Federal Judge Slams Hillary Clinton and Deep State Operatives

A judge has once again caused Democratic icon Hillary Clinton to fearfully contemplate her political future and the futures of her presidential campaign staff when he ordered a new criminal investigation into the unsecured private email server installed by President Barack Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her home. Many observers have accused her of creating the private email system in order to avoid anyone seeking information by accessing her dot-gov email system at the State Department, according to a number of cyber security experts who spoke with Conservative Base’s editor, Jim Kouri, a former law enforcement chief and director of security.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lambert said her use of an unauthorized email system was arguably “one of the gravest modern offenses to [U.S.] government transparency.”

The veteran jurist angrily stated for the record that he is “shocked and dumbfounded” by the discovery that FBI agents granted immunity to former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills during its “dog and pony show” probe Clinton’s use of a non-government Internet server, according to a government watchdog group in the nation’s capital.

During a hearing in his courtroom, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth stated: “I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case.” 

“This judge’s statements and his decision have all but been ignored by a number of news media outlets. Why? Because to the mainstream news media the Clintons and their lackeys deserve to be protected while it’s perfectly okay to go after a Republican President [Donald Trump] on ‘trumped up charges’ that he colluded with the Russian government to cause damage to Mrs. Clinton campaign,” said former cyber security specialist Gregory Backus. “The fact of the matter is that rather than having a Special Counsel or Special Prosecutor investigating and railroading the 2016 winner of the presidency, there should be a Special Counsel appointed and a Grand Jury impaneled to investigate the Clinton campaign and its connections to Russia, an uranium deal, a fraudulent report that accuses President Trump of attempting to fool people into voting for him and his party’s ticket,” said Backus.

Lamberth wrote in his MEMORANDUM OPINION:

“… his [President Barack Obama’s] State and Justice Departments fell far short. So far short that the court questions, even now, whether they are acting in good faith. Did Hillary Clinton use her private email as Secretary of State to thwart this lofty goal [Obama announced standard for transparency]? Was the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 an effort to avoid searching – and disclosing the existence of – Clinton’s missing emails? And has State ever adequately searched for records in this case?

“At best, State’s attempt to pass-off its deficient search as legally adequate during settlement negotiations was negligence born out of incompetence. At worst, career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court,”  wrote Judge Lamberth.

The DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz revealed — and most of the news media ignored — a disturbing report in June 2018 that it was “inconsistent with typical investigative strategy” for agents from the FBI to allow [Miss Mills] to attend the interview of Hillary Clinton during the email probe, given that classified information traveled through Mills’ own personal email account. “[T]here are serious potential ramifications when one witness attends another witness’ interview,” Horowitz reported.

The hardworking watchdog group involved in the case is Judicial Watch, a group that’s successfully exposed a number of incidents of corruption, fraud and criminal acts within federal, state and local governments and officials. Judicial Watch on Thursday reported that in his opening remarks at a Friday, October 12 hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth lambasted the U.S. Department of State, stating, “The information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the [Clinton email] search and… what we now know turned out to be the Secretary’s [Hillary Clinton’s] email system.”

The Department of Justice also was criticized by Judge Lamberth. He said that he was “dumbfounded” by the agency’s Inspector General report revealing that Cheryl Mills had been given immunity and was allowed to accompany former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to her FBI interview:

I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case. So, I did not know that until I read the IG report and learned that and that she had accompanied the Secretary to her interview,” according to Judge Lamberth.

Judge Lamberth also voiced his displeasure with the Justice Department’s attorney representing the State Department who was using “doublespeak” and playing “word games,” in their defense. The 75-year-old Lamberth’s talking-point comments from the bench were given  by the Deep State-friendly news media.

The hearing had been ordered by Judge Lamberth regarding a request from Judicial Watch for testimony under oath from Clinton, Mills and several other State Department officials regarding the State Department’s processing of Judicial Watch’s FOIA request and Clinton’s emails. The State Department still opposes all of Judicial Watch’s requests for additional discovery into the Clinton email scandal.

Judge Lamberth said he was relieved that he did not allow the case to be shut down prematurely, as the State Department had requested:

“The case started with a motion for summary judgment [seeking to close the case] here and which I denied and allowed limited discovery because it was clear to me that at the time that I ruled initially, that false statements were made to me by career State Department officials and it became more clear through discovery that the information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the search and this – what we now know turned out to be the Secretary’s email system.

“I don’t know the details of what kind of IG inquiry there was into why these career officials at the State Department would have filed false affidavits with me. I don’t know the details of why the Justice Department lawyers did not know false affidavits were being filed with me, but I was very relieved that I did not accept them and that I allowed limited discovery into what had happened.”

In March 2016, Judge Lamberth granted “limited discovery” to Judicial Watch:

“Where 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.

“[Judicial Watch] is certainly entitled to dispute the State Department’s position that it has no obligation to produce these documents because it did not “possess” or “control” them at the time the FOIA request was made. The State Department’s willingness to now search documents voluntarily turned over to the Department by Secretary Clinton and other officials hardly transforms such a search into an “adequate” or “reasonable one. [Judicial Watch] is not relying on “speculation” or “surmise” as the State Department claims. [Judicial Watch] is relying on constantly shifting admissions by the government and the former government officials.

“President Trump should ask why his State Department is still refusing to answer basic questions about the Clinton email scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Hillary Clinton’s and the State Department’s email cover up abused the FOIA, the courts, and the American people’s right to know.”