The conservative group Freedom Watch has filed a racketeering lawsuit against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that accuses her of failing to produce documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The civil suit, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, argues that Clinton used her private emails to sell access to other officials in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation.
It alleges that, during her tenure, Clinton withheld documents requested under FOIA regarding State Department waivers given to businesses or individuals doing business with Iran, possibly undermining U.S.-imposed sanctions.
The complaint, which lists Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation as defendants, alleges the Clintons sold access to other U.S. government officials in return for donations to their organization, which they concealed, allegedly, by using a private computer server for her emails operated from their home in Chappaqua, New York.
Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch, launched dozens of lawsuits against former President Bill Clinton’s administration.
In the new lawsuit, he alleges that, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure, the State Department “clearly leaked” information to New York Times reporter David Sanger on U.S. and Israeli efforts to counteract Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
“Public reports about plans to counter Iran’s nuclear weapons development programs undermined the effectiveness of those plans by revealing them to Iran and other terrorist organizations and states,” the complaint states.
The civil suit alleges the Clintons “systematically and continuously… conducted a corrupt enterprise” over more than 10 years, allegedly in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, which deals with abuse and misuse of organizations or businesses.
In a statement, Klayman cast his lawsuit as “the first and only hard-hitting case to address the growing email scandal.”
“What Hillary Clinton, her husband, and their foundation have done is nothing new. It is simply part of a criminal enterprise which dates back at least 10 years, all designed to enrich themselves personally at the expense of the American people and our nation. It’s time, however, that they finally be held legally accountable,” Klayman said.
Clinton acknowledged the private server earlier this month, explaining that she deleted more than 30,000 emails her aides deemed personal, and turned over the rest to the State Department for archiving.
The House select committee investigating the deadly 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, has asked Clinton to turn over her server to an independent arbiter. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has also demanded Clinton turn over the server but has so far not directed House Republicans to subpoena her records.
Ben Carson thinks President Obama is a “psychopath.”
In a new GQ profile of the potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, reporter Jason Zengerle shares an unguarded moment with Carson, during which the famed neurosurgeon called President Barack Obama a “psychopath” for his ability to shamelessly lie to the American people.
Carson reportedly went off on the president after his adviser Armstrong Williams said the president “looks good” during his State of the Union address.
“Like most psychopaths. That’s the way they look, they all look great,” Carson replied.
“He’s gotta convince people to believe him,” Williams reportedly responded, “That’s all he’s doing: selling his narrative.”
“But he knows he’s telling a lie!” Carson said. “He’s trying to sell what he thinks is not true! He’s sitting there saying, ‘These Americans are so stupid, I can tell them anything.’”
Williams seemed to recognize the comments might be controversial and told Carson not to repeat them during an interview later. “We don’t have to call him a psychopath. I don’t want you to go to CNN with that kind of mood.”
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Wisconsin to implement a voter-identification law that opponents say is one of the strictest in the nation.
Rejecting without comment an appeal by civil rights groups, the justices Monday gave a victory to Republicans, including Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who have championed voter-ID laws around the country. Wisconsin is one of 30 states with ID laws and one of 17 that enacted measures since the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana statute in 2008.
Civil rights groups say ID requirements disproportionately affect minority and low-income voters while doing little if anything to protect against fraud. The organizations pressing the Wisconsin appeal said 300,000 registered voters in that state lack a qualifying ID.
“The right to vote is the foundational element of American democracy,” the groups argued. “Increasingly restrictive voter ID laws like Wisconsin’s Act 23 unjustifiably burden the voting rights of millions of registered voters, particularly African-Americans and Latinos.”
Wisconsin officials led by Walker, a potential presidential candidate, defended the law. They argued that it will impose a minimal burden on voters while providing more assurance of a fraud-free election.
“In Wisconsin, as elsewhere, the overwhelming majority of voters already have qualifying ID,” Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel argued. “For those who lack ID, obtaining one and bringing it to the polling place is generally no more of a burden than the process of voting itself.”
In a statement Monday, Schimel said the voter-ID law won’t take effect for an April 7 election for judicial offices because absentee ballots already have been sent to voters.
“The voter-ID law will be in place for future elections,” he said.
In October the Supreme Court blocked the Wisconsin law from applying to the Nov. 4 election. A lower court had revived the law weeks earlier, and civil rights groups told the high court at the time that hasty implementation would mean widespread confusion.
Lower courts have largely backed voter-ID laws. In a notable exception, a federal trial judge said Texas’s statute was the product of intentional discrimination. That case is now before a federal appeals court and could make its way to the Supreme Court before the 2016 election.
Unlike with Wisconsin, the Supreme Court let the Texas law take effect for the 2014 election.
In the latest Wisconsin appeal, groups led by the League of United Latin American Citizens argued that the 2011 state law violated the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Wisconsin’s law lets voters use any of eight forms of identification, including in-state driver’s licenses, state-issued photo IDs for non-drivers and military IDs. The state also accepts some student identification cards, though not those from the University of Wisconsin campuses.
A federal trial judge invalidated the measure, saying it would deter many residents from voting. The judge also said the state hadn’t pointed to any recent instances of voter impersonation in Wisconsin.
A three-judge federal appeals panel in Chicago reversed that decision, pointing to new rules the state issued to help people obtain the documentation they need to get IDs. Officials took that step after the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a separate case, said people must be able to get IDs without having to pay a fee for documents.
The panel’s ruling drew a rebuke from Judge Richard Posner, who argued unsuccessfully for reconsideration by a larger group of judges. Posner said voter-impersonation fraud was “a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters.”
The Supreme Court in 2008 upheld Indiana’s voter-ID law on a 6-3 vote. Writing the court’s lead opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said voter fraud was a real risk that “could affect the outcome of a close election.”
Stevens said the record in the Indiana case “does not provide any concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who currently lack photo identification.”
The Wisconsin civil rights groups say the trial in their case produced that type of evidence. State officials say the two laws are indistinguishable after the changes required by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The case is Frank v. Walker, 14-803.
“Agents who repeatedly reported groups larger than twenty faced retribution.”
Border patrol agent Chris Cabrera testified to Congress this past week. Cabrera said border patrol agents who regularly reported groups of illegals larger than twenty were taken out of the field and assigned them to processing detainees. Or else the agents were assigned to low volume areas as punishment.
30,558 illegal alien criminals were released on the streets in America in 2013.
John Gihon, former senior ICE attorney, went on FOX and Friends Saturday to discuss this disturbing development.
“If their bosses are telling them to lie about the number of people crossing our border, this has to stop immediately. This is a national security issue.”
FULL HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE HEARING ON SECURING THE SOUTHWEST BORDER