Judicial Watch – The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right

Govt. Science Greed & Lies

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© May 20, 2022

Things are getting crazy twisted by whoever actually controls the U.S. Government. At age sixty-five it feels like another dose of 1960s NEVER trust Big Brother Government and the increasingly Fascist-Marxist nature of Corporate America in collusion with ONE-WORLD Government Globalists to end individual thinking, individual Liberty and individual Laissez-Faire choices.

[Of interest further reading – The Radical Socialist Roots of Fascism: Fascism is a form of socialism. As such, it does not engage in a fight between left and right, but between different leftists ideologies; By EMMANUEL RINCÓN; El American; 3/27/21]

It should be evident to at least those paying some attention Dem-Marxists (aka the Democratic Party) have been lying for decades and since the Obama years has planted unelected Dem-Marxist bureaucrats to keep political power (Trump was their unexpected monkey wrench) and COVID fearmongering (99% survival rate) became the tool to oust any threat to Dem-Marxist power.

Dr. Joseph Mercola and Judicial Watch (including video) demonstrate who corrupt government scientists and science agencies are so consumed with greed an power, there is little evidence of protecting American citizens which taxpayers constituted them to do.

JRH 5/20/22

READER SUPPORTED! I need Readers willing to chip in $5 – $10 – $25 – $50 – $100. I need your generosity. PLEASE GIVE to overcome research expenses:

Please Support NCCR

Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

*****************************

Government Scientists Secretly Paid Off While Hiding Data

Science Greed

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

May 20, 2022

Mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

According to government watchdog Open the Books, the National Institutes of Health and hundreds of individual scientists received an estimated $350 million in undisclosed royalties from third parties, primarily drug companies, in the decade between 2010 and 2020

Between 2010 and 2014, National Cancer Institute employees received nearly $113 million. The National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and its leadership received more than $9.3 million

Federal agencies are increasingly refusing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, thereby forcing legal action. This is an obnoxious waste of taxpayer money as, by law, they’re required to release the information

Forced FOIA disclosures have shown the NIH lied about not funding gain of function research in China, and allowed the EcoHealth Alliance — whom they’re supposed to regulate — to write its own reporting rules. NIH has also been caught redacting information under false pretenses

Members of U.S. Congress are calling for an investigation into the EcoHealth Alliance, to determine the true scope of its cover-up. House investigators have found EcoHealth hid more data than previously known, including a death rate of 75% in humanized mice infected with its gain of function coronavirus

We’ve long suspected that U.S. government agencies have deep conflicts of interest, and in recent days, we’re finding these conflicts run deeper than most people imagined.

Government officials and employees are personally profiting on the taxpayers’ dime, and as conflicts of interest have increased, government’s transparency has decreased, making it more costly and time-consuming to get to the bottom of it all.

Undisclosed Royalties Paid to Hundreds of Scientists

According to government watchdog Open the Books,^1,2,3 the National Institutes of Health and hundreds of individual scientists received an estimated $350 million in undisclosed royalties from third parties, primarily drug companies, in the decade between 2010 and 2020. The total amount is likely far greater, as four agencies have redacted their royalty payments.

“Because those payments enrich the agency and its scientists, each and every royalty payment could be a potential conflict of interest and needs disclosure,” Open the Books CEO Adam Andrzejewski writes.⁴ Why are these people getting paid? Open the Books explains:⁵

“The National Institute of Health [NIH], part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], is the largest biomedical research agency in the world. NIH grants over $32 billion in funding to research institutions around the world, and employs thousands of scientists to conduct research in-house.
When an NIH employee makes a discovery in their official capacity, the NIH owns the rights to any resulting patent. These patents are then licensed for commercial use to companies that could use them to bring products to market. Employees are listed as inventors on the patents and receive a share of the royalties obtained through any licensing, or ‘technology transfer,’ of their inventions.
Essentially, taxpayer money funding NIH research benefits researchers employed by NIH because they are listed as patent inventors and therefore receive royalty payments from licensees.”

Who’s Been Getting Rich on the Taxpayers’ Dime?

During a May 9, 2022, news conference with reporters, Andrzejewski stated that payments issued between 2010 and 2014 accounted for 40% of the total payouts.⁶ In all, 1,675 scientists received secret royalties during those years, with the average payout totaling $21,100 per person.

The five NIH employees — all of whom worked or work for the National Cancer Institute (NCI) — who received the greatest number of payments were Robert Gallo, Ira Pastan, Mikulas Popovic, Flossie Wong-Staal and Mangalasseril Sarngadharan.⁷

In total, NCI employees received nearly $113 million between 2010 and 2014. The National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and its leadership received more than $9.3 million. According to Andrzejewski:

“Francis Collins, the immediate past director of NIH, received 14 payments. Dr. Anthony Fauci received 23 payments and his deputy, Clifford Lane, received eight payments⁸ …
With tens of billions of dollars in grant-making at NIH and tens of millions of royalty dollars from third-party payers flowing back into the agency each year, NIH needs to come clean with the American people and open the books. We need to be able to follow the money.⁹”

In 2005, the Associated Press investigated and reported on NIH royalty payments, including details on who got what, and from whom. Many of those details are now kept secret, even though the payments are significantly larger, and thereby pose far greater risk in terms of conflicts of interest. As noted in the British Medical Journal at the time:¹⁰

“A patient advocacy group, the Alliance for Human Research Protection, says that patients might have thought differently about the risks of trial treatment if they knew of scientists’ financial interests.”

During a May 11, 2022, House Appropriations Committee subcommittee hearing, Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Mich., told acting director of the NIH, Dr. Lawrence Tabak:¹¹

“Right now, I think the NIH has a credibility problem and this only feeds into this … People in my district say, ‘Well, so-and-so has a financial interest,’ or they don’t like ivermectin because they aren’t benefitting from that royalty.
You may have very sound scientific reasons for recommending a medicine or not, but the idea that people get a financial benefit from certain research that’s been done and grants that were awarded, that is, to me, the height of the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

Tabak admitted the undisclosed royalty payments present “an appearance of a conflict of interest” and don’t appear ethical,¹² but that the agency will not make recommendations on drugs based on anything other than the science.

Government’s Illegal Noncompliance Is Costly

Not only is the NIH database heavily redacted, but NIH financial disclosure forms also help hide the payouts, as they define third-party royalty payments as income received from the NIH.

When Open the Books initially filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the NIH to obtain this information, the NIH declined to respond. Only after the watchdog group sued the NIH for noncompliance were they able to pry the documentation from them, and even then, it was redacted.

The fact that government agencies are increasingly refusing to comply with FOIA laws is a serious problem, Jason Foster, president of Empower Oversight says, as “the public’s business ought to be public.” In an April 2022 Newsweek opinion piece, he wrote:¹³

“Last November my organization, Empower Oversight, sued the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for failing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests related to the agency’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Around half a dozen other entities have also been forced to go to court to compel the NIH to make pandemic documents public. It’s worth noting that this didn’t need to happen. Good lawyers charge hundreds of dollars an hour or more and hiring legal talent to pursue cases full time is not easy.
By forcing public interest groups to spend this money on litigation before complying with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, the NIH is locking out the vast majority of Americans from accessing federal records. It takes financial resources to most effectively probe how our government operates …
We all pay extra when anyone sues the government. The process sucks up court time and expenses, and forces lawyers at the Department of Justice to get involved and collect agency documents. It would all be cheaper and faster if the NIH simply followed the law in the first place.”

Why Public Confidence Is Tanking

When federal agencies shirk disclosure laws, they also erode public confidence. Over the past 18 months, we’ve repeatedly discovered that federal officials have lied to our faces, thanks to organizations footing the bill to sue them for information they’re required to release voluntarily.

For example, as detailed by Foster,¹⁴ The Intercept sued, forcing the NIH to fess up correspondence that ended up confirming the NIH was in fact funding gain of function research at Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Emails also showed the NIH allowed the EcoHealth Alliance to craft the language that governed this controversial and risky research, even though the NIH is supposed to regulate EcoHealth Alliance’s work!

None of this would have come to light had The Intercept not sued to force the NIH to comply with FOIA rules. Other public interest groups, such as Knowledge Ecology International and Public Citizen, have sued the agency to determine its role in the development of COVID-19 therapies.

“These requests are important because taxpayers helped subsidize vaccines for which we are now paying top dollar,” Foster notes.¹⁵

Forced FOIA disclosures have also shown the NIH is redacting information under false pretenses. In documents released to Buzzfeed, after they sued, the NIH redacted part of an email citing exemption code 7(A), which permits the withholding of “records compiled for law enforcement purposes when disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”¹⁶

Later, when senators requested the records, that passage was left unredacted. As it turns out, the redacted passage couldn’t possibly have been withheld for law enforcement purposes, because the blotted-out sentence was simply EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak telling Fauci about “work we’ve been doing in collaboration with Chinese virologists.”

In other words, the NIH simply wanted their “collaboration with Chinese virologists” to remain secret. This is profoundly dishonest, and piles insult on top of injury. Clearly, the NIH — as well as other federal agencies — have become cesspools of corruption and malfeasance.

Foster even points out that then-director of the NIH, Collins, was personally reviewing and clearing FOIA requests — “an odd use of time by the director of a public health agency in the midst of a pandemic.”¹⁷ Indeed. Rep. Dr. Neal Dunn, R-Fla., told The Epoch Times:¹⁸

“It’s no secret that the agency needs reform. Their many issues were exacerbated and highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Providing the public with transparent access to how the NIH is spending taxpayer dollars and reaching their decisions is a basic responsibility, and they must be held accountable. Now more than ever, we must commit to reforming our federal health agencies and restoring America’s trust in public health.”

The question is, can they be reformed, or is the rot too deep to clean out? Perhaps we need to strip these agencies down to nothing and rebuild from scratch?

EcoHealth Covered Up Deadly Experiments

While the news of undisclosed royalty payments to NIH scientists is gaining traction, members of the U.S. Congress are also calling for an investigation into the EcoHealth Alliance, to determine the true scope of its cover-up.

“EcoHealth reported that its infected mice had only ‘mild’ clinical symptoms when, in reality, the infection had a 75% death rate. ~ New York Post”

As reported by the New York Post:¹⁹

“Documents the White Coat Waste Project obtained via the Freedom of Information Act revealed … that in 2016, staffers at the … NIAID … worried that EcoHealth’s animal experiments ran afoul of the government’s moratorium on gain-of-function research — the practice of manipulating viruses to make them more transmissible, more lethal and more dangerous.
Instead of stopping the project, however, NIAID offered EcoHealth the chance to create its own policy governing the dangerous research, then allowed the planned animal experiments to proceed … EcoHealth promised NIAID it would stop its experiments, and immediately report, if the coronaviruses it engineered showed viral growth greater than 10 times that of the original virus.
The novel coronaviruses did get more dangerous, with viral growth 10,000 times greater than that of the original virus, and made mice very sick. We now know that EcoHealth did not properly report the increased virulence — in violation of its self-imposed grant terms.
Now, House investigators, led by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), have revealed that EcoHealth seems to have hidden far more data than previously known. Her letter to NIH notes that EcoHealth reported that its infected mice had only ‘mild’ clinical symptoms when, in reality, the infection had a 75% death rate.
EcoHealth apparently obscured the fact that its experiments caused an alarming increase in mouse deaths by deleting the word ‘dead’ from the phrase ‘dead point’ on a graph, though it appeared in earlier reports. Its omission made it look as though mice were simply carrying more of the virus, rather than dying in droves …
Investigators suggest that EcoHealth’s omission was not accidental and was ‘intended to deceive … peer reviewers.’ Had they known what was actually going on, reviewers likely ‘would have wanted to stop such risky research and not continue EcoHealth’s funding.’”

CDC in a Panic Over Own Disinformation Being Disclosed

Internal documents and emails from the U.S. Centers for Disease control (obtained through FOIA requests) reveal it too is guilty of obfuscation and cover-ups. In a report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) December 18, 2020, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was said to have “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.²⁰

Based on this, the CDC urged everyone, including those who had previously recovered from COVID, to get the shot.

After carefully reviewing the Pfizer trial data, Rep. Thomas Massie — a Republican Congressman for Kentucky and an award-winning scientist — discovered the ACIP’s claim was completely false. Pfizer’s trial showed NO efficacy among participants with previous COVID infection, and there was no proof of efficacy in the Moderna trial either, for that matter.

In a January 30, 2021, Full Measure report,^21,22 investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson described how Massie tried to get the CDC to correct its error. After multiple phone calls, CDC deputy director Dr. Anne Schuchat finally acknowledged the error and told Massie it would be fixed. However, when the CDC issued its “correction,” at the end of January 2021, they did not fix the error. Instead, they simply rephrased the lie in a different way.

The “correction” still misleadingly suggested that vaccination was effective for those previously infected, even though the data showed no such thing. Now, emails reveal Massie’s discussions with the CDC ignited a firestorm of panic.²³ More than 1,000 pages of emails mention Massie’s concern that they were putting out disinformation and misleading the public.

Exactly what they said is hard to determine, however, as many of the emails are 100% redacted. Some did try to defend the false information, though, highlighting certain paragraphs that might justify vaccinating people with natural immunity.

“It’s unclear why conversations between CDC officials and scientists on matters of great public health importance would be kept hidden from public view,” Attkisson writes,²⁴ adding, “Nobody was held publicly accountable for the serious and potentially dangerous false information the CDC officials and scientists signed off on and publicized.”

In her May 9, 2022, update on the CDC’s disinformation campaign, Attkisson also points out that the CDC has been tracking and logging CDC-related tweets by members of Congress. The purpose of that Twitter post collection is unclear. Probably, someone should demand an answer.

On the whole, it seems all of our federal health agencies are corrupted and broken, possibly beyond repair. Not one of them has fulfilled their mandate to protect public health. Instead, they’ve lied to us and protected Big Pharma profits, part of which gets kicked back to them. At this point, anyone who listens to and trusts the NIH, the CDC or the Food and Drug Administration, does so at their own risk.

My latest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” is an instant bestseller. After thousands of reviews it has a nearly perfect 5-star rating, so grab your copy today before it’s too late!

Sources and References

^1, ⁴ Open the books May 9, 2022

^2, ^5, ⁷ Open the Books NIH Royalty Disclosures Fact Sheet

³ The Epoch Times May 9, 2022

^6, ⁸ Zero Hedge May 10, 2022

^9, ^11, ^12, ¹⁸ The Epoch Times May 11, 2022

¹⁰ BMJ 2005 Jan 22; 330(7484): 162

^13, ^14, ^15, ¹⁷ Newsweek April 13, 2022

¹⁶ USRTK November 5, 2022

¹⁹ New York Post May 8, 2022

²⁰ MMWR December 18, 2020

²¹ Full Measure After Hours Podcast January 30, 2021

²² Full Measure News January 31, 2021

^23, ²⁴ Sharyl Attkisson May 9, 2022

+++++++++++++++++++

Rumble VIDEO: NEW FDA Documents on Vaccine Safety Revealed!

Posted JudicialWatch

Published May 19, 2022

READ: https://www.judicialwatch.org/nanoparticles-materials-outside-injection-site/

Judicial Watch received 466 pages of records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding biodistribution studies and related data for the COVID-19 vaccines that show a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Judicial Watch: Pfizer/BioNTech Study Found Lipid Nanoparticles Materials Outside Injection Site in Test Animals

JW – Lipid Nanoparticles

By JUDICIAL WATCH Staff

MAY 02, 2022

Judicial Watch

Johnson & Johnson relied on studies showing that vaccine DNA particles and injected virus particles were still present in test animals months after injection

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it received 466 pages of records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding biodistribution studies and related data for the COVID-19 vaccines that show a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.

Pfizer/BioNTech’s mRNA-based COVID vaccine relies on LNPs as a delivery system. Pfizer said in a January 10, 2022 press release that Acuitas Therapeutics LNP technology is used in COMIRNATY, the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

Judicial Watch also received 663 pages of records from HHS regarding biodistribution studies and related data for COVID-19 vaccines, which show that Johnson & Johnson relied on studies showing that vaccine DNA particles and injected virus particles were still present in test animals months after injection.

The records also show that Johnson & Johnson, as part of its submission to the FDA for approval of its COVID vaccine, did not include studies of the spike protein encoded in the J&J vaccine.

Biodistribution is a method of tracking where compounds of interest travel in an experimental animal or human subject.

Judicial Watch obtained the records in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services(No. 1:21-cv-02418)) filed after the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease failed to respond to a June 8, 2021, FOIA request for:

[A]ccess to biodistribution studies and related data for the Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines used to treat and/or prevent SARS-CoV-2 and/or COVID-19.

The Pfizer records include a report, which was approved in February 2021, on the animal trials on the distribution of the Pfizer COVID vaccine in rat subjects, in a section titled “Safety Pharmacology,” the report notes, “No safety pharmacology studies were conducted with BNT162b2 [the BioNTech vaccine] as they are not considered necessary for the development of vaccines according to the WHO guideline (WHO, 2005).” Similarly, under “Pharmacodynamic Drug Interactions,” is “Nonclinical studies evaluating pharmacodynamic drug interactions with BNT162b2 were not conducted as they are generally not considered necessary to support development and licensure of vaccine products for infectious diseases (WHO, 2005).”

This Pfizer report notes that when lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) “with a comparable composition,” to that used in the Pfizer COVID vaccine were injected into rats, “Total recovery (% of injected dose) of LNP outside the injection site was greatest in the liver and was much less in the spleen, adrenal glands, and ovaries.” … “in summary” … “the LNP distributes to the liver.” In the detailed analysis, the report states, “Over 48 hours, the LNP distributed mainly to liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries, with maximum concentrations observed at 8-48 hours post-dose. Total recovery (% of injected dose) of LNP, for combined male and female animals, outside of the injection site was greatest in the liver (up to 18%) …”

This same Pfizer/BioNTech study notes “No genotoxicity studies are planned for BNT162b2 [the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine] as the components of the vaccine constructs are lipids and RNA and are not expected to have genotoxic potential (WHO, 2005).” Similarly, “Carcinogenicity studies with BNT162b2 have not been conducted as the components of the vaccine construct are lipids and RNA and are not expected to have carcinogenic or tumorigenic potential.”

The conclusion of the study begins: “The nonclinical program demonstrates that BNT162b2 is immunogenic in mice, rats, and nonhuman primates, and the toxicity studies support the licensure of this vaccine.” The report notes that “boost immunizations” were also being tested on the animals in the trial. Also, “Vaccine-related microscopic findings at the end of dosing for BNT162b2 were evident in injection sites and surrounding tissues, in the draining iliac lymph nodes, bone marrow, spleen, and liver.”

Also included in the Pfizer records is a report, approved in January 2021, titled “Pharmacokinetics Tabulated Summary.” A table in the report shows the biodistribution of lipid nanoparticles containing mRNA used in the vaccine using rats as the clinical trial subjects reports LNPs accumulating after 48 hours, especially in the lymph nodes, ovaries, small intestine and spleen.

A summary of a study, approved in November 2020, of LNP mRNA distribution in rats, sponsored by Acuitas Therapeutics, notes that the concentrations of the LNP mRNA saw “levels peaking in the plasma by 1-4 hours post-dose and distribution mainly into liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries over 48 hours. Total recovery of radioactivity outside of the injection site was greatest in the liver, with much lower total recovery in spleen, and very little recovery in adrenals glands and ovaries. The mean plasma, blood and tissue concentrations and tissue distribution patterns were broadly similar between the sexes and … did not associate with red blood cells.”

A September 2020 “Confidential” appendix to the clinical trial studies submitted for the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine (BNT162b2), titled “Justification for the absence of studies in CTD Module 4 (part of 2.4)” notes under “Safety Pharmacology” that “No safety pharmacology studies were conducted as they are not considered necessary according to the WHO guideline (WHO, 2005).”

And under “Pharmacodynamic Drug Interactions,” is written: “Nonclinical studies evaluating pharmacodynamic drug interactions were not conducted as they are not generally considered necessary to support development and licensure of vaccine products for infectious diseases (WHO, 2005).”

Under the heading “Genotoxicity,” is: “No genotoxicity studies are planned for BNT162b2 as the components of the vaccine constructs are lipids and RNA that are not expected to have genotoxic potential (WHO, 2005).”

Regarding “Carcinogenicity (including supportive toxicokinetics evaluations)” is written:

Carcinogenicity studies with BNT162b2 have not been conducted as the components of the vaccine constructs are lipids and RNA that are not expected to have carcinogenic or tumorigenic potential. Carcinogenicity testing is generally not considered necessary to support the development and licensure of vaccine products for infectious diseases (WHO, 2005).

In a “Confidential” Pfizer study, approved in April 2020, looking at four COVID vaccine variants, the company tested a vaccine with an RNA strand “that self-amplifies upon entering the cell.” It “encodes the Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RDRP or replicase).”

In the same Pfizer study, the authors note that, “Although liver function tests will be carefully monitored during the clinical development of these vaccines, BioNTech’s prior clinical experience indicates that the distribution to the liver does not pose a safety concern.”

Also, the Pfizer study authors note, “Based on previous nonclinical and clinical experience with the three RNA platforms, a beneficial safety profile is anticipated, and may include transient local reactions (such as swelling/edema or redness) and body temperature increases.”

The Johnson & Johnson records include a 2007 study of the biodistribution of an intramuscular-administered adenovector-based viral vaccine using New Zealand white rabbits, which showed that the vaccine accumulated in “the spleen, iliac lymph node, and the muscle at the site of injection.”

A biodistribution table included as an appendix to the 2007 rabbit study showed that the vaccine DNA particles were still present in the iliac lymph nodes 91 days after injection.

A chart of pharmacokinetics data from a November 2020 report of a study on “VAC31518 JNJ-78436735,” the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, on rabbits shows collection of the injected virus particles in the spleen and iliac lymph nodes up to three months later, as well as particles found in the skin and muscle at the injection site.

In a November 4, 2020, report submitted to the FDA regarding the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine, the authors discuss the 2007 New Zealand rabbit study in which adenovirus-vectored vaccine is trialed, but note that “No pharmacokinetic or biodistribution studies have been conducted with AD26.COV2.S specifically.”

The report notes that metabolism, excretion, and pharmacokinetic interactions with other drugs were not studied in this trial because they are “Not applicable to vaccines.” It is also noted that “biodistribution studies have not been conducted with Ad26.COV2.S.”

A table in the report shows that the vaccine virus continued to appear in the rabbits’ iliac lymph nodes 180 days after injection.

A June 2020 “Pharmacokinetics Written Summary” for the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines notes that:

Ad26COVS1 (also known as VAC31518 or JNJ-78436735) is a monovalent, recombinant replication-incompetent adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vectored vaccine encoding a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Spike protein…. No specific pharmacokinetic studies have been performed with Ad26COVS1. However, to assess distribution, persistence, and clearance of the Ad26 vector (platform), biodistribution studies were conducted in rabbits using two other Ad26-based vaccines encoding [redacted] and [redacted] antigens…. [T]he available biodistribution results are considered sufficient to inform on the biodistribution profile of Ad26COVS1, for which the same Ad26 vector backbone is used.

“These documents show why many Americans have concerns about whether the novel COVID vaccines that were developed at such an accelerated pace were tested properly and thoroughly,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judge Lambeth Orders Crooked Hillary Deposition

Judge Royce C. Lamberth rules Crooked Hillary must face an in-person deposition from Judicial Watch over her illegal mail server that corrupt FBI Director James Comey gave her a pass. Hopefully enough dirt is exposed in this deposition that not even Teflon Dem crooks have to face jury trials.

Below is the Fox News and Judicial Watch versions of the Crooked Hillary deposition news.

JRH 3/3/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account:

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business –

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

BLOG EDITOR (In Fascistbook jail since 1/20/20): I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

***************************

Federal judge orders Hillary Clinton deposition to address private emails: ‘Still more to learn’

By Ronn Blitzer

March 2, 2020

Fox News

A federal judge Monday granted a request from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sit for a sworn deposition to answer questions about her use of a private email server to conduct government business.

Clinton has argued that she has already answered questions about this and should not have to do so again — the matter did not result in any charges for the then-presidential candidate in 2016 after a high-profile investigation — but D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said in his ruling that her past responses left much to be desired.

“As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business,” Lamberth said.

The judge went on to recognize that while Clinton responded to written questions in a separate case, “those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. Simply put her responses left many more questions than answers.” Lamberth said that using written questions this time “will only muddle any understanding of Secretary Clinton’s state of mind and fail to capture the full picture, thus delaying the final disposition of this case even further.”

Lamberth even gave some examples of lingering questions about Clinton’s emails, such as how did she come to believe that her private emails would be preserved under normal State Department processes, who told her this and when, at what point did she learn department records management officials did not know about the server, “[a]nd why did she think that using a private server to conduct State Department business was permissible under the law in the first place?”

The ruling comes after Judicial Watch revealed at a December 2019 status conference that the FBI released “approximately thirty previously undisclosed Clinton emails,” and that the State Department “failed to fully explain” where they came from.

The State Department has been pushing for the discovery phase of the case to come to a close, but Lamberth said he is not ready to do so, saying that “there is still more to learn.”

Judicial Watch, which initiated this case in 2014, is looking for information regarding whether Clinton used her private email server to intentionally get around the Freedom of Information Act, whether the State Department acted in bad faith when they tried to settle the case years ago, and whether the department had adequately looked for records in response to Judicial Watch’s initial FOIA request.

Given that the settlement attempts and records search took place after Clinton left office, the judge ruled that the deposition should focus on whether she intentionally tried to use her private server to evade FOIA and her understanding of the State Department’s record management requirements.

Lamberth also granted Judicial Watch’s request to depose former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, IT specialist Paul Combetta who was involved in deleting Clinton’s emails, as well as Brett Gittleson and Yvette Jacks, who were State Department officials familiar with Clinton’s private email server.

Judicial Watch also wanted to question Clinton and Mills about government talking points in the aftermath of the 2012 Benghazi attack. Lamberth said that while they “cannot be questioned about the underlying actions taken after the Benghazi attack,” they can face questions regarding “their knowledge of the existence of any emails, documents, or text messages related to the Benghazi attack.”

Fox News’ Bill Mears contributed to this report.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Judicial Watch Victory: Federal Court Orders Deposition of Hillary Clinton on Emails and Benghazi Attack Records

Crooked Hillary JW Photo

Press Releases

March 02, 2020

Judicial Watch

Court: ‘It is Time to Hear Directly from Secretary Clinton’

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch today announced that U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth granted Judicial Watch’s request to depose former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about her emails and Benghazi attack documents. The court also ordered the deposition of Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills and two other State Department officials.

Additionally, the court granted Judicial Watch’s request to subpoena Google for relevant documents and records associated with Clinton’s emails during her tenure at the State Department.

The ruling comes in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit that seeks records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack” (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch famously uncovered in 2014 that the “talking points” that provided the basis for Susan Rice’s false statements were created by the Obama White House. This Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

In December 2018, Judge Lamberth first ordered discovery into whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; whether the State Department’s 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 Watch’s request. The court also authorized discovery into whether the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up of Clinton’s email. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.” The State and Justice Departments continued to defend Clinton’s and the agency’s email conduct.

Judge Lamberth today overruled Clinton’s and the State and Justice Department’s objections to limited additional discovery by first noting:

Discovery up until this point has brought to light a noteworthy amount of relevant information, but Judicial Watch requests an additional round of discovery, and understandably so. With each passing round of discovery, the Court is left with more questions than answers.

Additionally, Judge Lamberth said that he is troubled by the fact that both the State Department and Department of Justice want to close discovery in this case:

[T]here is still more to learn. Even though many important questions remain unanswered, the Justice Department inexplicably still takes the position that the Court should close discovery and rule on dispositive motions. The Court is especially troubled by this. To argue that the Court now has enough information to determine whether State conducted an adequate search is preposterous, especially when considering State’s deficient representations regarding the existence of additional Clinton emails. Instead, the Court will authorize a new round of discovery

With respect to Clinton, the court found that her prior testimony, mostly through written sworn answers, was not sufficient:

The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch – it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.

“Judicial Watch uncovered the Clinton email scandal and we’re pleased that the court authorized us to depose Mrs. Clinton directly on her email conduct and how it impacted the people’s ‘right to know’ under FOIA,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

++++++++++++++++++

__________________________

Federal judge orders Hillary Clinton deposition to address private emails: ‘Still more to learn’

______________

Judicial Watch Victory: Federal Court Orders Deposition of Hillary Clinton on Emails and Benghazi Attack Records

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are received from individuals, foundations, and corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

Coup Attack on President Trump is about Protecting the Obama/Clinton Operation from Criminal Prosecution …

There are many Conservative organizations willing to poke the eye of Leftist Dems and their propaganda Mainstream Media (MSM – sadly that now includes a Left-Wing shift among elements of once stalwart-Conservative Fox News) spreading lies against President Trump. One of the most reliable truth-tellers is Judicial Watch led by Tom Fitton. YOU should really spend some time on the JW website to view the documents and analyses that have resulted from volumes of Freedom of Information Act requests exposing Dem-dominated government lies (i.e. the unelected Leftist bureaucracy that has endured regardless of Republican Administrations – Now-a-days exposed as the Deep State).

On November 21 Tom Fitton released a just over a minute video stating the obvious; viz., that the Dem Impeachment process is a distraction from crimes actually committed by Dem Party adherents and probably their acolytes. Below is the email intro I received followed by the video.

JRH 11/23/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

***************************

Coup Attack on President Trump is about Protecting the Obama/Clinton Operation from Criminal Prosecution …

Email sent 11/21/2019 5:23 PM

From JW Action

Sent via Judicial Watch

Dear Judicial Watch Supporter,

I want to personally share with you Tom’s key analysis of the so-called “impeachment inquiry” of President Trump. As always, Judicial Watch is fighting on your behalf in Washington D.C. against government corruption and abuse. Thank you for standing with Judicial Watch during this constitutional crisis–you don’t want to miss this!

Sincerely,
Amelia Koehn
Public Affairs Coordinator

++++++++++++++++++++

VIDEO: Coup Attack on Trump is about Protecting Obama/Clinton Operation from Prosecution over #Spygate!

Posted by Judicial Watch

293K subscribers – Nov 21, 2019

Donate today! ► https://www.judicialwatch.org/donate/thank-youtube/

+++++++++++++++++++

Conspiracy to Protect Whistleblower Over Fear of Exposing…Deep State

Judicial Watch email with videos exposing Deep State coup against President Trump including Whistleblower tidbits.

JRH 11/8/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

***********************

WATCH NOW: Conspiracy to Protect Whistleblower Over Fear of Exposing Bias; Ohr and Strzok Figures in Anti-Trump Conspiracy; Confirmation of Enemies List?

Email Sent 11/8/19 10:19 AM

Sent via Judicial Watch

VIDEO: Tom Fitton: Deep State Fears the Whistleblower’s Anti-Trump Bias being Exposed!

Posted by Judicial Watch

287K subscribers – Nov 7, 2019

https://www.judicialwatch.org/videos/tom-fitton-theres-a-conspiracy-to-protect-anti-trump-whistleblower-over-fear-of-bias-being-exposed/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=on+the+air&utm_term=members&utm_content=20191108234633:

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton joins the Dom Giordano Program to give an update about three pressing topics, including the impeachment inquiry, Russiagate, and the Epstein investigation. First, Dom asks Tom about allegations from Huffington Post’s Yashar Ali, who reported that White House aides were certain that Vice President Mike Pence would support using the 25th Amendment to force Trump from office. Then, Dom and Tom get into the alleged tweets of Trump’s whistleblower, which made references to a coup d’etat to overthrow the presidency, and Dom asks Tom about the legality of exposing the whistleblower. Also, Tom discusses a groundbreaking report by Judicial Watch about Russiagate, and Tom gives his thoughts on the ongoing Epstein conspiracy and a Project Veritas video released this week which claims that ABC squashed a comprehensive story about Epstein’s checkered past.

VIDEO: State Department/Deep State Enemies List Targeting Trump Allies Confirmed?

Posted by Judicial Watch

287K subscribers – Nov 5, 2019

https://www.judicialwatch.org/videos/state-department-deep-state-enemies-list-targeting-trump-allies-confirmed/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=on+the+air&utm_term=members&utm_content=20191109000711

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton explains why Attorney General William Barr should take action against allegations towards former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and the ongoing impeachment effort against President Trump.

VIDEO: Bruce Ohr and Peter Strzok Were Key Figures in the Conspiracy Against President Trump! | Tom Fitton

Posted by Judicial Watch

287K subscribers – Oct 31, 2019

https://www.judicialwatch.org/videos/bruce-ohr-and-peter-strzok-were-key-figures-in-the-conspiracy-against-president-trump-tom-fitton/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=on+the+air&utm_term=members&utm_content=20191109001246:

Judicial Watch announced recently it received through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit 13 pages out of 42 responsive pages of communications between former FBI official Peter Strzok and DOJ official Bruce Ohr that the DOJ claimed previously it could not find.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents in an April 2019 FOIA lawsuit filed after submitting July 2018 FOIA requests to the DOJ and the FBI. The FBI failed to respond, while the Justice Department claimed to find no records of communications between Strzok and Ohr (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-01082)).

CONTRIBUTE TO JUDICIAL WATCH

++++++++++++++++++++++

__________________________

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

Unmasking Obama & No Smidgen of Scandal Lie

An Intro by John R. Houk

October 25, 2018

Bill Marshall Judicial Watch interviews Jack Cashill relating to the yet to be released book “Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency”. After the video cross post I’m adding a Jack Cashill authored article from WND from 10/10/19 on the same Obama subject matter.

When or if you hear Obama, Biden or the MSM say there was not even a smidgen of a scandal, IT’S A FREAKING LIE!

JRH 10/25/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

***********************

VIDEO: Unmasking the Obama Administration | Inside Report

Posted by Judicial Watch

284K subscribers – Oct 23, 2019

Judicial Watch Senior Investigator Bill Marshall interviews Jack Cashill, author of “Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency” to discuss the corruption scandals of the Obama administration–and how they are still relevant to this day.

Donate today! ► https://www.judicialwatch.org/donate/thank-youtube/

Subscribe on YouTube! ► http://jwatch.us/subscribe

Check out our website ► http://www.judicialwatch.org

… MORE TO READ

++++++++++++++++++++

What Obama knew about attempt to take down Trump

Exclusive: Jack Cashill cites multiple cases of BHO’s ‘I had no idea’ claim

By Jack Cashill

Published October 10, 2019 at 7:06pm

WND

In researching the Obama presidency for my upcoming book, “Unmasking Obama,” I cannot help but see a leadership pattern that runs throughout.

Although concocted to explain America’s role in the misbegotten invasion of Libya, the phrase “leading from behind” just about wraps it up.

Barack Obama orchestrated almost nothing during his eight years in the White House. He fronted for stuff. That was his M.O.

He was not the kind of person to give orders. More like England’s Henry II, who reportedly said of Thomas Becket, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest,” Obama made suggestions.

Obama made one particular suggestion during an April 10, 2016, appearance on a Fox News Sunday morning show with Chris Wallace.

When asked about Hillary Clinton’s non-secure email system, Obama opined, “She has acknowledged – that there’s a carelessness, in terms of managing emails, that she … recognizes.”

That conceded, Obama added, “I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America’s national security.”

The task fell to the now notorious Peter Strzok, the FBI’s lead investigator on the email case, to align the FBI’s messaging with the White House’s.

On June 6, 2016, he changed the language in an earlier draft by his boss James Comey from “gross negligence” – the exact words in the Espionage Act – to “extremely careless.”

On July 5, Comey closed the curtain on Act I of Trump-Russia by accusing Hillary only of extreme carelessness and clearing her of criminal charges.

Like Obama, Comey insisted Hillary had no intent to damage national security, although her intent was clearly irrelevant in terms of the law.

Freed from his role in heading up the Clinton investigation, Strzok was conveniently appointed to head up Trump-Russia.

“You’re meant to protect the country from that menace,” his FBI lover Lisa Page texted him on Aug. 5, the “menace” being Trump.

“I’ll try to approach it that way,” the heroic Strzok responded. “I can protect our country at many levels.”

Strzok would have help. Later that same day, Aug. 5, he attended a major inter-agency gathering on the Trump investigation.

Obama’s near immunity from criticism encouraged his co-conspirators to think they could take out the newly elected president of the United States and get away with it.

Strzok quoted an unnamed big shot, possibly the CIA’s John Brennan (name redacted), as saying, “The White House is running this.”

Strzok told Page he pushed back. This was classic turf war. The White House, he believed, was intruding on FBI turf. Strzok wanted this job for himself.

On Aug. 15, Strzok memorably signaled the shared motive of all the conspirators. “There’s no way [Trump] gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” he texted Page. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

In June 2017, the Washington Post published an exhaustive article detailing the reason for the Aug. 5 meeting Strzok attended.

Brennan had sent an “intelligence bombshell” directly to Obama. This “eyes only” report allegedly had sourcing deep inside the Kremlin, and it outlined “Russian President Vladimir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race.”

This bombshell was likely the absurd Steele dossier or some variation thereof. According to the report, Putin was not just meddling in the campaign but was actively trying to defeat Hillary and elect Trump.

“It took time,” said the still wide-eyed Post, “for other parts of the intelligence community to endorse the CIA’s view.”

In June 2017, when this article was published, the Post believed “Russia’s interference was the crime of the century.”

It was no such thing, but in documenting the White House’s multi-level response to the alleged threat, the Post sheds light on what was the crime of the century, the White House’s framing of Donald Trump for collusion with Russia.

In his 2018 memoir, “The World As It Is,” Obama foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes provides a sneak preview of what may prove to be the last messaging campaign of the Obama presidency.

According to insiders, Rhodes was the most influential of Obama’s foreign policy advisers. In the waning days of the Obama administration no foreign policy issue was more critical than Russia’s alleged meddling in the American election.

From Fast and Furious to IRS abuse of the tea party, Obama insisted he learned about his administration’s assaults on justice and common decency only by hearing about them in the media.

The Washington Post article was headlined “Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault.” After reading it, only the media will believe Rhodes’ claim that Obama “had no idea” the FBI was investigating Trump-Russia.

The memoir Obama was paid mega-bucks to write is reportedly way beyond schedule. Obama is in something of a bind. He does not yet know which crimes and misdemeanors he “had no idea” about.

+++++++++++++++++

________________________

Unmasking the Obama Administration | Inside Report

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are received from individuals, foundations, and corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

_______________________

What Obama knew about attempt to take down Trump

Jack Cashill is an Emmy-award winning independent writer and producer with a Ph.D. in American Studies from Purdue. His latest book is “TWA 800: The Crash, the Cover-Up, and the Conspiracy.”

NEW Docs Show State Dept KNEW about Hillary Clinton’s Secret Email Account

JW Senior Attorney Ramona Cotca discusses Crooked Hillary Email & State Dept.

I got the Judicial Watch update about the State Department’s coverup of knowledge of Crooked Hillary’s secret but illegal secret email server on October 17. But the video was posted October 9. The info about crooked Dems is important enough to share even if it’s been around awhile. If it’s news to you, be sure to share on your Social Media connections.

JRH 10/18/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

**************************

VIDEO: NEW Docs Show State Dept KNEW about Hillary Clinton’s Secret Email Account

Posted by Judicial Watch

282K subscribers – Premiered Oct 9, 2019

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-federal-judge-criticizes-state-and-justice-departments-on-clinton-email-cover-up/

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-victory-court-grants-significant-new-discovery-in-clinton-email-case/

On this episode of Inside Judicial Watch, Amelia Kohen interviews Judicial Watch Senior Attorney Ramona Cotca to discuss the latest update on the Hillary Clinton email scandal.

=========================

KEEP UP WITH JUDICIAL WATCH

Donate today! ► https://www.judicialwatch.org/donate/thank-youtube/

… MORE TO READ

JW INVESTIGATES IF OUSTED UKRAINE AMBASSADOR ORDERED STATE DEPT. TO MONITOR JOURNALISTS, TRUMP ALLIES

Even as Dems and their propaganda machine in the MSM try to shelter former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, evidence is coming forward she used State Department resources to investigate journalists & Republicans with a favorable relationship to President Trump. Judicial Watch uses FOIA to acquire facts Dems/MSM try to hide.

JRH 10/16/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

***********************

JW INVESTIGATES IF OUSTED UKRAINE AMBASSADOR ORDERED STATE DEPT. TO MONITOR JOURNALISTS, TRUMP ALLIES

JW looks at State Dept-Ukraine Corruption

JW Corruption Chronicles

October 15, 2019

Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch is investigating if prominent conservative figures, journalists and persons with ties to President Donald Trump were unlawfully monitored by the State Department in Ukraine at the request of ousted U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, an Obama appointee. Yovanovitch testified “in secret” to the House impeachment inquiry against Trump on Friday, October 11, 2019. Her “secret” testimony was leaked to the New York Times during the hearing.

Judicial Watch has obtained information indicating Yovanovitch may have violated laws and government regulations by ordering subordinates to target certain U.S. persons using State Department resources. Yovanovitch reportedly ordered monitoring keyed to the following search terms: Biden, Giuliani, Soros and Yovanovitch. Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the State Department and will continue gathering facts from government sources.

Prior to being recalled as ambassador to Ukraine in the spring Yovanovitch reportedly created a list of individuals who were to be monitored via social media and other means. Ukraine embassy staff made the request to the Washington D.C. headquarters office of the department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs.

After several days, Yovanovitch’s staff was informed that the request was illegal and the monitoring either ceased or was concealed via the State Department Global Engagement Center, which has looser restrictions on collecting information.

“This is not an obscure rule, everyone in public diplomacy or public affairs knows they can’t make lists and monitor U.S. citizens unless there is a major national security reason,” according to a senior State Department official. If the illicit operation occurred, it seems to indicate a clear political bias against the president and his supporters. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who has also led American embassies in Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, was appointed ambassador to Ukraine by Obama in 2016. She was recalled by the State Department in May and remains a State Department employee in Washington D.C.

In the public records request to the State Department Judicial Watch asks for any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the monitoring of any U.S.-based journalist, reporter, or media commentator by any employee or office of the Department of State between January 1, 2019 and the present. That includes all records pertaining to the scope of the monitoring to be conducted and individuals subject to it as well as records documenting the information collected pursuant to the monitoring. The FOIA request also asks for all records of communication between any official, employee or representative of the State Department and any other individual or entity.

The prominent conservative figures — journalists and persons with ties to President Donald Trump — allegedly unlawfully monitored by the State Department in Ukraine at the request of ousted U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch include:

Jack Posobiec

Donald Trump Jr.

Laura Ingraham

Sean Hannity

Michael McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia)

Dan Bongino

Ryan Saavedra

Rudy Giuliani

Sebastian Gorka

John Solomon

Lou Dobbs

Pamella Geller

Sara Carter [Bold text Blog Editor’s]

Judicial Watch continues its investigation of these matters and will update its reporting as the situation unfolds.

+++++++++++++++

______________________

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are received from individuals, foundations, and corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

JUDICIAL WATCH: FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS FBI TO SEARCH FOR STEELE DOCUMENTS

Wouldn’t it be good to know when the FBI knew the Steele Dossier was bogus and yet how often the bogus document was presented to a FISA Court for warrants to spy on President Trump during and after the 2016 election campaign? Judicial Watch is taking steps to configure the time frame especially since it is apparent FBI Director Christopher Wray has no intention to clean his house of corruption.

JRH 8/22/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

********************

JUDICIAL WATCH: FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS FBI TO SEARCH FOR STEELE DOCUMENTS

Christopher Steele

JW Press Release

August 19, 2019 (sent: 8/19/19 2:45 PM)

Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper ordered the FBI to conduct a search within 60 days for records of communications with former British spy and dossier author Christopher Steele post-dating Steele’s service as an FBI confidential source. In ordering the supplemental search for records, Judge Cooper held:

[T]he potential for illuminating the FBI’s activities is not too difficult to discern. Communications post-dating Steele’s time as an informant might reveal a great deal about why the FBI developed him as a CHS [confidential human source], his performance as a CHS, and why the FBI opted to terminate its relationship with him. Those records might either bolster or weaken Steele’s credibility as a source. That information, in turn, could provide a basis on which to evaluate the FBI’s performance of its law-enforcement duties, including its judgment in selecting and relying on confidential sources, especially in connection with such a politically sensitive subject. Of course, the records Judicial Watch speculates about might not even exist—and even if they do, they may not reveal anything significant about the FBI’s operations. But that they might do so makes them a matter of potential public interest.

The court ruling came in the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for records of communications and payments between the FBI, Christopher Steele and his private firm, Orbis Business Intelligence (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice) (No. 1:17-cv-00916)). The lawsuit seeks:

All records of communications between any official, employee, or representative of the FBI and Mr. Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer and the owner of the private firm Orbis Business Intelligence.

All records related to the proposed, planned, or actual payment of any funds to Mr. Steele and/or Orbis Business Intelligence.

All records produced in preparation for, during, or pursuant to any meetings or telephonic conversations between any official, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Mr. Christopher Steele and/or any employee or representative of Orbis Business Intelligence.

The court initially ruled in favor of a DOJ “Glomar” response to Judicial Watch’s March 8, 2017, FOIA request stating that it could “neither confirm nor deny the existence of records responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] request.” On March 26, 2018, subsequent to the declassification of records revealing Steele’s role as an FBI informant and his firing by the FBI in November 2016, the court reopened the case at Judicial Watch’s request. The FBI, however, continued refusing to search for records post-dating Steele’s dismissal, contending that any records discovered would be exempt from disclosure on privacy grounds.

In Friday’s ruling, Judge Cooper held that, on balance, any privacy interests Steele may have in keeping the documents secret are outweighed by the public’s interest in disclosure:

Steele’s privacy interests are far different from those courts usually consider under Exemption 7(C), where disclosure would make public for the first time an individual’s affiliation with law enforcement, whether as agent, cooperator, or target… The balance therefore tilts in favor of disclosure. Accordingly, the Court will order the FBI to conduct a search for records post-dating Steele’s service as a confidential source.

“The court was right to turn aside the FBI’s fake concerns for Clinton spy Christopher Steele’s privacy and order the agency to search for more records on its use of Steele and his Dossier to target President Trump,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “That the FBI is still protecting Christopher Steele and the Clinton spy ring at Fusion GPS should tell you there is much more corruption to be exposed in the coup efforts against President Trump.”

Documents previously produced in this lawsuit show that the FBI paid Steele at least 11 times during the 2016 presidential campaign and then fired him for leaking.

Judicial Watch also uncovered smoking gun documents showing that former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr remained in regular contact with Steele after Steele was terminated by the FBI in November 2016 for revealing to the media his position as an FBI confidential informant.

Through another FOIA lawsuit, Judicial Watch obtained emails of Bruce Ohr discussing information obtained through his wife Nellie, which he passed on to the FBI. The information contained anti-Trump dossier materials, including a spreadsheet that tries to link President Trump to dozens of Russians. These Justice Department documents also contain Russia-related emails sent from Nellie Ohr to high-ranking DOJ official Lisa Holtyn during the period Ohr worked with anti-Trump firm Fusion GPS, which contracted with Steele to create the Trump Dossier. Holtyn at the time was a top aide to Bruce Ohr.

Judicial later acquired FBI 302 interview forms of Bruce Ohr’s reporting information he received from Steele to his FBI handlers.

Judicial Watch additionally uncovered documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing that State Department “Special Coordinator for Libya” Jonathan Winer played a key role in facilitating Steele’s access to other top government officials and prominent international business executives.

_____________________

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are received from individuals, foundations, and corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

WHY IN THE WORLD IS CROOKED HILLARY NOT BEING PROSECUTED!?

John R. Houk

In less than a week’s time the Crooked Hillary lawyer Heather Samuelson and the illegal email server have caught my attention:

BREAKING: CLINTON LAWYER CAUGHT OUT! A Vincent Vendetta Video; SlantRight 2.0; 6/29/19

Hillary Clinton’s Lawyer Changes Story on When She Knew About Emails; By Mark Tapscott of The Epoch Times; SlantRight 2.0; 7/4/19

In both those cases Judicial Watch was the listed primary source.

Out of curiosity I ran a label search of my SlantRight 2.0 blog for the label Heather Samuelson. I don’t understand the search protocol reasoning, for the results are scattered by date. And by “scattered” I mean there is no sequential order. In some cases “Heather Samuelson” may show only once and not the primary subject of the pages listed; however Crooked Hillary definitely was the central theme. If you run a similar label search you may or may not get the same results. At this point I’m not going to verify if the search results are the same every time. The dates stretch 2019 through 2016 where the name Heather Samuelson appears at least once.

My WordPress platform blog – NCCR – also returned scattered results for a Heather Samuelson search returning similar dates ranging from 2019-2016.

AGAIN Heather Samuelson is showing up implicating a Crooked Hillary criminal intent. This time from The Gateway Pundit who also sources Judicial Watch.

TGP lays out the Judicial Watch findings and the last 5 paragraphs or so has this damning conclusion:

And here is where Samuelson lays an egg! Samuelson noticed during her review that Hillary’s emails were displayed as hrod17@clintonemail.com, but this address was not even created until after Hillary was Secretary of State.

You can’t send emails from an account that is not created or in place!

The only reasonable explanations for the receipt of emails from a domain that was not yet in place is, 1) the source name in the emails had been doctored and updated to an email account not yet in service, or 2) a utility was used to copy the emails in bulk from one account to another and in the process change some of the fields including the original email source.

Why would Hillary do this? The only explanation that makes sense is that the Hillary team was trying to eliminate or strip out all the classified markings in her emails, and in the process, they stripped out the old email addresses, and since that account didn’t exist anymore, their process added the new address.

To put it plainly – Hillary attempted to doctor (i.e. change) her emails for some reason and in so doing she inadvertently changed her email address.

Clearly if Hillary was caught editing her emails by the FBI, then former FBI Director James Comey knew very well that Hillary intended to break the law! Three years ago Jim Comey lied to America!

In essence: WHY IN THE WORLD IS CROOKED HILLARY NOT BEING PROSECUTED!?

JRH 7/8/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*************************

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Judicial Watch Uncovers Clinton Attorney Samuelson Interview with FBI – Indicates Hillary’s Emails Were Altered and Other Crimes

By Joe Hoft

July 8, 2019

The Gateway Pundit

Crooked Hillary Checking BlackBerry Wearing Sunglasses [2011]

Hillary Clinton likely attempted to alter her emails in an effort to cover up illegal activities rather than just deleting emails as was previously reported. Judicial Watch’s efforts to obtain her attorney’s interview with the FBI show this and other criminal actions!

Judicial Watch again has performed a service to the country. In its efforts to get to the truth, Judicial Watch may have uncovered another shocking revelation in the Hillary Clinton email saga.

In June of 2019 Judicial Watch posted the interview notes it received from the government between the FBI and Hillary Clinton’s attorney Heather Samuelson. Hidden in the deposition are bits of information that when compared to information made public to date in the Hillary email case make no sense at all.

In the interview Samuelson states to the FBI’s Peter Strzok that she was assigned the duty of reviewing Hillary’s emails and in doing so, Samuelson reviewed the emails on her laptop both at her apartment and in Cheryl Mills’ office.

FBI Notes Heather Samuelson Interview 1

As is the case with the entire Hillary email coverup, the Clintons and her team were above the law. Others have been thrown in jail for similar actions. (For example, one NSA employee who brought hacking tools home was sentenced to 66 months in prison.)

Samuelson was assigned the task of obtaining Hillary’s emails for her tenure as Obama’s Secretary of State. After making a request for Hillary’s emails from Platte River Networks (PRN), the firm that administered Hillary’s personal email system, Samuelson reviewed them and noticed that some of Hillary’s emails were missing.

FBI Notes Heather Samuelson Interview 2 red marks & redaction

Samuelson stated that she believed that Hillary’s emails that were missing for the period between January 2009 through March 2009 must have not been backed up.

But this makes no sense. Classification only works on classification ‘enabled’ systems. For example, in a typical agency, when a document is created it is immediately stamped electronically and visually (water mark or text stamp) with the classification level. From that point forward, when the document is stored on a server, sent via email, or printed out, it will go through a number of security controls that will prevent certain operations on it. For example, if you are a user with lower level security clearance, you won’t be able to see the document name, its metadata, content, or be able to print it. In fact, the document won’t even show up in any of the searches.

This is where her story really begins to not make sense. There is no way that a backup would be deleted of anyone’s emails in the government, especially those of someone at the level of the Secretary of State.

The classified email systems used by the government are highly sophisticated (per an IT expert we contacted). These classification systems are fully automated in order to remove the human factor/errors from the process. These systems also control the entire document life cycle from its creation to its declassification and are tied to the organization’s access control and audit systems. So you can see exactly who and when the document was viewed (even which pages were views, how long it was on the screen, etc.). If there is no classification system in place, then all of the documents on the server can be considered breached. This is even without any proof of an external hacker accessing it.

The reason for this is the exact scenario described by Samuelson, i.e. one in which an individual such as a system/personal attorney without the proper security clearance would view and make electronic/physical copies of the documents.

Next Samuelson makes another shocking remark. She states that after Clinton left the State Department she started using another domain for her emails (@hrcoffice.com). But she states that no old emails were transferred from the clintonemail.com domain to the new domain. She also stated that she didn’t know how Clinton or her close assistant Huma Abedin obtained her old emails once the new domain was established.

FBI Notes Heather Samuelson Interview 3

At this point it’s important to note that most people view the whole Clinton email server saga as an honest mistake that was going to be remedied somewhere down the road by putting the ‘proper security controls’ in place. This is certainly how Hillary, her staff, and the media justified it. But this is not the case; the whole purpose of a standalone email server from the get go was for Hillary to circumvent government email system security controls.

Hillary’s emails contained classified material because former FBI Director James Comey told us this in his infamous press conference three years ago nearly to the day. But Samuelson stated that she didn’t believe that Hillary’s emails were classified because they did not have classified markings on them.

FBI Notes Heather Samuelson Interview 4

And here is where Samuelson lays an egg! Samuelson noticed during her review that Hillary’s emails were displayed as hrod17@clintonemail.com, but this address was not even created until after Hillary was Secretary of State.

FBI Notes Heather Samuelson Interview 5 redaction

You can’t send emails from an account that is not created or in place!

The only reasonable explanations for the receipt of emails from a domain that was not yet in place is, 1) the source name in the emails had been doctored and updated to an email account not yet in service, or 2) a utility was used to copy the emails in bulk from one account to another and in the process change some of the fields including the original email source.

Why would Hillary do this? The only explanation that makes sense is that the Hillary team was trying to eliminate or strip out all the classified markings in her emails, and in the process, they stripped out the old email addresses, and since that account didn’t exist anymore, their process added the new address.

To put it plainly – Hillary attempted to doctor (i.e. change) her emails for some reason and in so doing she inadvertently changed her email address.

Clearly if Hillary was caught editing her emails by the FBI, then former FBI Director James Comey knew very well that Hillary intended to break the law! Three years ago Jim Comey lied to America!

Hat tip D. Manny and Yaacov Apelbaum

_________________________

WHY IN THE WORLD IS CROOKED HILLARY NOT BEING PROSECUTED!?

John R. Houk

____________________

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Judicial Watch Uncovers Clinton Attorney Samuelson Interview with FBI – Indicates Hillary’s Emails Were Altered and Other Crimes

BREAKING: CLINTON LAWYER CAUGHT OUT!

It is my humble opinion – sure to anger some – that info from anonymous sources with the appellation “QAnon,” “Vendetta” or the such tend to deliver a message that spurs embellished excitement rather than integrity based data. HOWEVER, I just ran into a video from The Vincent Vendetta Channel that is using a source of integrity in Judicial Watch. If you are a fan of those anonymous sourced outlets you definitely trust this particular video post (which also provides a bitchute link in case Youtube goes censorship crazy).

JRH 6/29/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

**********************

VIDEO: BREAKING: CLINTON LAWYER CAUGHT OUT!

Posted by The Vincent Vendetta Channel

Published on Jun 29, 2019

BREAKING: CLINTON LAWYER CAUGHT OUT! TO WATCH ‘VINCENT’ ON ‘BITCHUTE’: CLICK ON THE LINK. https://www.bitchute.com/video/JnIgJErXuvse/

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: