Marine, ex-special agent — and did good work. But tension quickly developed. In Burkman’s view, Doherty began speaking to reporters out of turn and tried to take over the investigation.

Doherty’s military background could not immediately be confirmed.

“He became somewhat angry because he thought the Profiling Project belonged to him,” Burkman said. In July, he cut Doherty loose and sent him a cease and desist letter.

“I just figured the matter was closed,” Burkman said. “But what happened is, I guess, he was simmering and simmering and simmering.”

In February, Burkman had moved on to a new investigation. He had put out a call for whistleblowers in the FBI, offering $25,000 for any information exposing wrongdoing in the presidential election.”

“The last drop was supposed to be “the big one” — the full inspector general report on McCabe, which still has not been released. Instead, when Burkman bent over to pull the papers out from under the cone, he was shot in the buttocks and thigh. As he ran out of the garage with his dachshund in his arms, he was hit by an SUV.

He said the car backed up to hit him again.

“It looked like he was coming to kill me,” Burkman said. But he said a woman watching from a window of the hotel screamed. A guard came running and the SUV sped off, Burkman said.”

“Burkman said he is now traveling with security. But the experience has not soured him on conspiracy theories. His profiling project concluded that Rich was shot by a hired killer, and he wonders if Doherty was working for someone else.

He has not given up on investigating Rich’s death, whose family just sued Fox News for publishing a false story linking their son to WikiLeaks.

“This in my mind makes the whole Seth story stranger and stranger,” Burkman said.”

Read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/lobbyist-says-he-was-nearly-killed-by-man-he-hired-to-investigate-seth-richs-death/2018/03/19/a4261e48-2baa-11e8-8688-e053ba58f1e4_story.html?utm_term=.8a879669e277

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Obama in loop with FBI Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Text messages reveal exchanges preparing talking points for James Comey to give to President Obama  who wanted “to know everything we’re doing.”

Obama in loop with FBI Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Text messages reveal exchanges preparing talking points for James Comey to give to President Obama  who wanted “to know everything we’re doing.”

“If This Story Gets Out, We Are Screwed”…Wikileaks: Doug Band to John Podesta

“James Comey’s decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.”…Daily Mail October 30, 2016

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From Fox News.

“FBI lovers’ latest text messages: Obama ‘wants to know everything’

Newly revealed text messages between FBI paramours Peter Strzok and Lisa Page include an exchange about preparing talking points for then-FBI Director James Comey to give to President Obama, who wanted “to know everything we’re doing.”

The message, from Page to Strzok, was among thousands of texts between the lovers reviewed by Fox News. The pair both worked at one point for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Page wrote to Strzok on Sept. 2, 2016, about prepping Comey because “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.” According to a newly released Senate report, this text raises questions about Obama’s personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.

In texts previously revealed, Strzok and Page have shown their disdain for Republicans in general, as well as Trump, calling him a “f—ing idiot,” among other insults.

Among the newly disclosed texts, Strzok also calls Virginians who voted against then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s wife for a state Senate seat “ignorant hillbillys.” (sic)

That text came from Strzok to Page on Nov. 4, 2015, the day after Jill McCabe lost a hotly contested Virginia state Senate election. Strzok said of the result, “Disappointing, but look at the district map. Loudon is being gentrified, but it’s still largely ignorant hillbillys. Good for her for running, but curious if she’s energized or never again.”

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., along with majority staff from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is releasing the texts, along with a report titled, “The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI’s Investigation of it.”

The newly uncovered texts reveal a bit more about the timing of the discovery of “hundreds of thousands” of emails on former Congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop, ultimately leading to Comey’s infamous letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential election.

On Sept. 28, 2016, Strzok wrote to Page, “Got called up to Andy’s [McCabe] earlier.. hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s atty to sdny [Southern District of New York], includes a ton of material from spouse [Huma Abedin]. Sending team up tomorrow to review… this will never end.” According to the Senate report, this text message raises questions about when FBI officials learned of emails relevant to the Hillary Clinton email investigation on the laptop belonging to Weiner, the husband to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

It was a full month later, on Oct. 28, 2016, when Comey informed Congress that, “Due to recent developments,” the FBI was re-opening its Clinton email investigation.

“In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday…” Comey said at the time.

The question becomes why Comey was only informed by his investigative team on Oct.  27, if the Clinton emails on Weiner’s laptop were discovered by Sept. 28, at the latest.

Other texts show more examples of the officials’ opposition to Trump.

On Election Day 2016, Page wrote, “OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING.” Strzok replied, “Omg, I am so depressed.” Later that month, on Nov. 13, 2016, Page wrote, “I bought all the president’s men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate.”  ”

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/07/more-texts-between-strzok-and-page-uncovered-lead-to-more-questions.html

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

FBI 90 percent chance of Hillary indictment, Decades of Clinton crime, David Schippers and Judicial Watch findings, John Podesta tied to crimes

FBI 90 percent chance of Hillary indictment, Decades of Clinton crime, David Schippers and Judicial Watch findings, John Podesta tied to crimes

“If This Story Gets Out, We Are Screwed”…Wikileaks: Doug Band to John Podesta

“James Comey’s decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.”…Daily Mail October 30, 2016

“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion

 

Waiting for Hillary Clinton’s emails, Russian uranium deal connections or attempts to interfere in the 2016 election to have her indicted?

Well, we have been waiting for decades.

It certainly could have happened in 2016.

From Citizen Wells November 4, 2016.

“There is a very good chance that Hillary will be indicted.

The question is when.”

“A deep hatred of Hillary Clinton exists within the FBI, multiple bureau agents told the Guardian. Agents explained that Clinton is considered “the antichrist” within the department, and a desire to stop her being elected spurred the rapid series of damaging leaks just days before the election.

A Wall Street Journal report says the FBI’s pursuit of the case is rooted in recordings of a suspect in a different corruption case who spoke about the Clinton Foundation’s dirty dealings.

FBI: “90% Chance Of Indictment And Prosecution”

The FBI say there is a 90% chance of indictment and prosecution for Hillary Clinton and others connected to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton campaign.”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.com/2016/11/04/hillary-steps-down-for-medical-reasons-before-indictment-3-compelling-sources-reveal-hillary-evil-david-schippers-james-kallstrom-former-second-in-command-of-fbi-concensus-from-current-fbi-agents/

From Citizen News September 3, 2016.

“The evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch overwhelmingly indicates
that President Clinton condoned, directed and effected this
lawbreaking. It also shows that he was aided and abetted by, among
others, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Vice President Albert Gore, late
Commerce Secretary Ronald Brown, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other
key White House personnel, including Leon Panetta, John Podesta, Harold
Ickes, Bruce Lindsey, Bernard Nussbaum, and Labor Secretary Alexis
Herman.
For example, Judicial Watch has uncovered key evidence in the
massive political espionage, witness tampering and intimidation
operation popularly known as “Filegate.” In “Filegate,” the Clinton
White House, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Hillary
Rodham Clinton, former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, and
Clinton appointees Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca, illegally
obtained and misused the FBI files of former Reagan and Bush
Administration staffers and others to gain sensitive information on
perceived political opponents and material witnesses for use in its
smear campaigns. Judicial Watch represents the victims of “Filegate”
in a civil lawsuit.
The “Filegate” political espionage, witness tampering and
intimidation operation, a horrendous violation of the Privacy Act and
other laws, continues to this day. It represents the means by which the
Clintons defend the various scandals which threaten their hold on
power. The evidence indicates that the Clinton Administration, with the
direct knowledge and participation of the President, continues to
illegally compile, maintain and disseminate sensitive information on
perceived adversaries from confidential government files. Contrary to
previous Clinton Administration explanations, Judicial Watch discovered
that it was a high-level Clinton political appointee who illegally
ordered the release of Linda Tripp’s confidential information from her
Pentagon file in a clear effort to intimidate her from telling what she
knew of Clinton White House illegal activities, and to destroy her
credibility. Judicial Watch also uncovered evidence indicating that
President Clinton authorized the illegal release of Kathleen Willey’s
letters, stored in a White House filing system subject to the Privacy
Act, in an effort to intimidate and smear her. Like Ms. Tripp, Ms.
Willey is a material witness in on-going criminal grand jury
investigations and civil lawsuits.
Part of the pattern of “Filegate” is President Clinton’s use of
private investigators, the Reno Justice Department, the FBI, the IRS,
and political operatives such as James Carville to obstruct justice,
silence witnesses and intimidate investigators. For example, Judicial
Watch has uncovered evidence that President Clinton personally
participated in this operation by threatening “to destroy,” and then
defaming one witness, Dolly Kyle Browning, if she dared to tell the
truth about their 30-year friendship and sexual relationship.
President Clinton’s political appointee and former IRS Commissioner
Margaret Milner Richardson also illegally used the IRS to audit public
interest groups thought to be hostile to the Clinton Administration,
including the Western Journalism Center.
Through discovery in its civil lawsuit against the Clinton Commerce
Department, Judicial Watch also has found evidence that President
Clinton condoned and participated in a scheme, conceived by First Lady
Hillary Rodham Clinton and approved by the President, to sell seats on
U.S. Department of Commerce trade missions in exchange for political
contributions. Bribery is specifically highlighted in the U.S.
Constitution as an offense warranting impeachment.
In President Clinton’s push to sell taxpayer-financed government
services to raise money for his political operations, national security
likely was breached by his Commerce Department appointees and those
involved in his fundraising scheme, such as John Huang. While Judicial
Watch is at an interim stage of investigation in this sensitive area,
the breaches of national security uncovered at the Clinton Commerce
Department raise real questions of treasonous activities by the
President and members of his Administration.
To cover-up this illegal fundraising and likely national security
breaches, President Clinton’s top two staffers, then-Chief of Staff
Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta, ordered late
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to obstruct justice and defy federal Court
orders. The evidence also indicates that Secretary Brown personally
consulted with President Clinton in furtherance of this cover-up.
In addition to the illegal sale of taxpayer-financed services, such
as seats on government trade missions, for political contributions, the
President and Mrs. Clinton have illegally solicited and received monies
directly from private citizens and others. The creation and use of
legal defense funds is not only prohibited under federal law, but they
have proved to be a means whereby lobbyists, influence peddlers and
foreign powers have tried to influence the Administration, contrary to
U.S. national security interests.”

Read more:

http://citizenwells.net/2016/09/03/filegate-bill-clinton-aided-and-abetted-by-hillary-gore-reno-brown-conduct-or-plan-designed-to-delay-impede-and-obstruct-the-investigation-of-bribery-cover-up-conceal-and-protect-those-responsible-c/

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/