Posted on 12/29/2018 10:43:22 AM PST by jazusamo
Judicial Watch Sues for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Security Detail Costs
Judicial Watch Files Supreme Court Brief in Support of Grassroots Party Activists
Happy New Year!
In all the reporting that has been done regarding the Office of the Special Counsel, something notably missing is a full accounting of what the investigation is costing Americans, as well as any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. To try to get more information on Mueller’s basic operational budget, we just filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for records of costs incurred by and logs maintained by the security detail for Special Counsel Robert Mueller .
We filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the agency failed to respond adequately to its March 19, 2018, FOIA request for:
The Special Counsel’s office reportedly has spent over $25 million so far.
In a related lawsuit filed in October 2017, the Justice Department had refused to release the proposed budget of Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel Office, but later was forced to release details from the heavily redacted August 2 memorandum in which Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein granted broad authority to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, three months after Mueller’s appointment. The initial appointment memo , controversially, was written in May 2017.
The Justice Department, the FBI and Special Counsel Mueller’s continue to operate as if they are above the law. The American people have a right to know how much taxpayer money is being thrown at Mueller’s massive investigation. Judicial Watch has never before seen this level of secrecy surrounding the operation of a special or independent counsel.
Judicial Watch is pursuing numerous additional FOIA lawsuits related to the surveillance, unmasking, and illegal leaking targeting President Trump and his associates during the FBI’s investigation of potential Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election.
In keeping with our nationwide fight for fair and clean elections, we recently joined with Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) in filing an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to overturn a decision of the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upholding a Utah law engineered by Republican legislators to compel Republican Party members to change the way they choose their political candidates.
Until 2014, GOP party members, meeting in neighborhood and local caucuses, elected delegates to represent them at the party nominating convention, which then selected candidates to appear on the general election ballot. That changed when the Utah legislature enacted into law SB 54, which effectively compels parties to hold primary elections.
The law was challenged in the courts, was upheld by the Tenth Circuit, and is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court ( Utah Republican Party v. Spencer J. Cox, et al. (No. 18-450)).
Judicial Watch argues that the Republican Party rammed through the legislature provisions they could not get voluntarily from their fellow party members:
If allowed to stand, the Tenth Circuit’s decision will significantly degrade the associational rights of political parties. This result is contrary to Supreme Court precedent….
As the Tenth Circuit majority acknowledged, the Utah Legislature that adopted SB 54 is “comprised of overwhelming Republican majorities in both the State House and State Senate.” In other words, members of the Utah Republican Party who could not convince fellow members to adopt the changes incorporated in SB 54 reconvened as legislators, voted their preferences into law, and in this way compelled their fellow members to accept these changes.
The rationale offered for this party coup was remarkably thin.
Judicial Watch also points to the importance of upholding the constitutional rights of free political associations:
[T]he Tenth Circuit’s facile approach fails to do justice to a fundamental First Amendment right. As Alexis de Tocqueville discerned almost 180 years ago, free political associations are particularly important in a democratic system like ours, where the tendency is for individuals to go their own separate ways. As he also foresaw, governments will tend to view private political associations as enemies and will try to restrict their freedom. Amici respectfully submit that the Court plays a vital role in defending these institutions from needless government encroachments and intrusions – like those SB 54 imposes on the Utah Republican Party.
Republican power-brokers in Utah hate party conventions which they can’t control so they passed an unconstitutional law to control the party at the expense of grassroots activists. The Supreme Court should not allow this to stand.
As 2019 draws nigh there is consternation in conservative circles about the Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives. You might think this will have a big of impact on Judicial Watch in the New Year.
But it won’t, because we do our independent work no matter what Congress is doing. In fact, with the Republicans in charge, we still had to pick up considerable slack. Of course, we had House members and a few committee chairmen like Devin Nunes become more aggressive and actually do some oversight, but it wasn’t nearly enough given the gravity of the situation with the Deep State.
The House isn’t going to be doing any Judicial Watch-type investigations, so it will make our Freedom of Information Act lawsuits and independent investigations all the more essential.
Judicial Watch is always the only game in town. We are doing things Congress isn’t doing, and it will even be more evident in the coming year with the shift in power.
With the New Year, we still have the utter corruption in the Department of Justice and the FBI. Not enough has been done to stop the Deep State coup against the president. We now have more than 30 lawsuits in the matter. In the Clinton case, as 2018 came to an end, a federal court compelled her to answer our questions about her email practices that she had refused to answer. Our lawsuits broke open the Clinton email scandal, and our related work will continue in 2019.
In the meantime, on behalf of me and mine, I wish you and yours a wonderful and Happy New Year!
Until next week …
Off the Wall Ping!
Contact to be added.
We need somebody to sue “the media” (actually, journalism and the wire services) for conspiracy in restraint of trade:People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)The suit must name the FCC and the FEC (and perhaps others?), because the FEC depends for its rationale for existence on the assumption of journalistic objectivity, and the FCC tends to ratify that fatuous claim.Journalism and the wire service conspire to suppress skepticism in the public towards journalism. They do it by going along and getting along ideologically - so that politically they all default to cynicism towards society and naiveté towards government.
The plaintiff should be the Republican Party, and the relief sought should be the destruction of the wire service business model which, after all, is obsolete in an era when economizing on telegraphy bandwidth is a matter of no moment. Abolish the Wire Services Relief must also include abolition of any and all government recognition of “journalistic objectivity” - in broadcast licensing, in Campaign Finance Reform, and in government schools.
Understand, objectivity is a wonderful goal - but a horrible boast. The ancient Greeks noted the same thing about wisdom:
That should be taught in high school. High school should also teach that historical perspective is systematically filtered out by the rules of commercially successful journalism such as “If it bleeds, it leads,” and “'Man Bites Dog,' not 'Dog Bites Man’."
- sophist
- 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.
- philosopher
- O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage."
"Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
Well said, FRiend.
Historical perspective seems to have been replaced now with political correctness from schooling to media any group with a political agenda.
If some people don’t like historical facts they think it’s just fine to change those facts and supposed “journalists” not only go along they seem to encourage it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.