Hillary Clinton was stunned by this judge’s ruling

The investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server just got hotter.

Now one judge issued a major ruling in the case.

And it was not what anyone expected.

Judicial Watch – which obtained thousands of Hillary’s emails through Freedom of Information Act requests – filed a request seeking documents surrounding the State Department’s handling of the investigation into Hillary’s private server.

They believed the documents would have shed light on the cover-up of Hillary’s illegal private email server.

But a judge denied their request.

Politico reports:

“A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that a conservative group cannot get State Department records about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State because those documents don’t show evidence of government “malfeasance.”

“The Court… concludes that Judicial Watch has not provided a sufficient basis to believe that the information withheld by the State Department would shed light on any government misconduct,” U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg wrote after privately reviewing the 30 records in dispute.

Details about the government’s internal deliberative process are typically exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, but Judicial Watch said the records were part of an illicit effort to cover up Clinton’s violation of record-keeping laws and policies.

“A document sheds light on misconduct when it ‘reflects any governmental impropriety,’ but not when it merely reflects a ‘part of the legitimate government process intended to be protected by Exemption 5,’” Boasberg wrote.

The judge’s decision concludes that none of the redacted emails contained “hints of nefarious government action or motive in responding to that conduct.”

But is this the end of the line?

Judicial Watch has promised to consider all option.

And Politico also reports that with the Trump administration in office that the Justice Department will reconsider their request:

“Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the organization is happy the court took the step to review the requested documents. He also said the group is “evaluating the opinion and considering” moving on with an appeal.

“We remain curious about the documents,” Fitton said. “The PR effort remains troubling and something that we think is in the public’s interest to know.”

Fitton assured the watchdog organization will want the Department of Justice under President Donald Trump to take a second look at their request.

“We expect the Trump administration to be more transparent on this issue, since the last administration was completely lawless on this issue,” Fitton added.”

The Obama administration was known to be hostile to Freedom of Information Act requests.

Time reports that the Obama administration denied more FOIA requests on national security grounds than any other administration in history:

“Part of the increase in the federal government’s refusals to release information may be due to an uptick last year in requests for information; in 2013, citizens asked the White House to release secret information 704,394 times, an 8% rise from the year before. Under the Freedom of Information Act, known commonly as “FOIA,” any citizen is supposed to be able to request and receive any piece of information from the federal government at little or no cost, unless the release of that information would harm national security or violate the privacy of a person or business. The Obama White House cited such exceptions in denying FOIA requests more times that ever before in 2013: 546,574.”

An Associated Press study found the Obama administration censored documents and delayed the release of others at a greater rate than ever before.

Time also reports:

“According to the Associated Press analysis, which covers 99 federal agencies over six years, the Obama administration censored more documents and delayed or denied access to more government files than ever before. In 2013, the administration cited national security concerns a record 8,496 times as an excuse for withholding information from the public. That’s a 57% increase over the year before and more than double the number in Obama’s first year in office.”

So it’s no surprise Judicial Watch had to fight tooth-and-nail for the release of documents that pertain to the Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

And this Judge’s ruling will – for now – continue the cover up of her conduct and the investigation surrounding her actions.

But will the new administration bring more transparency to the process?

Many are hoping the answer is “yes.”


  1. As with some of the Kennedy antics just now “coming out”, sooner or later we will find out just what it was O’Bama was hiding since he had ALL his past records sealed. Maybe we will find out he was really born in Kenya but his mother had the record of his birth recorded in Hawaii which WAS NOT a state at that time just to hide her foreign birth.

  2. While they are at it; see how much influence was paid to the Clinton Foundation to gain access to government officials. DID she suggest that if they gave “a donation” to the Clinton Foundation they would have a path to whatever official they wanted to see?

  3. Obama’s lies started with his father. Look at side by side photos of Sr. & Jr. – there is absolutely no resemblance at all. Then Look at side by side photos of Jr. and Frank Marshall Davis – you decide. Davis was another of Ann Dunham’s boyfriends. When you look at what records are available it is said that Dunham and Obama Sr. were married in February of 1961. Jr. was born on $ August 1961 – do the math. Dunham was between a rock and a hard place – in 1961 unwed mothers were the scourge of the community. A white girl with a black guy was unheard of – in 1961 there were still “whites only” signs on bathroom doors and water fountains. Abortions were not readily available either – if they had been we may never have heard of Barack Obama Jr. Another problem she faced is Frank Marshall Davis was already married with 5 kids in Illinois. She knew her baby was black so she had to marry a black guy. Enter Obama Sr. – who by the way was also already married – but his wife and kids were in Kenya no one would probably check up on that in 1961 computers were not around for common use either. A paternity test would easily prove me wrong but do you think there will ever be one – or has there already been one to prove Davis was his father thereby making both his parents natural born citizens and him eligible to be president?
    Also ironically I’ve e=read that the editor of the Harvard Law Review had to surrender his law license in 2008 to avoid prosecution for lying on his bar application. MIchelle is said to have surrendered hers after only having it for 5 years to avoid prosecution for insurance fraud. There is so much more we don’t know but the evidence that these are NOT good people is pretty clear.

  4. The NYPD said that when the seized a computer from Huma Abedin’s – Anthony Weiner’s home during the investigation into disgraced former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner’ (D) pedophile case – they found evidence on that computer that Bill was not the only Clinton slipping down to Jeffrey Epstein’s “Pleasure Island” for orgies with underaged trafficked girls. If that is true and proven Hillary is done. How can she represent women when she did everything in her power to destroy all of the women who had the “audacity of hope” in getting justice against Bill for raping them. How can she say she represents children when she bragged and laughed about getting a child rapist off when she was an attorney and then all the orgies at Pleasure Island? Even the dumbest of democrats would have to see the light for who she really is. Of course Hillary did say ” she loved Democrats – because – most of them had little education and were easily manipulated”. Look it up

  5. Wgat still bothers me and I’d love an explanation. First, please cite a Federal law or a provision of the Constitution that prevents a citizen from having access to papers connected to the application for matriculation at Columbia or any other public-supported school of one Barack Hussein Obama. I have seen no evidence that in his application he didn’t seek admission as a foreign-born student and when asked to state his religious preference he checked the “Muslim” block. Nothing serves the need for written evidence better than a “piece of paper writing” as my torts professor used to say. Or was it my Criminal Law prof?

  6. AMEN

  7. Mr. Wolak, you have made an accurate, succinct statement with which I totally agree. Further, I commend you as you found the use of any profanity unnecessary.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.