The family of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/ashli-babbitt" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ashli Babbitt</a>, an Air Force veteran who was fatally shot in the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, sued the U.S. government for $30 million on Friday claiming Babbitt was &#8220;ambushed&#8221; by a police officer.
Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Estate-of-Ashli-Babbitt-and-Arron-Babbitt-et-al.-v.-U.S.A-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">filed the suit</a> in California federal court on behalf of Babbitt&#8217;s estate and husband, Aaron, who is a resident of San Diego, alleging counts that included assault and battery, negligence, wrongful death and more.
The complaint particularly raises issues with the U.S. Capitol Police and then-Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd, the officer who shot Babbitt as she attempted to pass through a broken window of a barricaded lobby door, unarmed, during the breach that disrupted lawmakers certifying Joe Biden&#8217;s presidential victory.
“The only homicide on January 6 was the unlawful shooting death of Ashli Babbitt. Her homicide by Lt. Byrd is a scandal beyond belief. This historic lawsuit seeks a measure of justice and government accountability for Ashli’s wrongful death,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/wrongful-death-lawsuit-babbitt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a>.
“Judicial Watch and our supporters are honored to represent Ashli’s steadfast widower Aaron Babbitt and her estate in this legal action. Ashli was shot in cold blood and the rule of law requires justice for her,&#8221; Fitton added.
Among the assertions made in the complaint was that Byrd was not in uniform during the incident and &#8220;did not identify himself as a police officer or otherwise make his presence known to Ashli. Lt. Byrd did not give Ashli any warnings or commands before shooting her dead.&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The Department of Justice (DOJ) <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> in April 2021 that prosecutors would not pursue charges against Byrd for the fatal shooting of Babbitt, who was 35 at the time of her death.
An investigation &#8220;revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber,&#8221; the DOJ said.
Months later, in August 2021, the U.S. Capitol Police said Byrd would <a href="https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/uscp-completes-internal-investigation-january-6-officer-involved" target="_blank" rel="noopener">not face internal discipline</a>. In an interview <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-who-shot-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-riot-breaks-silence-n1277736" target="_blank" rel="noopener">with NBC News</a> that aired later that month, Byrd revealed his identity and claimed he opened fire as a &#8220;last resort.&#8221;

Ashli Babbitt sign

Ashli Babbitt’s Family Sues U.S. Govt For $30 Million

Ashli Babbitt's Family Sues U.S. Govt For $30 Million

Ashli Babbitt

California

Capitol Police

Capitol Riot

Courts

January 6

Judicial Watch

U.S.

The inspector general for the Department of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/health-and-human-services" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Health and Human Services</a> (HHS) opened up an investigation into the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/university-of-pittsburgh" target="_blank" rel="noopener">University of Pittsburgh</a> after it was accused of illegally harvesting fetal tissue from aborted babies for experimentation, according to newly released emails. 
The documents were obtained as part of a public records request from Judicial Watch and the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), the organization that released footage in 2015 <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-journalists-who-exposed-planned-parenthoods-baby-body-parts-trade-found-guilty?utm_campaign=dw_newsletter&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=housefile&amp;utm_content=non_insiders&amp;_hsenc=p2ANqtz-80WqjFl8ts5THjH_X0GnN5taykN-kZmaZzJvVcIYKJHqzrWikAaeg5NTSzUUZHabcQGKdDhdPLX7vbBL26nFT8jL5tXg&amp;_hsmi=79496569" target="_blank" rel="noopener">showing</a> Planned Parenthood executives discussing the sale of body parts from aborted babies. The <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/JW-v-HHS-Univ-Pitt-docs-03045.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new emails</a> show university officials confirming in November 2021 that they had been subpoenaed by the HHS Office of Inspector General agent.
“The University of Pittsburgh has been a center for some of the most barbaric experiments, government funded experiments, on the body parts of late-term aborted babies,” CMP President David Daleiden told The Daily Wire. “We now have the first confirmation with these FOIA documents that this is all subject of a formal federal law enforcement investigation of the OIG [Office of Inspector General].”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨BREAKING: Newly released FOIA documents confirm the existence of a federal law enforcement investigation of an NIH-funded program at the University of Pittsburgh that harvested fetal kidneys from late-term abortions performed by Planned Parenthood doctors. <a href="https://twitter.com/PPFA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PPFA</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/PittTweet?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PittTweet</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/NIH?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NIH</a>… <a href="https://t.co/g3QgiZNDYt">pic.twitter.com/g3QgiZNDYt</a>
&mdash; Center for Medical Progress (@CtrMedProgress) <a href="https://twitter.com/CtrMedProgress/status/1734665688214905157?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In 2019, the CMP first reported on the gruesome experiments conducted at Pitt. These experiments <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-facilitated-gruesome-taxpayer-funded-experiments-with-aborted-fetuses" target="_blank" rel="noopener">included</a> scalping five-month-old fetuses in order to stitch their scalps and back skin onto lab rats and transporting fetal kidneys to other researchers.
According to the emails, Pitt’s Senior Vice Chancellor for Research Dr. Rob Rutenba acknowledged the existence of a federal probe into the school in response to an email from NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research Dr. Michael Lauer requesting information on the fetal tissue projects at the university. 
“With regard to your request for documentation/information, please be aware that we received a subpoena from HHS OIG requesting similar documentation on October 28, 2021,” Rutenba wrote on Friday, November 2021. “We are happy to provide the requested information to both you and the HHS OIG, however, [redacted] instructed us not to provide the documentation you have requested information until he has had the opportunity to speak with you.”
The status of the HHS OIG investigation is not known. “We don’t know the results of the OIG investigation yet. We don’t know if the OIG has further referred that investigation to the FBI or the Department of Justice. The University of Pittsburgh has been completely in damage control mode,” Daleiden said. 
Agents with the HHS OIG have the ability to make arrests, conduct surveillance, serve search warrants, and seize evidence. The HHS OIG office told The Daily Wire that they could “neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation, should there be any.”
The scrutiny on Pitt focuses on its GenitoUrinary Development Molecular Anatomy Project (GUDMAP) program, which is believed to have run from 2016-2021. Daleiden describes the program as “an NIH-sponsored program for harvesting and distributing late-term aborted fetal kidneys and other body parts to other NIH-funded projects across the country.” 
In response to the reports and allegations of illegal activities, Pitt hired an “outside law firm” to look at its fetal tissue experiment program. The report from the firm claimed that Pitt was in compliance with state and federal law and the university has denied any wrongdoing.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“As we have stated in the past: Fetal tissue research plays a critical role in advancing life-saving discoveries. We remain committed to maintaining robust internal controls and to extending our record of compliance at the state and federal levels, and we take these responsibilities seriously,” a Pitt spokesman <a href="https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/news/report-fetal-tissue" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in January 2022. 
Republicans have <a href="https://www.lankford.senate.gov/news/press-releases/lankford-bicameral-members-want-immediate-check-on-claims-of-fetal-tissue-research-at-university-of-pittsburgh/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">continued</a> to push for a review of Pitt’s activities and have demanded an audit from the HHS inspector general. 
“I think that the fact that a federal law enforcement agency like OIG thought that the information and allegations about the grant application were serious enough to open an investigation shows that the issue of fetal trafficking and selling aborted baby parts is not going away for the abortion industry,” Daleiden said. 
The University of Pittsburgh did not immediately return a request for comment.

US-POLITICS-GOVERNMENT-HEALTH

Federal Investigation Opened Into Pitt Over Fetal Tissue Experiments, Emails Show

Abortion

Center for Medical Progress

Department of Health and Human Services

Education

Inspector general

Planned Parenthood

University of Pittsburgh

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/secret-service" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Secret Service</a> found more than 100 records that may be responsive to a lawsuit seeking details about an investigation into a gun-related incident involving <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/hunter-biden" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hunter Biden</a>, according to a recent court filing.
The disclosure marks a turn in the long-running Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case brought by Judicial Watch after the Secret Service previously walked back a statement that said it had found potentially responsive documents about communications regarding the discovery of a firearm owned by Biden that was found in a Delaware dumpster several years ago.
Although Judicial Watch is casting the fresh development as evidence of the Secret Service being unable to get its story straight about the records, the joint filing between the conservative watchdog group and Homeland Security Department, which is the parent agency of the Secret Service, states that the two parties held consultations that led to further clarity on the scope of the request.
&#8220;USSS initially responded to Judicial Watch on April 2, 2021, that it had located potentially responsive records and would process them in accordance with FOIA, but this response was sent in error. On October 13, 2022, USSS sent an updated letter to Judicial Watch to inform it that USSS had actually never located any records responsive to Plaintiff’s request after conducting a search and, thus, should have sent a no-records response on April 2, 2021 instead,&#8221; the filing says.
&#8220;Since the Complaint was filed, the Parties have conferred about the intended scope of Judicial Watch’s FOIA request and, in response, USSS has run supplemental searches and located over 100 records, totaling over 400 pages, potentially responsive to Judicial Watch’s request under the clarified understanding of that request,&#8221; the filing adds.
<a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/JW-v-DOJ-Hunter-Biden-Gun-records-02821.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The joint filing</a>, which was submitted last month in Washington, D.C., federal court, was published by Judicial Watch on Thursday.
Judicial Watch initially filed its FOIA request after the Blaze <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/source-hunter-bidens-gun-was-taken-by-hallie-biden-in-2018-thrown-into-a-supermarket-garbage-can-went-missing-and-no-arrests-were-made" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported a source</a> who claimed Hallie Biden, the widow of then-presidential nominee Joe Biden’s son Beau, took a handgun owned by Hunter and placed it into a trash can outside of a Delaware supermarket in October 2018. Hallie and Hunter, who was her brother-in-law, were dating at the time. At the behest of Hunter, after he had been informed of what she did, Hallie went to retrieve the firearm, but she found it missing, according to a <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/25/sources-secret-service-inserted-itself-into-case-of-hunter-bidens-gun-477879?nname=playbook&amp;nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&amp;nrid=0000014e-f10e-dd93-ad7f-f90fd0fe0001&amp;nlid=630318" target="_blank" rel="noopener">police report obtained by Politico</a>. Sources told the news outlet that the gun was returned days later by a man who regularly rummages through the grocery store&#8217;s garbage seeking recyclables.
In text messages between the pair <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/texts-reveal-hunter-biden-meltdown-discarded-gun-incident" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported by the Washington Examiner</a>, Hallie said she was worried Hunter would &#8220;use&#8221; the firearm. Hunter complained how he did not believe he would &#8220;ever recover from all of this,&#8221; noting that Hallie&#8217;s actions made it appear he had &#8220;threatened you and your family with a gun.&#8221; No arrests were made nor charges filed in connection with the incident, but there remains an air of mystery about the role played by the Secret Service, which was not providing protection to now-President Joe Biden at the time.
<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/25/sources-secret-service-inserted-itself-into-case-of-hunter-bidens-gun-477879?nname=playbook&amp;nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&amp;nrid=0000014e-f10e-dd93-ad7f-f90fd0fe0001&amp;nlid=630318" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sources told Politico</a> that Secret Service agents asked the owner of the store where Hunter purchased the gun, seeking paperwork about the sale, but the owner refused under suspicions that they wanted to conceal his ownership of the firearm. The Secret Service <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/texts-reveal-hunter-biden-meltdown-discarded-gun-incident" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told the Washington Examiner</a> last year it had &#8220;no involvement in this incident.&#8221; Hunter, who has struggled with drug addiction over the years, said &#8220;no&#8221; when asked if he was &#8220;an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance,&#8221; <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/25/sources-secret-service-inserted-itself-into-case-of-hunter-bidens-gun-477879?nname=playbook&amp;nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&amp;nrid=0000014e-f10e-dd93-ad7f-f90fd0fe0001&amp;nlid=630318" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to paperwork associated</a> with the gun purchase.
The Secret Service will complete its initial processing of records in the FOIA lawsuit by January 9, 2023, at which time the agency will give any responsive, non-exempt records to Judicial Watch, the November joint filing says. The Secret Service will continue to do so on a rolling, monthly basis as consultations with other Executive Branch entities take place, the filing adds.
Upon publishing the filing to the group&#8217;s website, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/hunter-biden-gun-records/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">released a statement</a> that said, “The Secret Service’s changing story on records raises additional questions about its role in the Hunter Biden gun incident. One thing is clear, Judicial Watch’s persistence means the public may get records that the Secret Service suggested didn’t exist.&#8221;

Hunter Biden

Secret Service Finds Records In Hunter Biden Gun Case After ‘Error’

Secret Service Finds Records In Hunter Biden Gun Case After 'Error'

Crime

Executive

Secret Service

A judge in California said that a law forcing companies to include women on their corporate boards is unconstitutional. 
In a ruling from Friday, Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said California could not prove that the “use of a gender-based classification was necessary to boost California’s economy, improve opportunities for women in the workplace, and protect California taxpayers, public employees, pensions and retirees.”
The California legislature also didn’t think about changing anti-discrimination laws that were already in effect or “putting into effect a new anti-discrimination law focused on the board selection process before Senate Bill 826 was signed into law, Duffy-Lewis wrote,” per the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-16/california-law-women-on-corporate-boards-ruled-unconstitutional">Los Angeles Times</a>.
The court also found that the state couldn’t put forward any proof of a certain company that discriminated against a woman and would have been under the law.
Judicial Watch, a conservative legal foundation, brought a challenge against the law in a trial without a jury a few months ago, making the argument that taxpayers should not be forced to pay to make sure corporate boards met a certain gender qualification.
The law dates back to former Democratic Governor of California Jerry Brown, and was signed by Brown in 2018. However, workers with the secretary of state’s office said in the trial that it was essentially useless by 2022.
If a company didn’t meet the quotas, they could be fined $100,000 for a first-time offense and then $300,000 for another, but none were ever issued fines for violations and California wasn’t going to carry out the rule, according to Betsy Bogart, chief of business programs at the secretary of state’s office.
Last year, less than half of the almost 650 applicable companies in California reported they had acted in accordance with the law. &#8220;More than half didn’t file the required disclosure statement, according to the most recent report,” according to <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-says-california-law-requiring-women-on-corporate-boards-is-unconstitutional#:~:text=The%20law%20required%20publicly%20held,required%20to%20have%20three%20women">PBS</a>.
Prior to Brown signing the legislation, the secretary of state at the time — Alex Padilla — told the governor it would be hard to carry out.
“Any attempt by the secretary of state to collect or enforce the fine would likely exceed its authority,” Padilla wrote to Brown in a letter that was incorporated in the trial.
State Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, who co-authored the legislation, said the decision was a disappointment.
“More women on corporate boards means better decisions and businesses that outperform the competition — that’s a studied, proven fact,” Atkins said in a statement. “We believe this law remains important — despite the disheartening ruling from the Los Angeles Superior Court — and it exemplifies equal access and opportunity, the very bedrock of our democracy. For those still afraid of women in positions of leadership, they need to work on figuring that out because the world is moving on without them.”
Judicial Watch also brought forward another lawsuit concerning a California law that tried to force certain companies in California to have specific diversity requirements for their boards. That law was also found to be unconstitutional by a judge in Los Angeles. The judge did not provide a reason for the decision.
The ruling “declared unconstitutional one of the most blatant and significant attacks in the modern era on constitutional prohibitions against discrimination,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton <a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-04-04/california-corporate-diversity-law-ruled-unconstitutional">said</a> in a statement, per the Los Angeles Times.

4CEE79BC-5AA2-4E96-B47E-7CD273BF81D4_1_201_a

California Law Mandating Women On Corporate Boards Declared Unconstitutional

Judge Declares California Law Mandating That Companies Have Women On Corporate Boards Unconstitutional

Constitution

Diversity

Jerry Brown

Xavier Becerra

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/anthony-fauci">Anthony Fauci</a>, Francis Collins and other bigwigs at the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-in-leaked-audio-former-nih-director-new-biden-science-adviser-laughs-over-threatening-unemployment-to-force-vaccines-blames-trump-for-covid-19-deaths">National Institutes of Health</a> reaped more than $350 million in secretive &#8220;royalty&#8221; payments from drug companies and other third parties over a 10-year period, according to an <a href="https://www.openthebooks.com/substack-investigation-faucis-royalties-and-the-350-million-royalty-payment-stream-hidden-by-nih/">explosive new report</a> from a watchdog organization.
The report from <a href="https://www.openthebooks.com">OpenTheBooks.com</a> said the royalty payments, including at least 23 to Fauci and 14 to his former boss, Collins, were paid out between 2010 and 2020. Government scientists got the payments for being credited as &#8220;co-inventors&#8221; of various treatments and pharmaceutical products, according to the report.
&#8220;Because those payments enrich the agency and its scientists, each and every royalty payment could be a potential conflict of interest and needs disclosure,&#8221; OpenTheBooks.com co-founder and CEO Adam Andrzejewski wrote. &#8220;NIH is a revolving door of tens of billions of dollars in government grant-making coupled with hundreds of millions of dollars in private – non-transparent – royalty payments.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AdamAndrzejewski?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AdamAndrzejewski</a> for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/OpenTheBooks?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#OpenTheBooks</a> at Substack: &quot;<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Fauci?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Fauci</a>’s Royalties And The $350 Million Royalty Payment Stream HIDDEN By <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NIH?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NIH</a>&quot; ( <a href="https://t.co/8znBqaxIMh">https://t.co/8znBqaxIMh</a> ) <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AnthonyFauci?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AnthonyFauci</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FrancisCollins?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FrancisCollins</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CliffordLane?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CliffordLane</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NIAID?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NIAID</a>
&mdash; Προμηθεύς (@_Prometeusz_) <a href="https://twitter.com/_Prometeusz_/status/1523998600056868867?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 10, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The report paints an incestuous picture of the NIH doling out $30 billion a year in grants to some 56,000 recipients in Big Pharma, research institutes and other entities, with money flowing back to the secretive agency&#8217;s scientists and senior management in the form of huge royalty payments. It is not yet known how much the payments to Fauci, who is the U.S. government highest-salaried employee at $456,028, totaled.
&#8220;Since the NIH documents are heavily redacted, we can only see how many payments each scientist received, and, separately, the aggregate dollars per NIH agency,&#8221; Andrzejewski wrote.&#8221; This is a gatekeeping at odds with the spirit and perhaps the letter of open-records laws.&#8221;
In addition to his salary and whatever royalty payments he has received, Fauci last year won a $1 million prize <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2022/01/15/disclosures-released-dr-fauci-household-profits-exceeded-17-million-in-2020--included-income-royalties-travel-perks-and-investment-gains/?sh=1acaeb8f7d5f" rel="">from the Dan David Foundation</a> for “speaking truth to power.”
<div id="attachment_379954" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-379954" decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-379954 size-large" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/GettyImages-1228425162-864x576.jpg" alt="Dr. Francis Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, is one of several current and former NIH officials who received &quot;royalty&quot; payments, according to OpenTheBooks.com." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/05/GettyImages-1228425162-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/05/GettyImages-1228425162-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/05/GettyImages-1228425162-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/05/GettyImages-1228425162.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Former NIH boss Francis Collins allegedly received royalty payments from third parties. (Greg Nash- Pool/Getty Images)</div>
Collins resigned as NIH director in December after leading the agency for 12 years. Fauci is the longtime head of NIH’s National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and also serves as chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden.
OpenTheBooks.com made the $350 million estimate by extrapolating from documents received as part of a federal lawsuit against NIH. So far, the group has uncovered evidence of more than 22,100 royalty payments totaling nearly $134 million paid from 2009-2014 to 1,700 NIH scientists. The group is awaiting another 1,800 pages of royalty disclosures which would cover the period from 2015-2020.
The NIH has resisted turning over information, treating the royalty payments like &#8220;a state secret,&#8221; according to Andrzejewski. The agency ignored OpenTheBooks.com&#8217;s Freedom of Information Act request, forcing the group to go to court with Judicial Watch, he said. Once in court, the NIH slow-walked production of documents it was ordered to hand over, and redacted key information, he said.
Under court order, the NIH has agreed to produce 300 pages a month, but insisted on producing documents related to Fauci last &#8211; sometime in November, according to Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.
The Associated Press reported on the NIH&#8217;s royalty database and <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/story/govt-scientists-must-now-disclose-financial-stakes" rel="">found 900</a> scientists collected nearly $9 million in royalties 16 years ago. That report also determined some 51 NIH scientists who were paid royalties worked on experiments involving inventions for which they were already being paid. Among them was Fauci, who received $45,072.82 between 1997 and 2004 for a patent license on an experimental AIDS treatment that was funded with a $36 million NIH grant.
But Andrzejewski said the agency has become &#8220;a lot more secretive&#8221; since the AP report.
&#8220;When a federal bureaucrat pops up on television giving us health instructions, who has paid them and for what research and technology?&#8221; Andrzejewski asked. &#8220;When a patient agrees to a clinical trial or experimental treatment, what financial interests are involved?&#8221;

Dr. Anthony Fauci

Fauci, Collins Shared In ‘Secret’ NIH ‘Royalties’ Totaling $350M: Watchdog Report

Fauci, Collins Shared In Secret NIH 'Royalties' Totaling $350M: Watchdog Report

Anthony Fauci

COVID

Francis Collins

When the COVID-19 pandemic initially began, Americans were <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-china-blamed-wet-market-to-deflect-blame-from-lab-destroyed-evidence-fox-news-reports">repeatedly</a> informed by the legacy media that the virus had undoubtedly emerged naturally, with the leading theory being that it emerged from a Wuhan wet market. However, many Americans have grown <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/americas-intelligence-agencies-are-coming-to-same-conclusion-on-coronavirus">skeptical</a> of such claims as <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-china-compete-us-sources">information</a> about the Wuhan Institute of Virology — and particularly their study of coronaviruses originating in bats — came to light.
New information from Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times reporter, claims National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci personally signed off on funding for gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, which could have potentially sparked the start of the COVID pandemic. According to the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/">National Institute of Health</a> (NIH), which oversees NIAID, gain-of-function research is used for virology experiments aimed at medical advancements, like &#8220;higher yields for vaccine strains.&#8221;
Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog organization, has repeatedly sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in order to obtain internal documents relating to the virus&#8217; origins and for communications between U.S. health officials and the World Health Organization (WHO). The watchdog group has also sued to obtain communications, contracts, and agreements with the Wuhan lab. The problem, according to Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, is that Dr. Fauci himself is stonewalling public transparency.
“In our other requests for documents, the early communications with Wuhan, with China, about the WHO, about coronavirus, we were told one of the reasons it was going to take longer than we’d like is because Fauci has to personally review the documents,” Fitton explained to The Daily Wire. “It’s exceedingly unusual.&#8221;
The concern, according to Fitton, is that Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are being ignored in an unprecedented way.
&#8220;I don’t recall anything like that ever before and I’ve been doing this for nearly two dozen years,&#8221; he said. 
According to Fitton, accountability for Dr. Fauci would require that such documents are made public, thereby allowing Americans to learn how deep the &#8220;scandal&#8221; runs. 
“The question is: was this an area of research that could have resulted in the virus being released accidentally and was this research tied to it?” Fitton asked. “Those are big questions and Fauci, to his credit, has said the question is worth pursuing. The problem is the kind of disconnect, pretending that our government wasn’t funding this type of research, potentially. And those with a more direct financial interest and involvement in this type of research have been front and center saying ‘China isn’t involved.’ We can’t even ask the question.”
Another <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/emails-who-terms/">set of documents</a> Judicial Watch obtained appear to indicate that Dr. Fauci signed off on a joint press release with the WHO, praising China for their early pandemic response.
“We have the documents showing praise for China was an emphasis of the early response and Fauci approved that. We have documents showing that the information about the issue was controlled by China because there was a document showing that the confidentiality agreement had China’s terms in it,” he said. “It’s an ugly scandal.” 
The new revelations are calling into question Dr. Fauci’s early decisions, like his <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/who-warned-china-travel-bans-coronavirus">opposition</a> to halting flights from China. A little more than a year later, he <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fauci-china-travel-ban-coronavirus-transparency-criticizes-trump-response">praised</a> those decisions for &#8220;preventing a lot of people who are infected, particularly from Wuhan, from coming into the country.&#8221;
“It raises questions about why that was objected too,” Fitton said.
“I think Dr. Fauci, early on, there was this presumption he was a world-renowned expert and there’s a lot of goodwill he had. The longer this pandemic has gone on and the more nonsensical the shutdowns and the advice, which has been more political health advice than public health advice, because public health is really about politics, that goodwill dissipated.”
At the beginning of the pandemic, Dr. Fauci was touted as a world-renowned virology expert who was perfectly positioned to help the United States deal with COVID-19. But, according to Fitton, the NIAID head deserves the same level of scrutiny as any other bureaucrat in government.
“There’s no reason Dr. Fauci should be given any more deference as a bureaucrat than any other government official. The skepticism that we bring to the functions of the FBI, the CIA, and other government agencies should also be brought to what public health officials have been doing,&#8221; Fitton told The Daily Wire. &#8220;I mean, we’ve seen the CDC has been politicized. We see Dr. Fauci as a political actor as much as a bureaucrat and, more importantly, he works for the people, and we should be holding him accountable, especially given the awesome power that politicians have given him in deference to his views.”
Beth Baumann is a Political Reporter and Editor at The Daily Wire. Follow her on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/eb454">@eb454</a>.

Senate Health Committee Hears Testimony From Federal Officials On Efforts To Combat COVID-19

EXCLUSIVE: Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton Slams Dr. Fauci’s ‘Ugly’ COVID ‘Scandal’ That Deserves ‘Skepticism’

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), who has led the charge against President Donald Trump since he was inaugurated, is fighting in court to keep secret the subpoenas he issued last year as part of Democrats’ impeachment investigation into the president.
Jerry Dunleavy <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/adam-schiff-fights-to-keep-impeachment-subpoena-records-secret">reported</a> at The Washington Examiner (my former employer) that Schiff has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, who sought access to “the controversial subpoenas issued for phone records,” that led to the revealing of contact between Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and journalist John Solomon, among others.
“[Schiff’s] legal team, led by Douglas Letter, the Democratic-led House’s general counsel, told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday that ‘these requests and subpoenas were integral to the Committee’s inquiry and consistent with its mandate to investigate and issue a report’ about whether Trump should be <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/analysis-trumps-ukraine-crowdstrike-conspiracy-theory-front-and-center-in-impeachment-hearing">impeached</a>,” Dunleavy reported.
Judicial Watch’s lawsuit had argued: “The records are of critical public importance as the subpoenas were issued without any lawful basis and violated the rights of numerous private citizens.” It further stated that “disclosure of the requested records would serve the public interest by providing information about the unlawful issuance of the subpoenas” and that “the requested records fall within the scope of the public’s right of access to governmental records.”
Schiff’s motion argued that Judicial Watch “has not demonstrated that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the House Defendants’ interest in non-disclosure,” adding that “it is unclear for what precise purpose” the conservative watchdog group wanted the records, claiming it “does not allege whose rights have been violated.”
More from Dunleavy:
<blockquote>Schiff’s lawyers cited four reasons why the court should dismiss the case: They claimed that “the doctrine of sovereign immunity” deprives the court of jurisdiction over House Democrats, argued the records sought by Judicial Watch “are absolutely protected by the Speech or Debate Clause” of the Constitution because they were obtained during <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/analysis-mueller-findings-underpin-democratic-articles-of-impeachment">impeachment,</a> asserted that the subpoena documents are not “public records” and thus aren’t subject to the common law right of public access, and said Judicial Watch “fails to state a claim because Congress has created a comprehensive scheme for the review of government records — the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) — that preempts the common law right sought to be vindicated by this litigation.”</blockquote>
As The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-democrats-subpoenaed-and-published-phone-records-for-devin-nunes-rudy-giuliani-journalist-john-solomon">reported</a>, during the course of Schiff’s partisan investigation into whether Trump abused his power when speaking to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and then obstructed congress, phone records were selectively released to implicate Nunes, Giuliani, and Solomon in Trump’s alleged misdeeds.
Part of the attempt was to tie Solomon to Lev Parnas, who was indicted for lying and falsifying records, though Solomon spoke to Parnas for a story months before the indictment and journalists often have to speak to bad people for a story.
When The Daily Wire originally wrote that article, Nunes provided a response to Schiff’s publishing of the California Republican’s phone records.
“The Democrats’ impeachment charade is flailing, and desperate people do desperate things,” Nunes said. “So, Schiff suddenly published phone records of myself, current and former Republican staff members, and a journalist whose reporting he doesn’t like. It’s a gross abuse of power for a congressman to go after his political opponents, staffers, and reporters in this way, but it’s characteristic of the way Schiff has run this entire show. He’s going to need a long rehabilitation period when this is over.”

Adam Schiff

Adam Schiff Doesn’t Want You To Know About His Impeachment Subpoena Records

Devin Nunes

Impeachment

The conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch announced Wednesday that it has filed a lawsuit against Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the House Intelligence Committee for information relating to the acquirement and release of the phone records from Rudy Giuliani, Devin Nunes, and others.
“We are seeking records about [Schiff’s] controversial subpoenas that led to his publishing the private phone records of President Trump’s lawyers and other innocent Americans including: President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Congressman Devin Nunes, and journalist John Solomon,” the group said in a video announcing the lawsuit. “The lawsuit seeks all subpoenas by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to telephone providers, including, but not limited to, AT&amp;T.”
“Adam Schiff and his Committee ran roughshod over the rule of law in pursuit of the abusive impeachment of President Trump,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said. “This lawsuit serves as a reminder that Congressman Schiff and Congress are not above the law.”
In early December The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-democrats-subpoenaed-and-published-phone-records-for-devin-nunes-rudy-giuliani-journalist-john-solomon">reported</a> that House Democrats received the private phone records for Giuliani, Solomon, and Nunes as part of their investigation into Lev Parnas for the Trump impeachment inquiries. At the time Parnas spoke to Solomon (as a source for an article) the former Giuliani associate was not under indictment for campaign finance charges. The release of the phone records was deliberately designed to make the people in question look like accomplices, even though there is no evidence the issues surrounding Parnas were discussed during his calls with Giuliani, Nunes, or Solomon.
In a statement to The Daily Wire at the time, Nunes said publishing the phones records was “a gross abuse of power.”
“The Democrats’ impeachment charade is flailing, and desperate people do desperate things,” he said. “So, Schiff suddenly published phone records of myself, current and former Republican staff members, and a journalist whose reporting he doesn’t like. It’s a gross abuse of power for a congressman to go after his political opponents, staffers, and reporters in this way, but it’s characteristic of the way Schiff has run this entire show. He’s going to need a long rehabilitation period when this is over.”
Schiff told Politico at the time that it was “deeply concerning that at a time when the president of the United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence that there were members of Congress complicit in that activity.”
Of course, phone records aren’t conclusive evidence that anyone was “complicit” in the activity.
Solomon <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/schiff-threatens-press-freedom-11575937690">responded</a> to the release of his phone calls in The Wall Street Journal shortly after the news broke.
“If the executive branch, and by extension the courts that enforce these privacy protections, observe the need for such sensitivity, it seems reasonable that Congress should have similar guardrails ensuring that the powers of the state are equally and fairly applied,” Solomon wrote.
Solomon wrote that Schiff’s subpoena “trampled the attorney-client privilege of Mr. Trump and his lawyers,” and “intruded on my First Amendment rights to interview and contact figures like Mr. Giuliani and the Ukrainian-American businessman Lev Parnas without fear of having the dates, times and length of private conversation disclosed to the public.”

Watchdog Group Suing Adam Schiff Over Release Of Private Phone Records

Rudy Giuliani

Judicial Watch announced on Tuesday that it has filed an ethics complaint against Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN) with the House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics for potential immigration, marriage, tax, and student loan fraud.
In <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-files-house-ethics-complaint-against-rep-ilhan-omar-over-potential-immigration-marriage-tax-and-student-loan-fraud/">press release</a> posted Tuesday, the government watchdog announced that it has submitted &#8220;a hand-delivered ethics complaint to Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics David Skaggs calling for a full investigation into potential crimes tied to allegations that Rep. Ilhan Omar may have married her biological brother.&#8221;
Omar, who is one of the four members of the so-called &#8220;Squad&#8221; of far-left freshman Democratic congresswomen embroiled in a public feud with President Trump, has been the subject of a series of reports claiming immigration and marriage fraud.
In a statement included in the release, Judical Watch President Tom Fitton says the evidence that Omar may have violated the law is &#8220;overwhelming&#8221; and that the House is obligated to &#8220;urgently investigate and resolve the serious allegations of wrongdoing&#8221; by the freshman congresswoman.
In the complaint (full text below), Fitton states that &#8220;substantial, compelling and, to date, unrefuted evidence has been uncovered that Rep. Ilhan Omar may have committed the following crimes in violation of both federal law and Minnesota state law: perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud, and federal student loan fraud.&#8221;
&#8220;The evidence developed against Rep. Omar was the result of a <a href="https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/david-steinberg-tying-up-loose-threads-in-the-curious-case.php">three-year-long investigation</a> in both the United States and the United Kingdom by [David] Steinberg and his investigative reporter colleagues Preya Samsundar and Scott Johnson,&#8221; the complaint reads. &#8220;It is supported by information gathered from public records, social media postings, genealogy databases, computer forensic analysis, unaltered digital photographs, discussions between the investigative reporters and the subjects of the investigation themselves, and information supplied by confidential sources within the Somali-American community.&#8221;
Among the claims presented in Steinberg&#8217;s investigative report is that Omar married her alleged biological brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, &#8220;in order to assist his emigration to the United Stated from the United Kingdom,&#8221; Fitton states. That alleged immigration fraud scheme may have helped Elmi secure federally backed student loans so he could attend North Dakota State University along with Omar, he writes.
The complaint also details that the State of Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board &#8220;has already determined that Rep. Omar violated state campaign finance laws for improper use of campaign funds&#8221; and that she submitted &#8220;joint&#8221; tax returns in 2014 and 2015 &#8220;with a man who was not her husband, named Ahmed Hirsi, while she was actually married to Ahmed Elmi.&#8221;
Below is the complete text of the <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/omar-ethics-complaint-07-22-19/">ethics complaint</a>:
<blockquote>Ethics Complaint Against Rep. Ilhan Omar Concerning Possible Violations of Federal and State Law
Dear Chairman Skaggs,
Judicial Watch is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation, promoting transparency, accountability and integrity in government and fidelity to the rule of law. We regularly monitor congressional ethics issues as part of our anti-corruption mission.
This letter serves as an official complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).
Substantial, compelling and, to date, unrefuted evidence has been uncovered that Rep. Ilhan Omar may have committed the following crimes in violation of both federal law and Minnesota state law: perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud, and federal student loan fraud.
Such violations would also breach the Code of Ethics for Government Service, to which all federal officeholders are subject, “Any person in Government service should uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.”) Rep. Omar actions in this suspected immigration fraud, marriage fraud, perjurious statements on her Minnesota divorce filings, and falsifications on her tax returns, merit your immediate investigation.
In the words of investigative reporter David Steinberg: “The facts describe perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history.”
The evidence developed against Rep. Omar was the result of a <a href="https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/david-steinberg-tying-up-loose-threads-in-the-curious-case.php">three-year-long investigation</a> in both the United States and the United Kingdom by Mr. Steinberg and his investigative reporter colleagues Preya Samsundar and Scott Johnson. It is supported by information gathered from public records, social media postings, genealogy databases, computer forensic analysis, unaltered digital photographs, discussions between the investigative reporters and the subjects of the investigation themselves, and information supplied by confidential sources within the Somali-American community.
Documented-based reporting by Steinberg, et al. has developed the following information: Rep. Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, a citizen of the United States, married her biological brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, a citizen of the United Kingdom, in 2009, presumably as part of an immigration fraud scheme. The couple legally divorced in 2017. In the course of that divorce, Ms. Omar submitted an “Application for an Order for Service by Alternate Means” to the State of Minnesota on August 2, 2017 and claimed, among other things, that she had had no contact with Ahmed Nur Said Elmi after June 2011. She also claimed that she did know where to find him. The evidence developed by Mr. Steinberg and his colleagues demonstrates with a high degree of certainty that Ms. Omar not only had contact with Mr. Elmi, but actually met up with him in London in 2015, which is supported by photographic evidence. Ms. Omar signed the “Application for an Order for Service by Alternate Means” under penalty of perjury. The very document that Ilham Omar signed on August 2, 2017 bears the following notation directly above her signature: “I declare under penalty of perjury that everything I have stated in this document is true and correct. Minn. Stat. § 358.116.”
Of particular importance are archived photographs taken during a widely reported trip by Ilhan Omar to London in 2015, posted to her own Instagram account under her nickname “hameey”, in which she poses with her husband/presumed brother, Ahmed Elmi. These photographs from 2015 are documentary evidence that in fact she met up with Mr. Elmi after June 2011 and before the date she signed the divorce document in August 2017, thereby calling into question the veracity of her claim that she had not seen Mr. Elmi since June 2011.
Rep. Omar’s potential crimes far exceed perjurious statements made in a Minnesota court filing.
Rep. Omar’s conduct may include immigration fraud. It appears that Rep. Omar married her brother in order to assist his emigration to the United Stated from the United Kingdom. The same immigration fraud scheme may have aided Mr. Elmi in obtaining federally-backed student loans for his attendance at North Dakota State University. Mr. Elmi and Rep. Omar simultaneously attended North Dakota State University and may have derived illicit benefits predicated on the immigration fraud scheme.
The State of Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board has already determined that Rep. Omar violated state campaign finance laws for improper use of campaign funds. She was forced to reimburse her campaign thousands of dollars. More significantly, the Board discovered that the federal tax returns submitted by Rep. Omar for 2014 and 2015 were filed as “joint” tax returns with a man who was not her husband, named Ahmed Hirsi, while she was actually married to Ahmed Elmi.
Under federal law, specifically, 26 U.S. Code &amp; 7206.1, “Any person who willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter … shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.”
Rep. Omar’s federal tax returns must be examined to determine whether any additional falsifications were made.
Mr. Steinberg, et al. have engaged in meticulous research and reporting over a period of years. They have demonstrated with a high degree of probability that Rep. Ilhan Omar has violated House Ethics Rules, federal and state laws.
We call upon the Office of Congressional Ethics to launch an investigation into Rep. Omar’s conduct immediately.
Sincerely,
Tom Fitton, President, Judicial Watch</blockquote>

Ethics Complaint Filed Against Ilhan Omar For Alleged Fraud

Ilhan Omar

A Department of Justice official who acted as a conduit between the FBI and anti-Trump opposition received a massive bonus during the counterintelligence investigation into whether the Trump 2016 campaign colluded with Russia to steal the election.
Bruce Ohr, who was eventually demoted due to a conflict of interest, was paid $28,000 in performance bonuses in November 2016, nearly double the $14,520 he had received in November 2015.
The revelation comes from <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Bruce-Ohr-demotion-FOIA-052219.pdf">documents</a> obtained by conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch, who filed a Freedom of Information Act request for information relating to Ohr&#8217;s compensation back in January 2018, after Ohr was transferred from his new position as director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force to his current role as counselor for the Office of International Affair&#8217;s Criminal Division. The move included a $2,600 a year raise.
While working as a conduit between the FBI and Christopher Steele, who was paid by Democrat opposition research firm Fusion GPS (who was in turn hired by law firm Perkins Coin on behalf of Hillary Clinton&#8217;s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee) to compile a &#8220;dossier&#8221; that was damaging to Trump, Ohr received a yearly salary of $187,000 as associate deputy attorney general.
&#8220;These documents will raise questions as to whether the conflicted Bruce Ohr, who the FBI used to launder information from Christopher Steele was rewarded for his role in the illicit targeting of President Trump,&#8221; Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement about the released documents.
Ohr provided information to the FBI not only on behalf of Steele, but <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46701/nellie-ohr-fusion-gps-contractor-and-wife-doj-ashe-schow">on behalf of his wife</a>, Nellie, who worked for Fusion GPS. Ohr also personally met with Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS. Steele&#8217;s completed dossier comprised salacious and uncorroborated claims, many of which were debunked by Special Counsel Robert Mueller&#8217;s investigation. None have been proven true.
Ohr&#8217;s connection to Steele worked as a back channel between the former FBI informant and the FBI. Steele&#8217;s relationship with the FBI was cut off after the Bureau discovered he made unauthorized leaks to the media, but continued to work with him through Bruce Ohr.
Though he was paid handsomely, Ohr may be in some legal or professional trouble soon, as the DOJ Inspector General and Attorney General conduct separate investigations into the origins of the FBI&#8217;s counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.
As The Daily Wire reported previously, Nellie Ohr&#8217;s emails to Bruce may cause trouble for the latter. Congressional Republicans referred Nellie Ohr for criminal investigation after emails from her to her husband were revealed previously by Judicial Watch that contradicted her congressional testimony. Nellie&#8217;s emails also contradicted Bruch Ohr&#8217;s testimony.
Bruce claimed that Nellie only provided him information about Russian interference on one occasion, but her emails make clear she continuously sent him emails with such information.
While the latest documents reveal bonuses to Bruce Ohr, one must wonder whether the government paid Nellie Ohr for her Fusion GPS-related information. Nellie Ohr previously worked as a contractor for the CIA, and one has to wonder whether she was compensated by the Agency for her information.

Key Figure In Russiagate Received Massive Bonus While Feeding FBI Opposition Research From Fusion GPS

Donald Trump

Russia

Nearly four years after filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-files-seven-new-foia-lawsuits-against-state-department-to-force-release-of-clinton-emails-other-secret-email-records/">lawsuit</a> seeking all emails sent and received by Hillary Clinton and her staff via her unsecured private email server when she served as Secretary of State, Judicial Watch has finally received what appears to be the &#8220;final batch&#8221; of emails Clinton &#8220;tried to delete or destroy&#8221; that the FBI managed to recover. Among this newly uncovered batch of emails, which amount to over 700 pages of <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/tag/oct-18-production/">documents</a>, Judicial Watch uncovered what appear to be five more email exchanges containing classified information.
&#8220;Hillary Clinton repeatedly stated that the 55,000 pages of documents she turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails,&#8221; <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-more-classified-emails-in-hillary-clintons-unsecure-email-system/">Judicial Watch</a> explained in its announcement of the release of the final batch of emails. &#8220;In response to a court order in another Judicial Watch <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-hillary-clinton-submits-email-information-to-court-under-penalty-of-perjury/">case</a>, she declared under penalty of perjury in 2015 that she had &#8216;directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.&#8217; In 2017, the FBI uncovered <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-fbi-recovered-72000-pages-clinton-records/">72,000 pages</a> of documents Clinton attempted to delete or did not otherwise disclose.&#8221;
Judicial Watch notes that this should be &#8220;the final batch&#8221; of emails because the production of documents in this case has now &#8220;concluded.&#8221; In total, the FBI was only able to recover or find less than a fifth, about 5,000 of the 33,000 government emails Clinton &#8220;took and tried to destroy.&#8221;
The newly uncovered documents include what Judicial Watch determined to be five new classified exchanges. Below is Judicial Watch&#8217;s summaries of and links to the &#8220;classified&#8221; communications:
<ul>
<li>On April 27, 2011, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair sent <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hrc-emails-oct-18-00687-pg-374/">classified information</a> discussing Palestinian issues to Clinton&#8217;s personal unsecure email account.</li>
<li>On May 19, 2011, Blair again sent <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hrc-emails-oct-18-00687-pg-375/">classified information</a> to Clinton&#8217;s personal unsecure email account discussing a &#8220;speech.&#8221;</li>
<li>A <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hrc-emails-oct-18-00687-pg-79-81/">classified email</a> exchange between Blair and Clinton took place from January 16, 2009 (while George W. Bush was still president) and January 24, 2009. The subject line is &#8220;Re: Gaza.&#8221; Blair on January 16, 2009, relayed information he learned from Middle East leaders and noted that he wanted to get something &#8220;resolved before Tuesday&#8221; (when Obama would be sworn in as president). Clinton responded to Blair on January 19, 2009, writing &#8220;Tony &#8211; We are finally moving and I am looking forward to talking w you as soon as I&#8217;m confirmed, tomorrow or Wednesday at the latest. Your emails are very helpful so pls continue to use this address,&#8221; <a href="mailto:hr15@att.blackberry.net">hr15@att.blackberry.net</a>. Blair followed up by saying &#8220;It would be great if we could talk before any announcements are made.&#8221;</li>
<li>Retired Army Gen. Jack Keane sent Clinton <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hrc-emails-oct-18-00687-pg-594-595/">classified information</a>, apparently during early 2009. The subject line of the email is redacted, but the text appears to show a discussion on information about Iraq.</li>
<li>In September 2, 2010, email exchange <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hrc-emails-oct-18-00687-pg-673-674/">marked classified</a>, longtime Clinton confidante Lanny Davis tells Secretary Clinton that he could serve as a private channel for her to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying he had a &#8220;private and highly trusted communication line, unofficial and personal, to PM N[etanyahu].&#8221; Davis goes on to say &#8220;[N]o one on the planet (other than your wonderful husband) can get this done as well as you.&#8230;&#8221; Secretary Clinton responds with classified information, saying &#8220;I will reach out to you directly and hope you will continue to do the same w me. The most important issue now is [Redacted B1].&#8221;</li>
</ul>
Other emails worthy of note include an email confirming a meeting with a pro-Putin billionaire from Georgia, Bidzina Ivanishivil, &#8220;who was <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-replicates-his-georgia-model-in-the-us/">reportedly</a> involved in a Russia-rigged election for president of the Republic of Georgia,&#8221; Judicial Watch notes. And another <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hrc-emails-oct-18-00687-pg-125/">email</a> from the deputy secretary of state says Biden was &#8220;thinking seriously about a <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/boris-mamlyuk/towards-a-biden-putin-com_b_157382.html">Biden-Putin Commission</a>.&#8221;
There&#8217;s also this eyebrow-raising detail:
<blockquote>
On October 29, 2009, a Clinton Foundation employee and close Clinton adviser <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/hillary-clintons-rogue-agenda-why-sid-blumenthal-matters/">Sid Blumenthal</a> forwarded <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hrc-emails-oct-18-00687-pg-376-379/">a proposal</a> for a commercial contract related to improvised explosive devices (IEDs) from retired CIA officer-turned-contractor Gary Berntsen, to Clinton (copying Cheryl Mills), saying that Berntsen had been &#8220;unable to break through the bureaucracy with it.&#8221; Mills then forwarded the email to Jake Sullivan. Blumenthal noted that &#8220;Cody [Shearer] and I are following up.&#8221; Blumenthal and Shearer were <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/31/cody-shearer-sidney-blumenthal-emerge-russia-dossi/">both implicated</a> in the creation of the Obama administration&#8217;s anti-Trump Russia &#8220;collusion&#8221; counterintelligence operation by providing &#8220;reports&#8221; relating to Trump-Russia collusion to the U.S. Government.
</blockquote>
Judicial Watch notes that the documents also reveal that Clinton had been assigned an official <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hrc-emails-oct-18-00687-pg-350-351-2/">government email address</a> she could have used but instead chose to use her unapproved, unsecured private server. One email contains a comment from her former chief of staff as a senator discussing getting &#8220;<a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hrc-emails-oct-18-00687-pg-618/">a secure computer set up soon</a>.&#8221;
The emails also contain an exchange between Blumenthal and Clinton in which he lays out a plan to thwart an alleged plot by the &#8220;Jewish institutional leadership&#8221; to undermine an Obama appointee. (<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44981/newly-uncovered-clinton-email-exchange-describes-james-barrett">Read more here</a>.)
<a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-more-classified-emails-in-hillary-clintons-unsecure-email-system/">Read the Judicial Watch&#8217;s full release here</a>.

‘Final Batch’ Of Emails Clinton Tried To ‘Delete Or Destroy’ Uncovered: Contain More Classified Material

Hillary Clinton

Conservative government transparency group Judicial Watch filed <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/complaint-against-rep-adam-schiff-03-11-19/">an official complaint</a> with the Office of Congressional Ethics against House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Monday, alleging the congressman acted inappropriately when he met with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson and former Trump attorney Michael Cohen ahead of their congressional hearings.
Last week, The Daily Wire reported on Schiff&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44200/nagging-ethics-questions-regarding-democrat-house-ashe-schow">nagging ethics questions</a>,&#8221; pointing out that Schiff&#8217;s meeting with Simpson carries the appearance of impropriety, as it occurred before Simpson testified about his involvement in the alleged Russian collusion narrative and his role in the FBI&#8217;s previous investigation into Hillary Clinton&#8217;s private email server. The article was published just before it was revealed that Schiff met with Cohen for a total of 10 hours before the latter testified before the House regarding what he knows about other alleged crimes committed by President Donald Trump.
While the Judicial Watch complaint focuses on these two meetings, it should also be noted that Schiff appears to have leaked confidential information to the media during closed-door testimony. Multiple sources have reported that Schiff would leave the room during testimony, and a few minutes later a &#8220;scoop&#8221; would appear on CNN reporting on something from the meeting. Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) said Schiff did this during Donald Trump Jr.&#8217;s closed-door testimony. Former staffer Donny Ferguson said Schiff did this during Benghazi hearings, and the same thing happened during Cohen&#8217;s testimony.
&#8220;Rep. Schiff has an ethics problem. His and his staff&#8217;s irregular communications with anti-Trump witnesses reflect poorly on the credibility of the House and its committees&#8217; investigations,&#8221; Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-files-ethics-complaint-over-rep-adam-schiffs-contacts-with-glenn-simpson-and-michael-cohen/">a press release</a>. &#8220;It has long been apparent that Rep. Schiff can&#8217;t be trusted to lead the Intelligence Committee, so we hope that Democrats on the Ethics Committee stop protecting Mr. Schiff and take action.&#8221;
The complaint cites the House Code of Official Conduct and media reports on Schiff&#8217;s behavior, but then uses Schiff&#8217;s own words against him. In 2017, Schiff demanded then-House Intel Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) recuse himself because he had told Trump about an &#8220;incidental collection&#8221; of campaign communications.
Schiff at the time wrote that &#8220;I believe the public cannot have the necessary confidence that matters involving the president&#8217;s campaign or transition team can be objectively investigated or overseen by the chairman.&#8221;
Fitton wants Schiff held to the same standards. Schiff is overseeing his own investigations into Trump, and these meetings with people prior to their testimony is suspect. If Nunes&#8217; behavior hurt public confidence, surely Schiff&#8217;s meetings, leaks, and the fact that he <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44373/adam-schiff-hires-prosecutor-turned-pundit-who-ashe-schow">hired a pundit who already has a desired outcome</a> to conduct an investigation should hurt public confidence as well.
&#8220;Rep. Schiff&#8217;s conduct and contacts with witnesses must be treated with the same gravity that Reps. Schiff and Pelosi accorded Rep. Nunes&#8217;s actions. Rep. Nunes recused himself for a time from certain oversight responsibilities with respect to the Russia-Trump investigations,&#8221; the complaint states.
Nunes was also investigated while he was the chairman for alleged wrongdoing. Nothing was found against him.

Judicial Watch Files Ethics Complaint Against Adam Schiff

Menu