Court Rules State Department Can Be Required To Ask Attorney General to Recover Clinton Emails

today
(Washington DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding today’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a case that would require Secretary of State John Kerry to seek the help of the attorney general in recovering additional Hillary Clinton emails:

The courts seem to be fed up with the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce the rule of law on the Clinton emails. Today’s appeals court ruling rejects the Obama State Department’s excuses justifying its failure to ask the attorney general, as the law requires, to pursue the recovery of the Clinton emails. This ruling means that the Trump Justice Department will have to decide if it wants to finally enforce the rule of law and try to retrieve all the emails Clinton and her aides unlawfully took with them when they left the State Department.



The appellate ruling reverses a decision in which the District Court declared “moot” a Judicial Watch’s lawsuit challenging the failure of Secretary of State John Kerry to comply with the Federal Records Act (FRA) in seeking to recover the emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other high level State Department officials who used non-“state.gov” email accounts to conduct official business (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. John F. Kerry (No. 16-5015)). According to the FRA, if an agency head becomes aware of “any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal . . . or destruction of [agency] records,” he or she “shall notify the Archivist . . . and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of [those] records.”

An appellate panel found:

Appellants sought the only relief provided by the Federal Records Act—an enforcement action through the Attorney General. But nothing the Department did (either before or after those complaints were filed) gave appellants what they wanted. Instead of proceeding through the Attorney General, the Department asked the former Secretary to return her emails voluntarily and similarly requested that the FBI share any records it obtained. Even though those efforts bore some fruit, the Department has not explained why shaking the tree harder—e.g., by following the statutory mandate to seek action by the Attorney General—might not bear more still. It is therefore abundantly clear that, in terms of assuring government recovery of emails, appellants have not “been given everything [they] asked for.” Absent a showing that the requested enforcement action could not shake loose a few more emails, the case is not moot.

In May 2015 Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the State Department failed to take action following a letter to Kerry “notifying him of the unlawful removal of the Clinton emails and requesting that he initiate enforcement action pursuant to the FRA,” including working through the Attorney General to recover the emails. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit subsequently was consolidated with a later lawsuit by Cause of Action Institute. This ruling reverses a January 2016 decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissing the case and remands it.

Court opens door for Trump’s AG to act in Hillary’s email scandal



Great news, justice must be served on this traitor witch.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920AZ using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

Court opens door for Trump’s AG to act in Hillary’s email scandal



Great news, justice must be served on this traitor witch.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920AZ using Tapatalk

Amen!...

If we are a country that is governed by rule of law then rule of law should apply to all citizens.

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

If we are a country that is governed by rule of law then rule of law should apply to all citizens.

Personal Best Regards:

True. But this has been investigated for years or it seems like it and they have found nothing actionable in a fairly unbiased setting-- Congressional Committees. Putting in in front of very biased people like many of Donald Trump's cabinet picks is not rule of law but is a kangaroo court. Trump has seemed to move on from this. His often blind and deaf followers should too.

Originally Posted by Guest

True. But this has been investigating for years or it seems like it and they have found nothing actionable in a fairly unbiased setting-- Congressional Committees. Putting in in front of very biased people like many of Donald Trump's cabinet picks is not rule of law but is a kangaroo court. Trump has seemed to move on from this. His often blind and deaf followers should too.

Yet these folks simply ignore his bold face lies about his Foundation.

Blind and Deaf is being so very generous

Originally Posted by Guest

True. But this has been investigating for years or it seems like it and they have found nothing actionable in a fairly unbiased setting-- Congressional Committees. Putting in in front of very biased people like many of Donald Trump's cabinet picks is not rule of law but is a kangaroo court. Trump has seemed to move on from this. His often blind and deaf followers should too.

There is so much evidence of Hillary's felony behavior that a blind man could get a conviction in a non-corrupt environment. The only thing that has kept Hillary out of jail so far is Obama and his lefty, partisan administration. To think that there would be a kangaroo court, is ridiculous. Trump hasn't moved on from this. He is waiting for Obama to leave so he can't pardon Hillary. If Obama thought that Trump might attempt something after he left office, he would pardon Hillary right now.

I can name you the federal statutes that Hillary has violated, at least the ones that I dealt with every day before I retired. Of course, there are many others that she violated also. She is enjoying elite status or she would have been in a federal pen long ago. If this was a Republican, I would feel the exact same way. Personally, I thought Petraeus should have gotten time. No one of lesser status has ever gotten such a light penalty for doing what he did.

Originally Posted by Guest

Yet these folks simply ignore his bold face lies about his Foundation.

Blind and Deaf is being so very generous

Are you baiting again? Who are you suggesting is ignoring his supposed lies about his Foundation? And what have you ever/EVER said about the Clinton Foundation and/or even about them paying for Chelsea's wedding using Foundation funds? I won't call you a hypocrite, but...........

Barry won't have only his legacy to worry about, but his freedom as well. He is a scumbag with lots to hide. Let the emails go public.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920AZ using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

Are you baiting again? Who are you suggesting is ignoring his supposed lies about his Foundation? And what have you ever/EVER said about the Clinton Foundation and/or even about them paying for Chelsea's wedding using Foundation funds? I won't call you a hypocrite, but...........

I have no problem however, calling you an ignorant follower who has no compunction of believing anything you're told by proven liars.

Clinton Foundation Paid for Chelsea Clinton's Wedding-Unproven!

Summary of eRumor:

Citing linked emails from John Podesta, multiple media outlets have reported that the Clinton Foundation paid for Chelsea Clinton’s “lavish” $3 million wedding.

The Truth:

A former aid to President Bill Clinton referred to “the investigation” into Chelsea Clinton’s use of Clinton Foundation “resources” to pay for her wedding in a leaked 2012 email.

But no additional information about the investigation or the accusation that Clinton Foundation resources were used to pay for the wedding have come to light yet.

How do you feel, being someone who is so ignorant and easily duped?

Originally Posted by Guest

Amen!...

I'm glad to see you don't like traitors. Does that mean if it is proven Trump knew about Russia's involvement in the hacking you would also consider that treason as well? I'm sure you're not a hypocrite.

Speaking of hypocrites, if the NY Attorney General finds Trump broke the law in his misuse of funds in regards to his charitable foundation I'm sure you won't buy the "political witch hunt" bs you and I both know Trump will try to sell. Man, I crack myself up.

Originally Posted by Guest

There is so much evidence of Hillary's felony behavior that a blind man could get a conviction in a non-corrupt environment. The only thing that has kept Hillary out of jail so far is Obama and his lefty, partisan administration. To think that there would be a kangaroo court, is ridiculous. Trump hasn't moved on from this. He is waiting for Obama to leave so he can't pardon Hillary. If Obama thought that Trump might attempt something after he left office, he would pardon Hillary right now.

I can name you the federal statutes that Hillary has violated, at least the ones that I dealt with every day before I retired. Of course, there are many others that she violated also. She is enjoying elite status or she would have been in a federal pen long ago. If this was a Republican, I would feel the exact same way. Personally, I thought Petraeus should have gotten time. No one of lesser status has ever gotten such a light penalty for doing what he did.

That's horse****. There is little evidence that Hillary Clinton did anything more than make some very bad judgments and then played a lawyer at trying to mitigate the effects of those decisions.

Donald Trump lied his way into the White House with often bold faced lies that any idiot with a computer can see were flat out dishonest.

amazing!

Originally Posted by Guest

That's horse****. There is little evidence that Hillary Clinton did anything more than make some very bad judgments and then played a lawyer at trying to mitigate the effects of those decisions.

Donald Trump lied his way into the White House with often bold faced lies that any idiot with a computer can see were flat out dishonest.

Try again. Hillary intentionally violated national security by transmitting classified information via the Internet, kept it on an unauthorized, unsecured, unencrypted server and allowed uncleared personnel access to it. This was on the FBI affidavit, and she even admitted to having the server. Saying you're sorry doesn't cut it.

According to the affidavit, the FBI had already reviewed more than 30,000 emails and found 2,115 contained classified information, including 22 with Top Secret information.

This is a blatant cover up by this administration. This is more serious than what Gen Petraeus is guilty of, where he received a simple slap on the wrist.

It is not inconceivable to believe that her disregard for national security and her transmission of Amb Stevens travel Itinerary (classified) may have been instrumental in the deaths of at least four Americans.

Attempting to compare Trump's civil suit with national security is ludicrous. If he is guilty of some civil violation, he could be fined, but they will have to do it before he is sworn in. After he is sworn in, he is immune to prosecution for it, I believe. That part, I admit that I would have to research. As far as his collusion with the Russians on hacking, there is not even a minute shred of evidence or even an accusation that he had anything to do with their hacking. Since Russia has been hacking us for decades, I find any association also to be ludicrous.