Category Archives: Federal Court

Michael Flynn motion to disqualify Judge Sullivan October 7, 2020,  Judge Sullivan: “cast an intolerable cloud of partiality over his subsequent judicial conduct”

Michael Flynn motion to disqualify Judge Sullivan October 7, 2020,  Judge Sullivan: “cast an intolerable cloud of partiality over his subsequent judicial conduct”

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October

“her client was “totally set up” because he threatened to expose wrongdoing by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration.

“He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” Powell said, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan.”…Sidney Powell, Vickie McKenna Show

On Judge Sullivan: “if there was any doubt up to this point whether his conduct gives the appearance of partiality, that doubt is gone.”...Judge Rao dissenting opinion

 

From United States v Michael Flynn October 7, 2020.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), (b)(1), and (b)(5)(i), General Michael T. Flynn
moves to disqualify Judge Emmet G. Sullivan from further participation in this case. At least by the time of his failure to follow the mandamus of the D.C. Circuit panel and his decision with his own retained counsel to take the unprecedented and improper step of filing his petition for rehearing en banc, Judge Sullivan “cast an intolerable cloud of partiality over his subsequent judicial conduct” and “risk[ed] [] undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial process.” In re Al Nashiri, 921 F.3d 224, 237, 239 (D.C. Cir. 2019). ““[A]ll that must be demonstrated to compel recusal,” then, is “a showing of an appearance of bias…sufficient to permit the average citizen reasonably to question a judge’s impartiality.”” Id. at 234. Judge Sullivan satisfied that standard when he actively litigated against General Flynn. He has since far exceeded it—rising to the level of demonstrating actual bias. The
court’s contempt and disdain for the defense was palpable throughout the hearing on September 29, 2020, including when defense counsel made an oral motion for his immediate disqualification, which he refused to allow even to be fully stated for the record. Hr’g Tr., United States v. Flynn, No. 17-232, (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2020) at 64-65 (hereinafter “Hr’g Tr. 09-29-20”). Accordingly, the defense files this motion to confirm the oral motion made at the hearing.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.261.0_1.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

Joel and Mary Rich v Fox News et al, “Fox defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for conspiracy and aiding and abetting IIED…is granted”

Joel and Mary Rich v Fox News et al, “Fox defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for conspiracy and aiding and abetting IIED…is granted”

“The left, the Democrats, the Deep State. Obama holdovers employing high powered law firms and corrupt judges have done their best to hide and obfuscate the truth surrounding the DNC leaks and possible involvement by Seth Rich.”…Citizen Wells

“With the clearly unethical and most likely criminal behavior of the upper management levels of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) exposed by Chairman Devin Nunes of the House Intelligence Committee, there are two complementary areas that have been conveniently swept under the rug. The first deals with the murder of the  Democratic National Convention (DNC) staffer Seth Rich, and the second deals with the alleged hacking of the DNC server by Russia.”...Admiral James Lyons

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizen Wells

 

From Joel Rich and Mary Rich

v

Fox News Network, Malia Zimmerman and Ed Butowsky

September 25, 2020.

“Fox defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for conspiracy and aiding and abetting IIED , (ECF No. 102), is granted”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.490098/gov.uscourts.nysd.490098.208.0.pdf

This case had been returned to this lower court on appeal.

From Citizen Wells July 14, 2019.

“This is possibly the most unreported important news story I have ever encountered.

Joel and Mary Rich lost their lawsuit against Fox News in 2018 and on September 27, 2018 filed an appeal.

First, their lawsuit results.

From the Federalist Papers.

“Fox News Wins Seth Rich Lawsuit; Judge Dismisses

A New York City judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the parents of murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich on Thursday that asserted Fox News Channel colluded with the White House to propel a false, politically-biased narrative about Rich’s death.”

“It is understandable that plaintiffs might feel that their grief and personal loss were taken advantage of, and that the tragic death of their son was exploited for political purposes,” but Fox evidently did not intend to inflict emotional distress, Judge George Daniels wrote in his decision.””

https://citizenwells.com/2019/07/14/joel-and-mary-rich-v-fox-news-appeal-seth-rich-murder-investigations-and-reporting-appeal-of-richs-failed-lawsuit-almost-unreported/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Amy Coney Barrett President Trump pick for SCOTUS, Judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia

Amy Coney Barrett President Trump pick for SCOTUS, Judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia

“I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with a confirmation process as [Senate Judiciary] chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires,” ..Joe Biden, Georgetown Law School 2016

“When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination … There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That’s not in the Constitution text.”...Barack Obama 2016

“Even if President Trump wants to put forward a name now, the Senate should not act until after the American people select their next president, their next Congress, their next Senate,”...Joe Biden 2020 

 

The NY Times is calling it:

“President Trump has selected Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the favorite candidate of conservatives, to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and will try to force Senate confirmation before Election Day in a move that would significantly alter the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court for years.

Mr. Trump plans to announce on Saturday that she is his choice, according to six people close to the process who asked not to be identified disclosing the decision in advance. As they often do, aides cautioned that Mr. Trump sometimes upends his own plans.

But he is not known to have interviewed any other candidates and came away from two days of meetings with Judge Barrett this week impressed with a jurist he was told would be a female Antonin Scalia, referring to the justice she once clerked for. On Friday night, Judge Barrett was photographed getting out of her car outside her home in South Bend, Ind.

“I haven’t said it was her, but she is outstanding,” Mr. Trump told reporters who asked about Judge Barrett’s imminent nomination at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington after CNN and other news outlets reported on his choice.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court.html

From The University of Notre Dame Law School.

“The Honorable Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in October 2017. She is a Notre Dame Law School alumna and has taught as a member of the Law School’s faculty since 2002.

Judge Barrett teaches and researches in the areas of federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. Her scholarship in these fields has been published in leading journals, including the Columbia, Virginia, and Texas Law Reviews. From 2010-2016, she served by appointment of the Chief Justice on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She has been selected as “Distinguished Professor of the Year” by three of the Law School’s graduating classes.

Judge Barrett earned her B.A. in English literature, magna cum laude, from Rhodes College, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and, among other honors, was chosen by the faculty as the most outstanding graduate in the college’s English department. She earned her J.D., summa cum laude, from Notre Dame, where she was a Kiley Fellow, earned the Hoynes Prize, the Law School’s highest honor, and served as executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review.

Before joining the Notre Dame faculty, Judge Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. As an associate at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C., she litigated constitutional, criminal, and commercial cases in both trial and appellate courts. Judge Barrett has served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law at the George Washington University Law School,  as a visiting associate professor of law at the University of Virginia and is a member of the American Law Institute (ALI).”

Read more:

https://law.nd.edu/directory/amy-barrett/

Lawyer and law clerk endorsement letter:

https://law.nd.edu/assets/253073/amybarrettscotus.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

General Flynn dismissal filing Sept. 24, 2020, Third supplement , New documents reveal “outrageous, deliberate misconduct by FBI and DOJ”

General Flynn dismissal filing Sept. 24, 2020, Third supplement , New documents reveal “outrageous, deliberate misconduct by FBI and DOJ”

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October

“her client was “totally set up” because he threatened to expose wrongdoing by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration.

“He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” Powell said, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan.”…Sidney Powell, Vickie McKenna Show

On Judge Sullivan: “if there was any doubt up to this point whether his conduct gives the appearance of partiality, that doubt is gone.”...Judge Rao dissenting opinion

 

From the September 24, 2020 filing by Attorney Sidney Powell in the US v Michael Flynn case.

THIRD SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AGREED DISMISSAL.

“Late last night, the Government produced yet another tranche of
documents—its fifth production of exculpatory evidence since April of 2020, and its third since filing its massive Motion to Dismiss. ECF Nos. 198, 231, 237. According to the Government’s production correspondence: “The documents include handwritten notes of former Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok (23501 & 23503) and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (23502); and internal text messages between FBI analysts who worked on the Flynn matter (23504- 23516); . . . additional text messages between former DAD Strzok and Lisa Page (23516-23540).” The 41 pages of additional evidence demonstrate (i) his innocence; (ii) the absence of any crime; (iii) government misconduct in the investigation of General Flynn; and (iv) continuing prosecutorial misconduct in the suppression of evidence favorable to the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland and this Court’s Brady order. ECF No. 20.

These documents provide information long known to the agents and others at
the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the FBI; information long
concealed by the Special Counsel and FBI. This evidence shows outrageous,
deliberate misconduct by FBI and DOJ—playing games with the life of a national
hero. It negates multiple essential elements required for the prosecution of a false statement offense and any “offense” even considered in relationship to Flynn Intel Group’s review of open source information regarding Fethullah Gulen and the Muslim Brotherhood.

This remarkable new production shows that in August of 2016, the FBI
analysts discussed the preference of some agents for a Clinton Presidency—a known quantity—“instead of a wild card like [T]rump.”

In messages exchanged on the FBI’s “Lync” messaging system in October of
2016, FBI employees exchanged messages about the “Crossfire Road Show,” stating that they were “interested to see how this all plays out.” They knew exactly how bad it was: “I’m tellying man, if this thing ever gets FOIA’d, there are going to be some tough questions asked.””

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.248.0_2.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

Flynn appeal rehearing en banc oral arguments listen live August 11, 2020, US Court of Appeals DC District, Judges Srinivasan, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Griffith, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins, Rao

Flynn appeal rehearing en banc oral arguments listen live August 11, 2020, US Court of Appeals DC District, Judges Srinivasan, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Griffith, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins, Rao

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October

“Ms. Sines’s testimony flatly contradicts the FBI’s claims that (1) it did not investigate matters pertaining to Mr. Rich; (2) it did not examine his computer; and (3) it conducted a “reasonable” search but could not locate any records or communications about Mr. Rich. Specifically, Ms. Sines’s testimony flatly contradicts the affidavit testimony of FBI Section Chief David M. Hardy.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger March 29, 2020

“I repeatedly asked U.S. Attorney John Durham and DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz to investigate whether Mr. Hardy lied under oath, and in an April 22, 2020 letter Mr. Horowitz wrote that he referred my complaint to the FBI’s Inspection Division. Was Mr. Hardy forced out?”…Attorney Ty Clevenger July 22, 2020

 

From the US Court of Appeals DC District July 30, 2020.

“In re: Michael T. Flynn,
Petitioner
BEFORE: Srinivasan, Chief Judge, and Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland,
Griffith, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins, Katsas*, and Rao, Circuit Judges
O R D E R
Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc, the responses thereto, and the vote in favor of rehearing en banc by a majority of the judges eligible to participate, it is ORDERED that this case be reheard by the court sitting en banc. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the court’s order filed June 24, 2020, be vacated. It is FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument before the en banc court be heard at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 2020. The parties should be prepared to address whether there are “no other adequate means to attain the relief” desired. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004).
A separate order will issue regarding the allocation of oral argument time.”

“Tuesday, August 11, 2020 9:30 A.M. USCA Courtroom 31”

Judges Srinivasan, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Griffith, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins, Rao

Listen live:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/sixtyday.nsf/mastercalendar?SearchView&query=(%5BEntryDate%5D%3E=08/11/2020%20AND%20%5BEntryDate%5D%3C=08/11/2020)&tab=1&SearchMax=1000

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

General Flynn case amicus brief filed by Trey Gowdy et al May 28, 2020, “court lacks discretion to deny a rule 48 motion to which the defendant consents”

General Flynn case amicus brief filed by Trey Gowdy et al May 28, 2020, “court lacks discretion to deny a rule 48 motion to which the defendant consents”

“Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they call ‘The Resistance’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch.” …Attorney General Barr

And I’ve now found a witness who says the original 302 did in fact say that Flynn was honest with the agents.”...Attorney Sidney Powell

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October 23, 2019

 

From the

BRIEF OF FEDERAL PRACTITIONERS AS AMICI CURIAE

filed by Trey Gowdy May 28, 2020.

“INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
Amici curiae are a bipartisan group of attorneys with extensive experience in
the federal court system, including many who practice criminal law in this and
other federal courts. Some were prosecutors, government attorneys, or judges.
They have an interest in: (1) the proper application of Fed.R.Crim.P 48 in light of
Separation of Powers principles, and (2) the potential triggering of a contempt
proceeding for perjury in cases where a client moves to withdraw a guilty plea or
in cases, civil or criminal, where a client provides testimony which a court may
consider to be false.

“ARGUMENT
I. THE COURT LACKS DISCRETION TO DENY A RULE 48 MOTION
TO WHICH THE DEFENDANT CONSENTS
The issue presented in this case is whether the court has discretion to deny a
motion to dismiss to which the defendant consents, as Gen. Flynn has done here.
The answer is no. Rule 48 must be construed in light of the Constitutional
separation of powers. The D.C. Circuit has done so and has concluded that “the
‘leave of court’ authority gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor’s
Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the
prosecution’s exercise of charging authority.” U.S. v. Fokker Services B.V., 818
F.3d 733, 742 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

“Rule 48 provides that “[t]he government may, with leave of court, dismiss
an indictment, information, or complaint.” “The words ‘leave of court’ were
inserted in Rule 48(a) without explanation.” Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n. 15 (1977).3”

“A. The constitutional separation of powers precludes a court from
overriding a prosecutor’s decision to dismiss a prosecution.
Since its 1977 decision in Rinaldi, the Supreme Court has ruled that “an
agency’s decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal
process, is a decision generally committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.”
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). The Court has cautioned that “the
decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review. Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution’s general deterrence value, the Government’s enforcement priorities, and the case’s relationship to the Government’s overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake.” Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985).
These decisions effectively overrule Cowan and Ammidown.”

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.212.4_1.pdf

Exhibit A
List of Amici Curiae
1
Dan Backer Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Roy Barrera, Jr. Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Robert J. Bittman Federal trial and Appellate lawyer
Former Deputy Independent Counsel – Whitewater
John Stuart Bruce Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Former (The) United States Attorney, EDNC
Jackie Bennett Federal trial lawyer
Former Deputy Independent Counsel – Whitewater
Former DOJ Attorney (Public Integrity Section)
Former Assistant United States Attorney, SDIN
Margot Cleveland Retired career federal law clerk (7th Circuit)
Ronald D. Coleman Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Eric Evenson Former Assistant United States Attorney, EDNC
Former Chief – Organized Crime/Drug
Enforcement Tas Force, EDNC
Jack C. Frels Former Assistant United States Attorney, SDTX
Former Chief – Criminal Division, SDTX
Former Assistant United States Attorney, WDTX
Former Chief OCDETF/Narcotics Section, WDTX
Chris K. Gober Federal trial lawyer

Steven D. Gordon Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Former Assistant United States Attorney, DDC
Former Chief of Felony Trial, DDC
Trey Gowdy Former Assistant United States Attorney, DSC
Robert Harvey Federal trial and appellate attorney
Former Judge Advocate General, USN
Kenneth Julian Federal criminal trial attorney
Former Assistant United States Attorney, CDCA
Former Deputy Chief, CDCA
Joseph T. Knott, III Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Former Assistant United States Attorney, EDNC
Douglas McCullough Retired Judge, NC Court of Appeals
Former Assistant United States Attorney, EDNC
Former Acting United States Attorney, EDNC
Marina Medvin Career criminal defense attorney
John M. Reeves Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Former Missouri Assistant Attorney General
Wayne A. Rich, Jr. Former (The) United States Attorney, SDWV
Former Principal Deputy Director of the Executive
Office of the United States Attorneys
Former Military Judge, Col USMCR (ret.)

John P. Rowley, III Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Former Assistant United States Attorney, EDVA
Kevin H. Sharp Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Former United States District Judge, MDTN
William Shipley Federal criminal trial and appellate lawyer
Matthew H. Simmons Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Kenneth W. Starr Former Solicitor General of the United States
Former Independent Counsel – Whitewater
Carla Kerr Stearns Federal trial and appellate lawyer
William A. “Bill” Webb Mediator
Former United States Magistrate Judge, EDNC
Former (The) Public Defender, EDNC
Former Chief, OCDETF, EDNC
Former Assistant United States Attorney, EDNC
Former Assistant United States Attorney, WDPA
Solomon L. Wisenberg Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Former Deputy Independent Counsel – Whitewater
Former Assistant United States Attorney, WDTX
Former Chief -Financial Institution Fraud, WDTX
Former Assistant United States Attorney, EDNC

Ronald G. Woods Former (The) United States Attorney, SDTX
Former Assistant United States Attorney, SDTX
Former Special Agent, FBI

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.212.1_1.pdf

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Sidney Powell Writ of Mandamus US v Michael Flynn May 19, 2020, “seeks an order directing the district court to grant the Justice Department’s Motion to Dismiss its criminal case”

Sidney Powell Writ of Mandamus US v Michael Flynn May 19, 2020, “seeks an order directing the district court to grant the Justice Department’s Motion to Dismiss its criminal case”

“Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they call ‘The Resistance’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch.” …Attorney General Barr

And I’ve now found a witness who says the original 302 did in fact say that Flynn was honest with the agents.”...Attorney Sidney Powell

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October 23, 2019

 

From the Sidney Powell 

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Filed May 19, 2020.

“This petition seeks an order directing the district court to grant the
Justice Department’s Motion to Dismiss its criminal case against former
National Security Advisor to President Trump, Lieutenant General Michael
T. Flynn (Ret.) (“Motion to Dismiss”). ECF No. 198. The Government moved
to dismiss the Information charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001 after an
internal review by United States Attorney Jeffrey Jensen unearthed stunning
evidence of government misconduct and General Flynn’s innocence.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the All Writs Act, which
authorizes federal courts to issue writs “in the aid of their respective
jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C.
§1651(a). The district court’s failure to grant the Government’s Motion to
Dismiss defies this Court’s binding precedent in United States v. Fokker
Servs., B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2016). The district court’s sua
sponte appointment of an amicus to oppose the Government’s motion and
its Minute Order to issue a schedule for additional amici are at loggerheads
with the unanimous Supreme Court opinion in United States v. SinenengSmith, No. 19–67 (U.S. May 7, 2020).

RELIEF SOUGHT
Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court order the district court
immediately to (1) grant the Justice Department’s Motion to Dismiss; (2)
vacate its order appointing amicus curiae; and (3) reassign the case to
another district judge as to any further proceedings.

ISSUE PRESENTED
Whether the district court exceeded its authority and egregiously
abused its discretion by failing to grant the Government’s Motion to Dismiss
the Criminal Information and, instead, appointing an amicus to oppose the
motion and to propose contempt and perjury charges against General Flynn,
while inviting additional amici.”

Read more:

https://sidneypowell.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Petition-filed.pdf

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

General Flynn former attorneys Covington & Burling file court doc April 28, 2020 revealing 6800 more documents and emails found, Miscommunication with IT staff

General Flynn former attorneys Covington & Burling file court doc April 28, 2020 revealing 6800 more documents and emails found, Miscommunication with IT staff

“Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they call ‘The Resistance’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch.” …Attorney General Barr

And I’ve now found a witness who says the original 302 did in fact say that Flynn was honest with the agents.”...Attorney Sidney Powell

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October 23, 2019

 

From

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE
REGARDING TRANSFER OF CASE FILE TO SUCCESSOR COUNSEL

filed April 28, 2020.

On April 8, 2020, Covington & Burling LLP (“Covington”) submitted a Supplemental Notice Regarding Transfer of Case File to Successor Counsel (“Supplemental Notice”), in which Covington informed the Court that it had found emails that were not transferred to successor counsel last year due to errors in the process of collecting and searching electronic materials,
as well as two pages of handwritten notes that inadvertently were not transferred. Covington submits this Second Supplemental Notice to apprise the Court of the current status of this matter and to describe documents that were transferred today.

As context, Mr. Flynn’s new counsel delivered a letter to Covington terminating its representation of him on June 4, 2019. The Court granted Covington leave to withdraw on June 7, 2019. [June 7, 2019 Minute Order]. One week later, on June 14, 2019, Covington transferred the vast bulk of its client file, consisting of its working case file, as well as additional documents to supplement it.”

“Today’s Production
In the Supplemental Notice, Covington noted that it had discovered, during the course of responding to this Court’s March 6, 2020 Order [ECF No. 174], emails that had been inadvertently omitted from the previous file transfer. Since then, we have worked diligently (a) to understand the reason that the email collection in June and July 2019 had been narrower than intended, (b) to re-execute the email searches that we had intended to conduct last year, and then
(c) to collect, process, review, and transfer the emails promptly to Mr. Flynn’s current counsel.

Covington determined that an unintentional miscommunication involving the firm’s information technology personnel had led them, in some instances, to run search terms on subsets of emails the firm had collected for its response to document requests in United States v.Rafiekian, the case involving Mr. Flynn’s business partner and their FARA-related work through their consulting firm, rather than on the broader sets of emails that should have been searched.
The subsets that actually were searched nevertheless contained a large volume of emails concerning our representation of Mr. Flynn and his consulting firm. All of the emails resulting from this search were transferred to successor counsel in June and July 2019.

Covington has now re-executed the email collection and searches on the broader set of emails, correcting the error made as a result of the miscommunication. In so doing, we again used electronic search terms and manual reviews to target documents in the client file. This effort yielded an additional set of approximately 6,800 documents and emails (including attachments) that were not produced during the client file transfer in July 2019.1
These documents, comprising approximately 1% of the 669,800 total documents transferred in this case, were produced to successor counsel today.”

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.183.1.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net

 

 

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton plan and sale of Commerce Department seats for political donations, Court documents and Nolanda Hill testimony, Judge Lamberth: “DOC…destruction of potentially responsive documents in the office of…Secretary Brown”, Hillary lied Ron Brown died

Hillary Clinton plan and sale of Commerce Department seats for political donations, Court documents and Nolanda Hill testimony, Judge Lamberth: “DOC…destruction of potentially responsive documents in the office of…Secretary Brown”, Hillary lied Ron Brown died

“After the elections of 1994, and the Democrats’ loss of Congress, I became aware, through my discussions with Ron, that the trade missions were being used as a fundraising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. Specifically, Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department. Ron expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the Commerce trade missions had been and were being perverted at the direction of The White House.”…Nolanda Hill Affidavit

“Hillary lied Americans died”…Citizen Wells

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

 

 

From Citizen Wells earlier today via the House Judiciary Committee Evidentiary Record of December 1998, we learn:

“In January 1998, Judicial Watch uncovered a witness, Nolanda Butler
Hill, a close confidante and business partner of late Commerce
Secretary Brown, with whom Secretary Brown had shared key details about
the campaign-contributions-for-seats-on-trade-missions scheme, as well
as the Clinton Administration’s efforts to stonewall Judicial Watch’s
lawsuit. Secretary Brown had even shown important documents to Ms. Hill
that detailed this unlawful sale of taxpayer-financed government
services. With Ms. Hill’s uncontroverted testimony providing the
capstone to its investigation, Judicial Watch has proven beyond all
reasonable doubt that not only was the Clinton Administration engaged
in an unlawful scheme to sell seats on Commerce Department trade
missions in exchange for campaign contributions, but that a criminal
cover-up was ordered by President Clinton’s top aides to thwart
Judicial Watch’s Court-ordered investigation and to hide the
culpability of the President, Mrs. Clinton, the Clinton Administration
and the DNC for their use of Commerce Department trade missions as a
political fundraising vehicle.

Ms. Hill testified that then White House Chief of Staff Leon
Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered Commerce
Secretary Brown to defy Court orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch
suit until after the 1996 federal elections. Ms. Hill’s sworn testimony
implicated the President’s top staff members in obstruction of justice.
Ms. Hill also tied the sale of trade mission seats directly to
President Clinton. In both a sworn affidavit and Court testimony, Ms.
Hill explained that:

The First Lady conceived of the idea to sell the
trade mission seats in exchange for political contributions;
The President knew of and approved this scheme;
The Vice President participated in this scheme;
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown helped implement the
illegal fundraising operation out of the Clinton Commerce
Department;

Presidential White House aides Harold Ickes and (now
Labor Secretary) Alexis Herman helped orchestrate the sale of
the Commerce trade mission seats;

The President’s top fundraisers at the DNC and his
reselection campaign (Marvin Rosen and Terrence McAuliffe)
helped coordinate the selling of these taxpayer resources in
exchange for political contributions;

Presidential Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy
Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered the cover-up of these
activities; and

The President’s appointees at the Commerce
Department have committed perjury, destroyed and suppressed
evidence, and likely breached our nation’s security.”

https://citizenwells.com/2016/09/05/hillary-clinton-conceived-plan-to-sell-seats-on-commerce-dept-trade-missions-in-exchange-for-political-contributions-panetta-and-podesta-ordered-ron-brown-to-obstruct-justice-judicial-committee-evi/

From court documents related to the FOIA requests of Judicial Watch to the Commerce Department.

Nolanda Butler Hill affidavit.

“Affidavit of Nolanda Butler Hill

I, Nolanda Butler Hill, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. This affidavit is based on my own personal knowledge.

2. I have been a resident of Texas for all of my life and still reside there.

3. Up to the death of Ronald H. Brown, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, I was a business partner and/or close personal confidant for over seven years. During this period, I spoke with Ron, as I used to call him, daily, and frequently several times per day. I was thus intimately knowledgeable about both his personal and professional activities. I also had contact with his family, including his son, Michael, and his daughter in law, Tamara, who worked for me for approximately five years.

4. During the course of my relationship with Ron, I was privy to his activities, and the activities of the people who worked or were in contact with him at Commerce, and elsewhere. Since Ron died on April 3, 1996, I have also been in contact and spoken with many persons who worked or were in contact with him at Commerce, and elsewhere.

5. After the elections of 1992, Ron became Secretary of Commerce. Shortly thereafter, Ron decided that he would focus the majority his activities at Commerce on trade missions.

6. In the fall of 1994, I became aware, through Ron and Jim Hackney, Ron’s Counselor at Commerce – with whom I was and remain close – that a group called Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to obtain information and documentation about the trade missions. Both Jim and I encouraged Ron at the time to give due consideration to the seriousness of these FOIA requests, as there were politically sensitive issues surrounding the trade missions.

7. After the elections of 1994, and the Democrats’ loss of Congress, I became aware, through my discussions with Ron, that the trade missions were being used as a fundraising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. Specifically, Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department. Ron expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the Commerce trade missions had been and were being perverted at the direction of The White House.

8. In the spring of 1995, when this Court ordered production of documents to Judicial Watch, Ron became very concerned and he thus began to discuss with me the strategy of handling the defense of the Judicial Watch lawsuit.

9. I further learned through discussions with Ron that The White House, through Leon Panetta and John Podesta, had instructed him to delay the case by withholding the production of documents prior to the 1996 elections, and to devise a way not to comply with court’s orders.

10. In late fall 1995, after several rulings or statements by this court, Ron himself became more involved in the defense of the case. Specifically, he told me that he had decided to personally review any documents that might be damaging to the Clinton Administration, or in any way be sensitive. Ron told me that he was very worried about the potential damage of the Judicial Watch case to the Clinton Administration.

11. In early 1996, Ron showed me a packet of documents, about 1 inch thick, which he removed from his ostrich skin portfolio. Ron told me that these documents had been provided to him from Commerce Department files as part of the collection efforts to produce documents to Judicial Watch in this case. I reviewed the top five or six documents, which were on Commerce Department letterhead under the signature of Melissa Moss of the Office of Business Liaison. What I reviewed comprised letters of Ms. Moss to trade mission participants, each of which specifically referenced a substantial financial contribution to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). My response was immediate and decisive. I told Ron he must instruct that production of these documents and all responsive documents be immediate and I advised him to mitigate his own damages by releasing Ms. Moss from her duties and admonishing her for using the offices of the Commerce Department for partisan political fundraising.

12. I then saw Ron call the Commerce Department and he spoke with Melissa Moss. He told her that he wanted to meet with her later. I do not know if the meeting ever took place and I had no further discussion with Ron, because of his untimely death, about the documents I had reviewed.

13. I have reviewed the deposition video of Melissa Moss and, based on my knowledge, she has not told the truth in response a number of questions concerning Commerce Department trade missions, as well as other representations she has made under oath.

14. I would like to come forward and tell this court everything I know about the failure to produce documents to Judicial Watch and this court. I am concerned, however, that if I do so, the Clinton Administration, and more particularly its Justice Department, will try to retaliate against me. As a result, I look to this court for guidance on how I can come forward and tell all I know in the interest of justice.

15. Because of a fear for my personal and my family’s well-being and safety, I ask that this affidavit be kept under seal and that a mechanism be set up by the court for me to come forward to tell all I know.

 

Sworn to under penalty of law.”http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/4/132.asp

From the Judge Lamberth Memorandum Opinion.

“G. Nolanda Hill

The highest drama in this litigation was supplied by Nolanda
Hill, former business partner and confidante of Secretary Brown:

On January 28, 1998, Hill submitted under seal a sworn
declaration detailing her knowledge of the Department of
Commerce’s handling of Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests,
information that she allegedly obtained through her relationship
with Secretary Brown. Stating that she was concerned about
retaliatory actions by the government, Hill requested that the
Court provide mechanisms for her protection. Pursuant to that
request, the Court ordered that the affidavit be initially kept
under seal and saw to it that her attorney was made aware of the
situation and was willing to represent and protect her interests
in this matter. An evidentiary hearing was then scheduled for
March 23, 1998.

On March 14, 1998, Hill was indicted on criminal charges.
Although an investigation had been underway before Hill offered
to testify in this case, Judicial Watch claims that the
government had represented to Hill that charges would not be
filed, and that the March 14, 1998 indictment was in retaliation
for her cooperation with Judicial Watch.

On March 23, 1998, Hill appeared before this Court and gave
extensive testimony as to her knowledge, gained from
communications with Secretary Brown, relating to this action.6
Upon examination by Mr. Klayman, Hill testified that the
Secretary told her that White House officials had actually
instructed him to delay the production of documents responsive to
Judicial Watch’s requests and to come up with a way to avoid
compliance with this Court’s orders. See Transcript of March 23,
1998 Hearing at 85. Hill vividly recalled the Secretary’s
comment that Leon Panetta (then White House Chief of Staff) had
urged him to “slow pedal” the document search. See id. at 85-86.
According to Hill, this message was conveyed to Secretary Brown
by Panetta and by John Podesta (then White House Deputy Chief of
Staff) on several occasions. See id. at 85-88.

In her role as personal advisor and confidante to Secretary
Brown, Hill allegedly offered to review the most sensitive
documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s request, for the purpose
of finding out precisely what was involved and, according to
Hill, to encourage the Secretary to turn over all responsive
documents. See id. at 88. Hill never did review the material,
however, and she was unable to testify as to whether such a
collection of “the most sensitive” responsive documents was ever
assembled. See id. at 89-90.

Ms. Hill did testify to seeing several unproduced responsive
documents in the Secretary’s possession in 1996, shortly before
the Secretary’s death. According to Hill’s testimony, she met
with Secretary Brown at a hotel early in 1996, and on that
occasion the Secretary showed her a one-inch-thick packet of
documents that he produced from a personal portfolio-type
carrying case. See id. at 38-39. The Secretary told Hill that
the documents had been retrieved from DOC files during the
document search for Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests. See id. at
39. Hill reviewed the top five or six documents, confirming that
they were copies of letters from Melissa Moss to trade mission
participants specifically referencing their donations to the DNC,
clearly responsive to Judicial Watch’s requests. See id. at 40-
41. Needless to say, these documents had not been, and have not
since been, released to the plaintiff. Their current location is
unknown, perhaps unknowable, although Judicial Watch argues that
the evidence supports an inference that the documents were either
destroyed during the flurry of document shredding following the
Secretary’s death, or removed from his office during that same
time period. In any event, Hill’s uncontroverted testimony is
strong evidence that the DOC illegally withheld documents from
Judicial Watch in violation of the FOIA. It is also apparent
that the DOC was aware of this Court’s orders that all responsive
documents be produced, and willfully defied those orders,
according to Ms. Hill’s testimony. This conduct alone would seem
to justify entry of judgment against the DOC, and yet it
simultaneously precludes such judgment until the extent of the
DOC’s unlawful behavior is adequately explored.

Also relevant to this action is the testimony of Ms. Hill
that the deposition of Melissa Moss contained a number of
inaccuracies. See id. at 105 et seq. In addition, revelations
about Moss’s role in the orchestration of the trade missions
casts her deposition testimony in a new light, and also raises
doubts as to how the activities in which she participated could
have produced no documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s
requests. As a whole, the evidence supports an inference that
Moss played an important role in resisting Judicial Watch’s FOIA
requests, and the testimony of Nolanda Hill points in particular
to Moss as directly responsible for knowing violations of this
Court’s orders.7

On April 29, 1998, a superseding indictment was issued
against Ms. Hill. Judicial Watch claims that it was intended as
a further signal to keep quiet.”

“In conclusion, this somewhat tedious narration presents
numerous instances of likely violations of the Freedom of
Information Act and this Court’s orders. On many occasions, the
DOC appears to have engaged in the illegal withholding of
responsive documents, in the removal of such documents from the
DOC, and in the destruction of potentially responsive documents
in the office of the late Secretary Brown and elsewhere, as well
as a great deal of misconduct during the litigation which the
Court leaves for another day’s decision. Upon consideration of
this record, and of the legal issues discussed in Part II, the
Court finds that a new search alone is an insufficient remedy,
and thus the DOC’s motion will be denied, partial summary
judgment will be granted in favor of Judicial Watch ordering the
commencement of the search proposed in the motion, and further
discovery under the supervision of a Magistrate Judge will be
ordered.”

Click to access 95cv133.pdf

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Teneo Clinton Foundation emails involving Hillary Bill Huma Abedin Mills released soon, State Dept. delay motion granted and denied in part, Abedin employee of Teneo while deputy chief of staff to Clinton at State Department, Julian Assange WikiLeaks please release too

Teneo Clinton Foundation emails involving Hillary Bill Huma Abedin Mills released soon, State Dept. delay motion granted and denied in part, Abedin employee of Teneo while deputy chief of staff to Clinton at State Department, Julian Assange WikiLeaks please release too

“State Department is using taxpayer dollars to protect their candidate, Hillary Clinton,”
“The American people have a right to see these emails before the election.”…David Bossie, Citizens United

“By July 1993, the Clintons and their associates had established
a pattern of concealment with respect to the Clintons’ involvement
with Whitewater and the Madison S&L. Because of the complexity
of the allegations of misdeeds involving these institutions, documents
and files are critical to any inquiries into the matter. Yet,
at every important turn, crucial files and documents ‘‘disappeared’’
or were withheld from scrutiny whenever questions were raised.…Senate Whitewater report June 13, 1996

“My Next Leak Will Ensure Hillary’s Arrest”…Julian Assange

 

 

It appears that the emails involving Bill and Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin and  Cheryl Mills with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo may be released soon.

However, Julian Assange and Wikileaks, if you have these emails, please release them now for the good of the US and the world.

From The Daily Caller June 30, 2016.

“EXCLUSIVE: State Department Won’t Release Clinton Foundation Emails for 27 Months

If the court permits the delay, the public won’t be able to read the communications until October 2018, about 22 months into her prospective first term as President. The four senior Clinton aides involved were Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Fuchs, Ambassador-At-Large Melanne Verveer, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin.

David N. Bossie, president of Citizens United, which requested the documents under the Freedom of Information Act, called the delay “totally unacceptable” and charged that “the State Department is using taxpayer dollars to protect their candidate, Hillary Clinton.”

“The American people have a right to see these emails before the election,” Bossie told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, a President Obama-appointed judge, had previously ordered the State Department to release the requested documents by July 21. But Department of Justice lawyers informed Contreras Wednesday night that “the [State] department discovered errors in the manner in which the searches had been conducted in order to capture documents potentially responsive to plaintiff’s request.” The motion was filed by Justice Department attorney Joseph Borson on behalf of the State Department.

Borson also provided new details about how few resources the State Department has devoted to answering 106 separate Freedom of Information Act requests that are pending before it, many of them ordered by federal judges. Only 71 “part-time” retired foreign service officers are being used to review all of the pending FOIA requests.”

Read more:

EXCLUSIVE: State Department Won’t Release Clinton Foundation Emails for 27 Months

On July 25, 2016 Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled on the motion.

“For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to complete production (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the following schedule shall govern Defendant’s processing of the approximately 12,515 outstanding pages that Defendant must still process, see Status Report 1, ECF No. 17:

1. Defendant shall process 2000 pages and produce any non-exempt responsive material to Plaintiff on or before August 22, 2016;

2. Defendant shall process 3000 pages and produce any non-exempt responsive material to Plaintiff on or before September 21, 2016;

3. Defendant shall process 4000 pages and produce any non-exempt responsive material to Plaintiff on or before October 21, 2016;

4. Defendant shall process 1600 pages and produce any non-exempt responsive material to Plaintiff on or before November 4, 2016.

5. Defendant shall process 1915 pages and produce any non-exempt responsive material to Plaintiff on or before November 21, 2016.

SO ORDERED.”

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-2927-db8a-a57f-69e73b240001

Some background:

From Judicial Watch April 30, 2015.

Teneo & The Clinton Machine

“Then there is Teneo Holdings, a global consulting firm with deep Clinton connections. Teneo serves as a kind of private-enterprise satellite to Clinton Inc. Doug Band, Mr. Clinton’s right-hand man for many years, is a Teneo founder. Huma Abedin, Mrs. Clinton’s right-hand woman for many years, was a senior advisor to Teneo at the same time she held a top position as part of Mrs. Clinton’s inner circle at the State Department. Bill Clinton was both a paid adviser to Teneo and a client. Secretary of State Clinton’s former Economic Envoy to Northern Ireland, Declan Kelly, is a Teneo co-founder and CEO.

Teneo boasts of a vast reach across international arenas, partnering “exclusively with the CEOs and senior leaders of many of the world’s largest and most complex companies and organizations.” In a Clintonian claim of cosmic proportions, Teneo says the firm addresses a “range of financial, reputational and transformational challenges and opportunities by combining the disciplines of strategic communications, investor relations, investment banking, financial analytics, executive recruiting, digital analytics, corporate governance, government affairs, business intelligence, management consulting and corporate restructuring on an integrated basis.”

Got that? In fact, Teneo is rather shadowy, with only a few known corporate clients. It is best known for its relation with the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation. Journalists so far have seemed unwilling or unable to penetrate much further into Teneo. But that appears to have changed with Mrs. Clinton’s formal entry into the presidential race and the dawning realization among media types that the Clinton Foundation, Teneo and the disappearing State Dept. emails really do signal that some sort of gigantic sleazy game is afoot.

Still, the task is daunting. Where to begin? The Clinton Method of old, honed in the media wars of the 1990s, was a relentless parry of deny, deflect and defame. Today, most mainstream journalistic organizations do not have the patience or the money for the kind of sustained journalistic digging that is needed for serious investigative reporting. Advantage, Clintons.

But the wild card here, of course, is the new media. This isn’t your mama’s 1990s-style Fourth Estate. Times have changed. Today, social media can create a story tsunami in a matter of hours, even minutes. No one can control it. The legacy media still plays a critical role, but the fact is, it’s the Wild West out there, with thousands of independent operators, including serious investigative reporters, many with little more institutional support than a laptop and a website.

Reporter Ron Brynaert is one example of this new breed of investigative gunslinger. A former executive editor for Raw Story, Brynaert has been digging deep into the Teneo connection and publishing his findings at his blog, “-gate news” and on Twitter. While the media focus on former Clinton aide Doug Band as the key Teneo founder, Brynaert has explored the extensive Clinton ties of Declan Kelly, the Teneo co-founder and CEO. Based on Brynaert’s reporting, Kelly seems to be the real brains behind the operation.”

“As for Abedin, her dual roles have attracted the attention of Senator Chuck Grassley, who wrote the State Department in June 2013 requesting clarification. The State Department and Abedin did not provide Grassley with “a single document,” the senator later said, complaining that a “stone wall” had been put up. Abedin did not reply to Grassley, but wrote State Department officials that “I was not asked, nor did I undertake, any work on Teneo’s behalf before the State Department (and I should note that it is my understanding that Teneo does not conduct business with the Department of State). I also was not asked, nor did I provide, insights about the Department, my work with the Secretary, or any government information to which I may have had access.”

In her letter to State Department officials, linked by Brynaert, Abedin notes that from June 2012 to February 2013, her paying jobs included: work at the State Department as “a part-time consultant;” assisting Secretary Clinton “in her personal capacity…prepare for transition from public service;” work for the Clinton Foundation assessing programs and helping plan for Mrs. Clinton’s “post-State philanthropic activities;” and work for Teneo Holdings providing “strategic advice and consulting services.”

Thus, at the time of the December 2012 event in Belfast, Brynaert notes, Abedin was simultaneously employed by “the State Department, Teneo, the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton” in a personal capacity.

Citing possible misconduct and misrepresentation, Judicial Watch has asked a federal judge to reopen a Freedom of Information lawsuit that sought records related to Abedin’s multiple roles at the State Department and with Teneo.”

Read more:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/teneo-the-clinton-machine/

From the Free Thought Project July 1, 2016.

“Bossie asserted the “State Department is using taxpayer dollars to protect their candidate, Hillary Clinton,” and told the Caller, “The American people have a right to see these emails before the election.”

But perhaps most indicative of possible favoritism, if not outright corruption, the announcement of the delay came just two days after Bill Clinton’s already controversial private meeting with Lynch — though email hijinx might not have been the sole outcome of the rendezvous.

Bill Clinton might have been seeking some protection of his own.

Former U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenova exclusively told the Daily Caller the former President “is at least a witness in two criminal investigations, probably a subject in two criminal investigations. He is a person of interest officially to the Department of Justice.”

And as DiGenova emphasized, because both Bill and Hillary stand at the heart of several criminal and corruption probes, the private meeting with Lynch actually violates DoJ policy.

“It’s very important to realize this isn’t just a question of her judgment,” the former U.S. Attorney told the Caller. “The question is the Department of Justice policy on communicating with a side in a case.”

DiGenova explained the DoJ and Lynch have strict obligations to maintain impartiality — and Bill Clinton’s ‘legal status’ as a party to federal investigations should put him off limits for such unofficial and off-the-record meetings.
Read more:

After Bill Clinton Met With Attorney General, DOJ Delays Release of Clinton Emails — 2 Years

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/