What Do You Grieve For? What Do You Love?
4 weeks ago
Things that I find and strike me that others might find interesting and/or informative
“We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid,” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said.A White House policy directive adds…
“There’s a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure.“
“The federal government also has a responsibility to strengthen the security and resilience of its own critical infrastructure, for the continuity of national essential functions, and to organize itself to partner effectively with and add value to the security and resilience efforts of critical infrastructure owners and operators.”Conservatives immediately expressed concerns that Obama might try to prevent — or even reverse — a Donald Trump victory on November 8th, by claiming the “Russians hacked it,” or some other concocted “irregularities.”
Rios asked, “Honestly, did any antennae go up with you when they started talking about voting booths being part of critical infrastructure?” Von Spakovsky replied, “Oh yeah, now remember this is the same White House that says there’s no voter fraud in the United States. You know, they deny that voter fraud ever occurred and yet suddenly they’re saying, ‘Oh wait, we may need to designate as critical infrastructure the American election system.’”Sounds like the Democrats have seen Hillary’s collapsing poll numbers, and want to make sure the fix is in.
Said Rios: “It just seems like the creepy laying of groundwork for something that could be really bad. Like, okay, I’m going to step off the plank here. Let’s say maybe the election ends up being really, really close and because they’ve already laid the groundwork that Donald Trump is (supposedly) connected with Putin….So, gee, if it’s close, maybe it’s probably the Russians, then, that are messing with our election apparatus and so then the Justice Department and the executive branch come in to kind of fix it.”
Von Spakovsky sees an even easier to trigger “justification” for Obama and his goons to intrude: “Well, I wouldn’t quite go so far as them blaming it on the Russians. I think it would be more, they would say, ‘Well there was a potential for hacker attacks so ‘Justice’ Department lawyers need to be present in polling places all across the country and those polling places, when those lawyers are there, remember those lawyers aren’t non-partisan, unbiased government officials in white lab coats.”
He warns, “All the people who work in the Civil Rights Division, those are the lawyers who would be out there, they are virulent left wing partisans. So they would be in the polling places.” He notes that the statement released by this type of hard left political operative would be of the type to claim “We saw all kinds of voter suppression efforts going on in that precinct, in that area” which would serve as the basis for federal election tampering if their favorite candidate loses.
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.
“E-mails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends, as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes. No one wants their personal e-mails made public, and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy.”But that was not true.
Defendant Department of State (“State”) submits this status report to (1) update the CourtJudicial Watch issued a press release on several orders in its FOIA cases regarding Clinton’s secret email server.
on its search for records potentially responsive to FOIA Request 1 among information
transferred from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to State, and (2) propose a
production schedule for the non-exempt portions of responsive documents subject to FOIA.
1. FOIA Request 1 seeks “[a]ny and all emails of former Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton concerning, regarding, or relating to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S.
Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.” Complaint ¶ 5 (ECF No. 1). To date, State has produced to
Plaintiff, via its FOIA web site and via email, a total of 343 documents responsive to FOIA
Request 1, with redactions as appropriate…
4. State is currently working to determine whether any of the documents that
satisfied the search terms are agency records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request. It must then
review those documents to determine what, if any, exempt information must be withheld from
the responsive documents. Accordingly, State proposes a rolling production schedule, under
which State would make its first production of any non-exempt responsive records subject to
FOIA on September 30, 2016, and complete production no later than October 31, 2016.”
Court Orders New Clinton Email Production by September 13
State Admits Benghazi Material in New Cache of Emails Clinton Failed to Produce
(Washington DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that a federal court has ordered the State Department to review newly found Clinton emails and turn over responsive records by September 13. And, in two other Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, the State Department is scheduled to release additional emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s non-state.gov email system beginning September 30. In a court filing this week, the State Department admitted it had found Benghazi-related documents among the 14,900 Clinton emails and attachments uncovered by the FBI that Mrs. Clinton deleted and withheld from the State Department.
The first batch of new emails comes in response to a court order issued today in a November 13, 2015, Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit filed against the Department of State seeking all communications between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama White House from the day of the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and throughout the following week. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Dr. Larry Kawa of Boca Raton, Florida, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division (Larry Kawa v. U.S. Department of State (No. 9:15-cv-81560)). Today’s order requiring the production of the emails from the 14,900 new Clinton emails as well as any other communications or emails from the other materials recently delivered to the State Department by the FBI was issued by U.S. District Court Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. The court ruled:
The State Department shall search the material, determine whether any responsive records exist, and complete its first production of non-exempt records, to the extent any exist, by September 13, 2016.
In a separate case, Judicial Watch has been seeking Clinton’s communications about the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, during which U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith were killed. A second assault targeted a nearby compound, killing two government contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00692)).
After admitting in an August 23 court filing that it found documents that “satisfied the [Benghazi related] search terms” of the new Clinton emails, the State Department proposed a rolling production schedule, “under which State would make its first production of any non-exempt responsive records subject to FOIA on September 30, 2016, and complete production no later than October 31, 2016.” Judicial Watch then asked the court that State make known the volume of documents remaining to be reviewed before it accepts whether the production schedule is reasonable. Today, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta informed the attorneys the Court wants to schedule a hearing on this issue for Tuesday, August 30.
Judicial Watch is also scheduled to receive documents from the State Department in a case arising out of FOIA lawsuit before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton. The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)). Judge Sullivan has now issued a court order stating:
[T]he State Department shall release all remaining documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act request by no later than September 30, 2016.
The 14,900 new Clinton emails were uncovered as a result of separate Judicial Watch litigation seeking all of Mrs. Clinton’s work related emails. At a status hearing this week, U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg ordered the State Department to report to the Court the volume of documents reviewed and be prepared to commit to a production schedule at a further status hearing on September 23, 2016.
“It is astonishing that Hillary Clinton tried to delete and hide Benghazi emails and documents. No wonder federal courts in Florida and DC are ordering the State Department to stop stalling and begin releasing the 14,900 new Clinton emails,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.”