State Dept: FOIA Officers Didn’t Know, Didn’t Ask About Clinton’s Use Of Private E-mail

FULL DISCLOSURE:  I think Judicial Watch should be stripped of its tax exempt status with the IRS for gross partisanship.  And, from my personal experience, this is against the 501(c)3 regulations.  

Judicial Watch, that ever-protective "conservative, bi-partisan" watchdog organization whose motto is:  "Because No One Is Above The Law" filed a Freedom of Information Act regrading Huma Abedin's "employment arrangement" at the State Department and why she was paid $10,000 while on vacation.  Not to question Judicial Watch's "bi-partisan character" (they are a 501(c)3 charitable organization and as such cannot by law engage in partisan political  activity if they want to keep their tax-free status with the IRS) but they have filed 20 complaints against the Clintons beginning back in 1998.


As I noted in a piece about Judicial Watch previously,  of the 45 cases listed on their web site's "Docket" (they've since removed all but a few) only two are not related to the Clinton's, the Obama Administration and other Democrats.  They claim that they have pursued Republicans.  But here's a Wikipedia piece:

"Since President Obama took office on January 20, 2009 his administration has been a major focus of Judicial Watch investigations and lawsuits. Noteworthy and protracted legal battles over the IRS Targeting Scandal, the Benghazi attack, and the Fast & Furious Scandal are of special significance. Since the beginning of the Obama administration, Judicial Watch has filed over 900 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and over 90 lawsuits." 

The two (yes, that's correct, "2") suits filed against Republicans "Because No One Is Above The Law" concerned Vice President Dick Chaney's secret meetings with oil companies over U.S. energy policy and against KBR, Dick Cheney's company, over fraudulent actions in the Iraq reconstruction.

OK.  So we've got 2 on the Republican side, and just under 1,000 against Democrats.  And this is supposed to be bi-partisan?  Right.  Is this some conservative Supreme Court definition of "bi-partisan" like its definition of a corporate "person?"  

In any event.  Judicial Watch put Huma Abedin, friend and aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in its sights as an offshoot of its major focus on Benghazi, the IRS, the murder of Vince Foster and Hillary's e-mails,  that resulted in testimony in Judicial Watch's civil lawsuit against Abedin and her employment arrangements while at the State Department.  (Apparently Judicial Watch was upset that she worked while on vacation in Italy.) Here's what Karin M. Lang,  a State Department employee who handles FOIA requests, in a Washington Post article is quoted as stating the following:

“Prior to Secretary Kerry, no secretary of state used a email address,” said Lang, supporting an explanation given by aides to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee that her email setup at the State Department was not unusual.
In a deposition Wednesday, answers provided by Karin M. Lang seemed to corroborate several defenses raised by Clinton and her aides in the handling of the controversy while challenging other explanations given in a lawsuit by the conservative group Judicial Watch that examines whether Clinton’s email setup thwarted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
After the existence of Clinton’s personal server was reported in March 2015, the search expanded to cover official email accounts used by four senior officials.
In her deposition, Lang defended the searches in Judicial Watch’s Abedin request as sufficient. However, she said a statement by Cheryl D. Mills, then Clinton’s chief of staff, in which Mills said she assumed Clinton’s emails would be captured in recipients’ State Department accounts, was impracticable.
“It would not be possible to do that [search for emails from Clinton] except by searching individual . . . by individual, which would not be reasonably possible,” Lang said. “The department has 70,000 employees worldwide.”
So I have to ask why it is that all the Secretaries of State prior to current Secretary John Kerry, aren't subject to Judicial Watch's suits?  Or is it, as the evidence shows, that Judicial Watch -  "Because No One Is Above The Law" - isn't concerned about Republican malfeasance or is it that Republicans are just so honest, transparent and above board that they are saints and, therefore, simply beyond reproach?

Recall if you will, that this is the charitable, bi-partisan organization who has been responsible for the years long Benghazi investigations that have yielded precisely nothing, the organization that is responsible for the current Clinton e-mail scandals and the organization who originally claimed that Hillary Clinton murdered White House Aide, Vince Foster, back in the late 1990's.

And dare I suggest that for those folks who distrust Hillary Clinton, who believe she is devious, that she is scheming, if not the Devil incarnate, might not stem from this organization's 20 year smear campaign against her?  And yet, and yet, in all the cases Judicial Watch has mounted against Hillary Clinton, not a single one has ever resulted in a civil or criminal judgement against her.

The Post article is here: CLINTON E-MAIL TESTIMONY

PS: Huma Abedin is the wife of "I'll show you my dick if you show me your hootchie" Anthony Weiner.  In addition, that Great, Patriotic, Freedom Loving ex- House Representative from Minnesota, Michele Bachmaan, accused Huma of heading up a ring of State Department Muslim Jihadists bent on destroying America.  Yeah.  And I'm a secret Westboro Baptist Church jihadi bent on proving that the deaths of American soldiers is because of the gays.

PPS: Huma Abedin is a Muslim and the product of Indian and Pakistani parents.  Is this what Judicial Watch and Bachmaan object to?

Have a Good Day and Don't Believe the Bullshit.  It's Bad For Your Mental Health.


Popular posts from this blog