Hillary Clinton

BREAKING: Judge will review blacked-out Hillary emails, over objections of Sessions and Tillerson

14

Judicial Watch announced Thursday a federal judge will personally review, in camera, redacted material from emails discussing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of iPads and iPhones during her tenure at the State Department. Judge Kollar-Kotelly also ordered the State Department to file an affidavit addressing why it should not have to search new Clinton emails recovered. In taking these steps, the court rejected arguments by the Tillerson State Department and its lawyers at the Sessions Justice Department.

The court will review the blacked-out information so as to better ascertain whether the government misconduct exception would require the release of the full emails.  Generally speaking, the government misconduct exception prevents government agencies from withholding information that would shed light on government wrongdoing under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The September 21 court order comes in connection with an April 28, 2015, FOIA lawsuit filed after the State Department failed to respond to a March 10, 2015, request (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00646)). Judicial Watch is seeking:

  • All records of requests by former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or her staff to the State Department Office Security Technology seeking approval for the use of an iPad or iPhone for official government business; and
  • All communications within or between the Office of the Secretary of State, the Executive Secretariat, and the Office of the Secretary and the Office of Security Technology concerning, regarding, or related to the use of unauthorized electronic devices for official government business.

In March 2016, Judicial Watch obtained State Department documents in this case showing Cheryl Mills’ (Clinton’s then-chief of staff) efforts with the National Security Agency to address Clinton’s demands for a secure BlackBerry.

In a related case, Judicial Watch released an email showing that National Security Agency personnel had denied Clinton’s requests for a BlackBerry, telling Clinton staff to “shut up and color.”

In June 2017, Judicial Watch submitted new evidence to the court showing that Clinton knowingly used an unsecure BlackBerry device despite being warned by “security hawks” against doing so.

“Hillary Clinton knowingly used an unsecure email system and risky iPads and smartphones to conduct classified and sensitive government business,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is frankly outrageous that Secretary Tillerson and Attorney General Sessions allow their agencies to cover up for and defend Hillary Clinton’s scandalous and potentially criminal conduct.”

###

  • Danny S.

    President Trump this stone walling of Hillary email conduct smells of swamp water. Please explain why Tillerson and Session’s are putting their lock on the door. We conservatives want justice !!!
    Please use your twitter account and let us know what’s up with all the scandals that are out there .We want the truth and justice!

  • Loretta

    This is good news. If one can be finally held to account then the walls will come down and moore will finally have to answer This cannot happen soon enough. God bless judicial Watch

  • Robert

    Seven in depth House investigations an FBI investigation and Judicial watch thinks they know more than the Justice department. No one wants this door open because once opened everyone who has or will be in any administration will have no expectation of security or privacy, and it could in reality put other administrations in a bind, like the Iran Contra, with Reagan deal that was never fully allowed to be published.
    Just be sure you know the full extent of what you are asking for it could come back to bite you in the ass once the door is opened. It is called precedence and is wide ranging..

    • Low Cover

      Shut up, Liberal

      • Robert

        Low Cover
        I do love it when an act comes together, when the opponent has nothing useful to say and tries to cower you down by telling you to shut up, that must mean the other party is touching on the truth they do not want to hear, just a rumor spreader who when called has nothing to say.
        HAVE A GOOD DAY

        • zappafan1A

          “……. when the opponent has nothing useful to say and tries to cower you down
          by telling you to shut up, that must mean the other party is touching
          on the truth they do not want to hear, just a rumor spreader who when
          called has nothing to say.”

          Odd that you admit what most Dems/Liberals do to Conservatives who post.

          • Robert

            Zappafan1A
            I do suppose correcting the BS spread on these political sites is wrong, one should just keep their mouth closed and let the false information spread. I never try to shut anyone down and never will I post supported facts and I have posted the wrong thing on a few occasions and apologized for doing it, just in to big a hurry and click on the wrong thing. I have no problem posting links to where I get my information from and I avoid political links like they were a killer.
            HAVE A GOOD DAY

          • zappafan1A

            The problem is, is that what you sometimes consider BS, isn’t.

          • Robert

            zappafan1A
            I consider anything not backed up by facts from at lest 2 sources as BS, most is just opinions that they have heard but have no fact to back them up, those I call BS.
            HAVE A GOOD DAY

          • zappafan1A

            It depends on your sources. Most everything from the MSM, Huff Post, Snopes, Wash. Post, NY Times, Politifact, Politico et-al, is BS.

          • Robert

            zappafan1A
            I do not see any of these media sources being sued for false content, and no one is being fired for false stories. Just because a media source does not condemn or glorify something that you think should be one way or the other does not mean it is fake news, news media depends on sales and watching for advertising dollars, if what the printed was false then they would not get the advertising and would go under, right now the NYT is selling more advertising than ever before and the other media sources are doing the same. Fox news run by Murdock is one of the most corrupt news organizations in the world, they closed the paper that Murdock had in England because of corrupt practices and in Germany they are not allowed to even have an interest in media.
            There are other lots of Media sources more than the ones you mentioned Reuters is about as honest as it gets and is considered less than 6% biased to the left.
            HAVE A GOOD DAY

          • zappafan1A

            Reuters and the AP has always been left biased. Fake news is when, if you are quoting someone on any given subject, you have quotes from at least two named sources; at least that’s what they used to teach us.

            You must have missed the story of the Harvard audit of the major news outlets, where they showed that Fox was, indeed, the most fair and balanced; and Harvard is hardly a bastion of conservatism. Germany doesn’t want any news other than what suits their Liberal views, like most countries in the EU.

            And I guess you missed the news that the Murdock boys are now running Fox, and they’re Liberals/Dems. On most every single show on Fox, they have representatives from both sides, and sometimes more, on a daily basis, unlike all of the other news outlets. The MSM is almost the same as Air America, and you see what happened to them.

          • Robert

            Zappafan1A
            When a media is only 6% biased it is almost like having no bias at all, in the media world, Media if it is television, newspapers, magazines, of internet are all biased one way or the other depending on their point they want to put across. They do not exactly lie they twist it to their point they want to get across. The Police, State Politicians, and federal Government all do exactly the same thing with their news releases, you have to read a bunch of different publishing about the same thing to come up with a balanced point that is as close to the truth as you will get.
            You are right on one count if the information is not secured you always have to have other sources to prove it out, and make sure your sources do not know you know the others or that they know each other.
            The only reason that Murdock’s sons switched their programming is because of advertising support, it was dropping like a rock, when they were strictly conservative supporting, and they cannot operate and not make money.
            You may not want to believe it but the Conservative support is dropping rapidly as is the religious side of the party.
            These are not times when people had good paying jobs and lots of jobs were available these are austere times and it will not improve much in the near future so people want social services, also less people are against gay people than ever in the entire world as well as the USA.

  • Low Cover

    Sessions another f’n RINO

Sign up for our FREE newsletter!

Sign up to receive daily updates, political news, action letters and additional messages from Conservative Republican News

View our Privacy Policy

Join our FREE Newsletter!