Judicial Watch announced today that it filed amotionĀ in federal court to compel former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to produce the December 2014 after action memorandum created by her personal attorney Heather Samuelson that memorializes the search for and processing of Clinton emails in 2014. Samuelson reviewed Clintonās State Department emails and about half of them were deleted (Hillary Clinton is also resisting, through anĀ emergency appeal, the courtās order that she testify to Judicial Watch about her emails.)
The filing comes in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)Ā lawsuitĀ that seeks records concerning ātalking points or updates on the Benghazi attackā (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of StateĀ (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch famously uncovered in 2014 that the ātalking points,ā which provided the basis for false statements by then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice, wereĀ created byĀ the Obama White House. This FOIA lawsuitĀ led directlyĀ to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.
In December 2018, Judge LamberthĀ ordered discoveryĀ into whether Clintonās use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; whether the State Departmentās intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watchās request. The court also authorized discovery into whether the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up of Clintonās email. The courtĀ ruledĀ that the Clinton email system was āone of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.ā
Clinton isĀ resistingĀ producing even a portion of the āafter-actionā memo, despite an August 22, 2019,Ā rulingĀ by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth that Judicial Watch may ask for the memorandum in its discovery. Clinton refused to produce any part of the memo, alleging that it is fully exempt from disclosure under the āattorney work product doctrine.ā In an earlier ruling on a similar issue in this litigation, the Court held that āany contemporaneous documents shedding light on the three narrow discovery topics ā even documents evincing attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, and theories ā constitute fact work-productā and should be produced.
Judicial Watch explains to the court: āAfter repeated attempts to resolve this dispute have proven unsuccessful, [Judicial Watch] respectfully requests an order from the Court to compel Secretary Clinton to produce the document ā¦ within short order.ā
Judicial Watch points out:
This is a rare Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case in which the Court determined that civil discovery is appropriate. On March 29, 2016, the Court granted [Judicial Watchās] motion forĀ discovery, holding that ā[w]here there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.ā
In its motion Judicial Watch refutes Clintonās claim that the memo is protected by the āattorney work product doctrineā:
Secretary Clinton claims that the after action memo is subject to the attorney work product privilege and exempt from disclosure, but she fails to explain that the memorandum was created in reasonable anticipation of litigation. ā¦ She does not assert that it was created due to the litigation here. Neither does she claim that it was created in anticipation of any other specific litigation. Simply put, she does not demonstrate that the after action memo was not created in the normal course of the search and review process ā¦
Second, ā¦ the after action memo falls within the category of ācontemporaneous documents shedding light on the three narrow discovery topics.ā ā¦ According to Samuelsonās testimony, the after action memo plainly contains factual information memorializing searches and techniques for retrieving Secretary Clintonās governmental records.
Clintonās attorneys also do not explain why her emails were deleted despite the āreasonable anticipation of litigation,ā rather than preserved.
In a June 2019 court-orderedĀ depositionĀ to Judicial Watch, SamuelsonĀ admittedĀ under oath that she was granted immunity by the U.S. Department of Justice in June 2016. She also revealed that, contrary to what sheĀ toldĀ the FBI in 2016, she was, in fact, aware that Clinton used a private email account while secretary of state. Samuelās admission to Judicial Watch that she became aware of Clintonās non-State.gov emails during her service in the Clinton State Department White House Liaison Office contradicts theĀ notationĀ in the FBIās May 24, 2016, ā302ā report on Samuelsonās interview with FBI agents:
Samuelson did not become aware of Clintonās use of a private email account and server until she was serving as Clintonās personal attorney.
In 2014, after Clinton left the State Department, Samuelson became Clintonās personal attorney where she was primarily responsible for conducting the review of Clinton emails and sorting out āpersonalā emails from government emails, which were provided to the State Department under the direction of Cheryl Mills and Clinton lawyer David Kendall.Ā After the emails were provided to State, Clinton, through her lawyers and Platte River Networks, deleted the rest of the āpersonalā emails from her server, wiping it clean. Samuelson conducted the review of emails on her laptop, using Clinton server files downloaded from Platte River Networks, which housed the Clinton email server.
āHillary Clinton doesnāt want the Court and the American people to know the full truth about her destruction of 33,000 emails,ā said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Well… I guess we know the answer to that question NOW, don’t we? The same people who think Trump should just hand over 12 years of IRS returns to venomous jackals that have no problem leaking anything they think will cause damage to the other people continue to support his lying, corrupt hag.
Trump’s records are his personal records; these emails belong to The People… and Hillary hides them.
Democrats support Hillary and all her duplicitous corruption but demand Trump provide them with all his personal information so they can try and FIND some corruption. If they wanted corruption, there is plenty, right in front of their face.