Judge orders State Department to search Hillary Clinton’s fmr. closest advisers emails over “Benghazi”

State Department ordered to produce records pertaining to the 2012 Benghazi attack, search email accounts belonging to Hillary Clinton"s closest advisers

WASHINGTON (INTELLIHUB) — On Friday, a federal judge ordered a State Department search of email accounts belonging to Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers during her tenure at the State Department for any information pertaining to “Benghazi.”

The search was ordered after a judge agreed with details submitted in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch aimed at exposing the former Madam Secretary’s mishandling of classified information which led to the Benghazi attack in 2012.

“This is a Freedom of Information Act case that we filed for all of Secretary Clinton’s emails related to the Benghazi attacks and from the onset the State department said that they are not going to search the official state.gov email accounts of her most senior aides who the State Department itself identified as individuals who worked closely with Secretary Clinton about Benghazi,” Judicial Watch attorney Ramona Cotca told One America News Network. “So it’s astonishing that that’s their position. We fought it in court this week and the judge agreed with us that the State Department needs to go back and search those email accounts.”

Cotca said that it’s been a long uphill battle trying to get the State Department to search the emails and said that they previously had “flat out refused to do it.” The attorney also pointed out how Hillary Clinton had “hand selected” and turned over only a small number of the 33,000 total emails in question and said that there is “no assurance provided by the State Department that that is a complete set of emails.”

According to Cotca, it should be a “simple” task to search the server for the records requested.

Featured Image: aphrodite-in-nyc/Flickr

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

---

Shepard Ambellas is an opinion journalist, analyst, and the founder and editor-in-chief of Intellihub News & Politics (Intellihub.com). Shepard is also known for producing Shade: The Motion Picture (2013) and appearing on Travel Channel’s America Declassified (2013). Shepard is a regular contributor to Infowars. Read more from Shep’s World. Follow Shep on Facebook and Twitter.

---

Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio found guilty of ‘contempt of court’

MARICOPA COUNTY, Ariz. (INTELLIHUB) — Former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio claims that he did not intentionally go against a previous ruling by a federal judge when he turned illegals over to authorities but was still charged with criminal contempt.

America’s toughest sheriff told authorities that he did not authorize DHS or ICE to turn illegal aliens over to U.S. Border Patrol and claimed that the judge’s ruling wasn’t very clear.

In 2011 a judge ruled that ‘just because someone is in the country illegally doesn’t mean that law enforcement can arrest them.’

One American Civil Liberties Union supporter said that she can’t wait until the day comes that the former sheriff is behind bars.

“Experts believe that Arpaio will not go to jail,” a Fox News staffer reports.

Featured Image: Gage Skidmore/Flickr

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

EDITORIAL: Judge bans defense arguments in Bundy retrial

I

f you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

‘I Was Wrong’: Judge Admits Jailing People for Pot ‘Haunts’ Him After Cannabis Saved His Life

Prior to this year, the state of Florida was regarded as one of the worst possible states to be caught in possession of cannabis. According to a 2009 analysis by former NORML Director Jon Gettman, no state in this country punished people more severely for minor marijuana offenses than Florida. However, thanks in part to a former Florida judge, all this is gradually changing.

By October 3, for the first time in its history, the state will issue IDs to medical marijuana patients. However, according to the former judge, the law doesn’t go nearly far enough.

Throughout the course of his career as a Florida judge, Doug Bench hated marijuana. He admits to locking up hundreds of people for this plant and did so because he thought it was the right thing to do. While it is too late for the now-retired judge to help those whose lives he likely ruined through the persecution of pot, he is taking actions to help countless others now and in the future.

When Bench was diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, or COPD, which can result in a slow and painful death, his life was saved after realizing the benefits of cannabis in treating his disease. Now, Bench has made it his life’s work to wake people up to the “70 years of lies” the US government has told the citizens about marijuana.

In a public forum on Florida’s Medical Marijuana Implementation earlier this year, Bench presented a powerful speech to note how the law simply does not go far enough to help those who need access to cannabis.

READ MORE:  Trump Threatens to "Destroy" Senator for Bill Making it Harder for Cops to Steal From You

“I put 311 people in jail for marijuana offenses — and I was wrong,” the judge says as he opens up his speech.

“I’ve been haunted for 30 years, wondering how many of those (people I put in jail) were using cannabis for medical reasons because our government suppressed that information for 70 years.”

Bench then notes that it was his COPD that opened his eyes to the benefits of cannabis.

“I’m now an advocate for medical marijuana because two years ago, I was diagnosed with a terminal disease,” he explains, before going on to explain that his wife’s “four hours of research on the internet,” found the benefits of cannabis oil for COPD.

“I hated marijuana, I hated the use of marijuana and the violation of the law,” Bench explains. “But, I had no choice, I had to break the law if I wanted to live.”

Bench, like so many other people who the Free Thought Project has interviewed and reported on, was forced to become a criminal to save his own life — in the land of the free.

At this point, Bench then advocates to let free enterprise handle the solution to medical marijuana instead of the slow turning wheels of the bureaucracy. Instead of a top-down system of the state running everything in regards to a plant that heals people, Bench advocates for a horizontal integration, allowing ease of access at all levels, not just those well-connected lobbyists with state ties.

“By the time you finally go (to the doctor to get medical cannabis), you need it now, not 90 days from now,” Bench said before calling out the restrictive nature of the Florida law.

READ MORE:  SWAT Raids Man"s Home over $100 in Pot, Shoot at Him 57 Times, Paralyze Him, Then Lie About It

“I think you should take the word ‘debilitating’ totally out of it,” said Bench. “What I had, COPD, a terminal disease, is not on your list.”

“I’d be dead if I had to treat under this mandate of Florida law.”

The heroism and humility shown by Doug Bench are inspiring, to say the least. If a tiny fraction of the people within law enforcement and government had half of this man’s gumption, the drug war would be over tomorrow and people who can benefit from cannabis would have access immediately.

The Free Thought Project salutes you, Judge Doug Bench. Please share this article to show others how change is possible and even the most staunch drug warriors, who “hate marijuana,” have the ability to change.

Please share this article to show others how change is possible and even the most staunch drug warriors, who “hate marijuana,” have the ability to change.

‘If God Is Loving, Why Does He Send People To Hell?

Image source: Pixabay.com

Some our deepest longings, played out in box office hits, call for swift justice against wrongdoing. Yet, our society is built on the foundation of the rule of law and justice for all — the very antithesis of this spirit of vigilantism. We go to great lengths to ensure even criminals receive equal protection. We settle for procedural justice, knowing it isn’t perfect, while longing for a primitive yet perfect justice, where the criminal meaningfully pays for the wrongs he committed.

Yet, who among us is capable of determining and executing this perfect justice? We reject vigilantism in real life because it is private, unaccountable and quickly corrupted. We fall back to a legal system built on procedure, and vicariously enjoy our desire for vengeance on the movie screen.

Must we always choose between the two? Is there any hope for real justice in the world?

God has revealed Himself as an avenging God (Nahum 1). We recoil at the thought, but the omniscient, holy God is the only one capable of dispensing perfect justice. We are conflicted, because we know this vengeful God can finally judge evil — but we also know that puts us in jeopardy, because we, too, have done evil. So we imagine that God is like us, that He hates the things we hate, and will put the Hilters and Stalins and serial killers of the world in hell … but not people like you and me.

But what kind of God is that? The sort of God who is partial and plays favorites isn’t one to trust.

Because God is perfectly and always good, He isn’t partial; He must put an end to sin, and all sinners, for His justice to be perfect. Therefore, a good God must be a God who judges all evil—including the evil in me. If real justice is what we seek from God, the irony is that very goodness is what we can least endure about Him in our own lives, because He demands perfection.

Christian Heroes For Christian Kids: These Amazing Stories Are Putting God Back Into History!

And in Jesus Christ, the God of towering, unimpeachable and unbending justice shows mercy to any and all sinners who bow their head and put their faith in Him.

What is our situation (Romans 3:10-20)?

In a word, bad. Everyone is in trouble—separated from God. We are spiritually condemned. We are characterized by faithlessness, unrighteousness, sin and rejection of God. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans makes it clear that we’re depraved. We have rejected God.

You have a problem with justice—or, perhaps, it’s more accurate to say that justice has a problem with you. If you don’t understand this, you won’t understand Jesus’ claims.

Paul’s indictment is also aimed at you. People have two defenses they tend to make against the accusation that they are sinner—either: “I’m not that bad,” or “God isn’t really that good.” The Bible says you are, in fact, that bad. The human reaction to these truths might be a resolve to “do better,” but Paul sweeps that hope away. No one can make themselves righteous.

God is holy—He does not just fudge to get His children out of trouble. The perfect Judge will condemn sin, including yours and mine.

Where does that leave you?

How can we be saved from this Judge (Romans 3:21-26)?

Your greatest need is for God to declare you righteous, and Paul declares that need can be met. God’s throne is built on righteousness and justice; this demands our sin to be dealt with.

How can He show mercy to the guilty?

God showed mercy and provided Christ to prove His commitment to justice. We often act on a presupposition that we deserve to be forgiven. But if you understand who this God is, you know this isn’t the case. God owes you nothing.

Christ’s death was an atoning sacrifice. Jesus took God’s wrath on our behalf, and God punished all our iniquities. This means the justice that demanded our death now pleads our case. God’s sword is no longer raised to strike us, but rather, to defend us.

This salvation is for all who will come (Rom. 3:26). It’s not something you work for or earn; it is a free gift by grace (Eph. 2:8-9). You must reject any notion that you play a role in your salvation. It is all by faith alone, in Christ alone, by His grace alone.

So, why would God send people to hell?

The world says, “How can God be love and send anyone to hell?” But heaven says, “How can God be just and allow anyone into heaven?”

The one who minimizes the gravity of hell minimizes the gravity of the cross. If hell isn’t real, Jesus was all bluster. If hell isn’t real, we ought to say, “Give it a rest, Jesus. We all know you’re just being metaphorical.” But not even one door in hell is found the word “exit.”

Want To Know The Real ‘God Story’ Behind The Constitution?

The fact that God is love doesn’t mean there is no hell. It means that if God abides in you and you in Him, there will be no hell for you.

Jesus talked more about hell than He did about heaven during His three year ministry (Matthew 13:41-50; Mark 9:43-49; Luke 16:19-31, etc.).  And the Bible isn’t sentimental about heaven and hell—not hesitant, not mushy. The message is clear and alarming (Isaiah 65:13-15).

All sin costs. It is very easy to go to hell. Simply do nothing. Or lots of things. Either way. Part of our sin is that it blocks out a feeling of sin. The “little” sins of everyday life will send us to eternal hell. The Quran says that God sends bad people to hell. The Bible says that, at the cross, God went to hell for bad people (Galatians 3:13). If God let every person run head-long into hell, He would still be just, and His reputation would remain untarnished.

Image source: Pixabay.com

The wages of sin cost God His Son and Christ His life. It costs believers repentance and unbelievers hell. Sin always costs. The next time you think you’re a good person, remember that God had to kill His Son to keep you out of hell. God says the worst about me (I deserve hell) & the best (I am loved & justified), so what you say about me is held in this perspective.

There are many paths to hell, but only one way to heaven. If everyone escapes hell and goes to heaven without trusting Christ alone, then Jesus was just wasting his time. Salvation is not just getting man out of hell and into heaven, but getting God out of heaven and into man.

Why, then, is it that some people are more sad by how many people unfollowed them on Instagram and Twitter and unfriended them on Facebook than by how many unbelievers went to hell today?

And if, at your church, you never hear about the righteous wrath of God, unleashed either at the cross or in hell, run.

The word of Christ’s finished work changed me, rescuing me from sin, hell, shame, depression and suicide. No church marketing gimmick can do that.  If we really believed in hell, our teaching, preaching and evangelism would be far more convincing.

One of the most loving and merciful things Jesus did was preach about hell. Unless you believe in hell, you will never know how much Jesus loves you. Hell is full of sincere, religious people, never born again, and heaven is full of immoral people who repented and believed in Christ.

Friend, if we didn’t wake up in hell today, we should be dancing. If we don’t know we deserve hell, we don’t know Christ.

This is why the great preacher C.H. Spurgeon said:

“When men talk of a little hell it’s because they think they have only a little sin and believe in a little Savior.”

God is good, and He’s a refuge to everyone who trusts in Him. But because He is good, He will also judge those who oppose Him to the bitter end. The cross is proof of that. On the day you appear before God, He will be good. The only question is what His verdict on you will be. Trust in God, trust in His goodness, and find Him to be good to you—all through Jesus Christ.

Hawaii Obama Judge Rules Muslim Imam Has Special Constitutional Rights…

SHADOW GOVERNMENT UPDATE–
Barack Obama paid a surprise visit to Honolulu, Hawaii on Monday just days before US District Court Judge Derrick Watson, who presides in Honolulu, ruled against President Trump’s temporary refugee ban from terror states.

(snip)

Via Pat Dollard and the Star Advertiser:

Coming off a string of high-profile meetings, former President Barack Obama made an unannounced return to Hawaii Monday.

Just three months removed from his last official holiday visit as president, Obama was spotted dining at Buzz’s Lanikai Monday night.

Local Democrats tried “their best to keep it under wraps the whole day.”

Then on Wednesday President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban was put on hold by US District Court Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu, Hawaii after hearing arguments that the executive order discriminates on the basis of nationality.

Judge Watson believes Somalis and Yemenis have the same constitutional rights as American citizens.

UPDATE: Also — the judge, one Judge Watson, managed to produce a 43-page decision within two hours of the case being filed. Speedy guy, huh!

The Gateway Pundit

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies,  foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.   You can donate HERE.

Victim Fights Back After Horrifying Video Shows Judge Torture Him in Court

Greenbelt, MD – In 2014, a man representing himself in a Maryland court was shocked and tortured with 50,000 volts of electricity by a judge because he continued to speak when the judge ordered him to stop.

Now, the victim, Delvon King is fighting back.

Judge Robert Nalley pleaded guilty in February 2016 to depriving King of his civil rights and video of the horrific incident was then released.

Nalley was facing up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $100,000 after pleading guilty. However, since he is subject to a different set of rules because he is a judge, he only had to pay a $5,000 fine.

On Monday, King filed a lawsuit against Nalley, who has since retired.

The charge against Nalley was also weak, as he did not simply deprive a man of his civil rights, but he tortured him. Under any other circumstances, Nalley’s actions would have been considered torture, but since he did it under the sanction of his place in government, he was given a pass.

Nalley never even apologized to King for the horrendous act.

During the trial, King had a shocker anklet attached to him, which was supposed to be used in case of an emergency situation, or if King were to attempt to escape or hurt anyone. However, this sadistic judge used it to torture.

“A judge can only take this type of measure if the litigant is a danger to those in the courtroom,” one of King’s lawyers, Steve Silverman, told The Huffington Post in an email Thursday. “Judges are not allowed to arbitrarily electrocute litigants. That is why the judge was convicted of a federal civil rights crime.”

READ MORE:  Police Chief Will Not Serve a Single Day in Jail for Murdering Unarmed Man in Parking Lot

As the Free Thought Project previously reported, in the court, King attempted to make his case but was constantly interrupted by the judge who repeatedly told him to be quiet. When King continued to make his case to the court, Judge Nalley told the court deputy “Mr. Sheriff, do it… use it,” at which point 50,000 volts of electricity were sent through King’s body, causing him to scream in pain. The court transcript read, “DEFENDANT SCREAMS.”

King later described the situation to reporters, saying that he experienced “Excruciating pain then, and a burning sensation.”

“It burned the rest of the day. Messed me up mentally. I don’t really remember that part. Just next thing I know, I’m on the ground,” King added.

The U.S attorney said that Judge Nalley acted as if he was above the law, and that this conviction should be a message to other state employees that they should treat the people that they encounter as equals — some message, pay $5,000 and go to an anger management class and you can get away with torturing a man.

“It’s not about race. It’s about power. It’s about a judge who abused the power vested in him to order a defendant to be punished essentially before he was convicted of any crime,” the attorney said.

According to Review Times, this is not the first time Nalley has been a defendant. This tyrant should have been gone a long time ago. In 2010, he pleaded guilty to tampering with a vehicle after he deflated the tire of a cleaning woman’s car that was parked in a restricted zone at the courthouse. As a result, he was fined, had to write a letter of apology and was suspended for five days without pay.

READ MORE:  Judge Says He"s a "Benevolent Dictator" Hangs Photo Of Hitler In Court, Refuses Gay Marriages

But, he was not fired.

Below is the video of this insane moment. Notice how the officer, without any hesitation, walks up to King and blindly follows the unlawful order. This video epitomizes the terrifying reality that stems from people just doing their jobs — as dictated by sadistic unaccountable tyrants.

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Facebook.

Defamation lawsuit against CNN over ‘perpetuation of fake news’ to move forward judge orders

WEST PALM BEACH, Flor. (INTELLIHUB) — A judge has ordered a defamation lawsuit filed against CNN to move forward.

According to a post on LawNews.com, The former C.E.O. of the local St. Mary’s Medical Center, Davide Carbone, filed suit against the three-letter news agency following his termination from the facility and his alleged subsequent hardships.

Carbone maintains that CNN “intentionally” skewed numbers in a “series of false and defamatory news reports” which ultimately cost him his job and has since made it difficult for him to find another job in the same field.

Carbone’s lawyer L. Lin Wood told LawNews.com:

“In our case, we contended that CNN essentially made up its own standard in order to conduct an ‘apples to oranges’ comparison to support its false assertion that St. Mary’s mortality rate was 3 times higher than the national average. Accordingly, the case against CNN certainly fits the description of media-created ‘Fake News."”

Federal District Judge Orinda Evans ruled on the 15th that for the case to move forward and even made mention that CNN may have acted with “actual malice.”

An excerpt from the order reads:

“The Court finds these allegations sufficient to establish that CNN was acting recklessly with regard to the accuracy of its report, i.e., with ‘actual malice.’

The actual order can be found on Twitter here:

Davide Carbone vs. CNN https://t.co/9VRCGXNTo9

— Intellihub (@intellihubnews) February 27, 2017

Featured Image: Phil Roeder/Flickr

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

Comment Policy: Threats of violence, foul language, bullying, and spam will not be tolerated and may be flagged.

From the Freedom Files – The President and the Courts

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Published on Feb 9, 2017

Last week, in a public courtroom in the federal courthouse in Seattle, the states of Washington and Minnesota — after suing President Donald Trump, alleging injury caused by his executive order that suspended the immigration of all people from seven foreign countries — asked a federal judge to compel the president and all those who work for him to cease enforcing the order immediately. After a brief emergency oral argument, the judge signed a temporary restraining order, which barred the enforcement of the president’s order everywhere in the United States.

The president reacted with anger, referring to the judge as a “so-called judge,” and immigrant rights groups praised the judicial intervention as a victory for the oppressed. The president meant, I think, that Judge James L. Robart had not acted properly as a judge by second-guessing him — that he had acted more like a politician; and the immigrant rights groups felt, I think, that the United States was once again a beacon of hope for refugees.

Here is the back story.

A 1952 federal statute permits the president to suspend the immigration status of any person or group whose entry into the United States might impair public health or safety or national security. Trump exercised that authority in accordance with the 1952 law when he signed his Jan. 27 order banning all immigration from the seven named countries.

When the president exercises powers granted to him by the Constitution or federal statues or when Congress passes bills, one cannot simply sue the government in federal court because one does not like what has been done. That is so because the Constitution has preconditions for a lawsuit in federal court. One of those preconditions is what lawyers and judges call “standing.” Standing means that the plaintiff has alleged and can most likely show that the defendant has caused the plaintiff an injury in fact, distinct from all others not in the case.

Hence, it is curious that the plaintiffs in the Seattle case were not people whose entry had been barred by Trump’s order but rather the governments of two states, each claiming to sue in behalf of people and entities resident or about to be resident in them. The court should have dismissed the case as soon as it was filed because of long-standing Supreme Court policy that bars federal litigation alleging harm to another and permits it only for the actual injury or immediate likelihood of injury to the litigant.

Nevertheless, the Seattle federal judge heard oral argument on the two states’ emergency application for a temporary restraining order against the president. During that oral argument, the judge asked a lawyer for the Department of Justice how many arrests of foreign nationals from the seven countries singled out by the president for immigration suspension there have been in the United States since 9/11. When the DOJ lawyer said she did not know, the judge answered his own question by saying, “None.”

He was wrong.

There have been dozens of people arrested and convicted in the United States for terrorism-related crimes since 9/11 who were born in the seven countries. Yet even if the judge had been correct, his question was irrelevant — and hence the answer meaningless — because it does not matter to a court what evidence the president relied on in this type of order. This is the kind of judicial second-guessing — substituting the judicial mind for the presidential mind — that is impermissible in our system. It is impermissible because the Constitution assigns to the president alone nearly all decision-making authority on foreign policy and because Congress has assigned to the president the power of immigration suspension as a tool with which to implement foreign policy.

Read more at judgenap.com

Federal Judge Ruling Orders Trump to Halt Travel Ban

February 3, 2017   |   admintam

(COMMONDREAMS) A federal judge on Friday issued a “first of its kind” ruling showing that President Donald Trump’s travel ban does not apply to legal permanent residents, in a partial victory against the controversial executive order.

U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts of Detroit reaffirmed that the order, temporarily blocking entry for immigrants and refugees from seven majority-Muslim countries, does not apply to permanent residents, including green card holders—who were among the many travelers caught up in the sweeping executive order that saw immigrants detained at airports across the country last week.

“The court orders that the United States is permanently enjoined from applying Sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the January 27, 2017 executive order against lawful permanent residents of the United States,” Roberts wrote in her decision (pdf).

Trump’s order, signed January 27, blocked entry to the U.S. for immigrants and refugees from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. It went into effect immediately, prompting massive protests at airports nationwide and swift action by civil and immigrant rights groups.

Nabih Ayad, an attorney with the Arab-American Civil Rights League, who co-filed an emergency lawsuit on Tuesday on behalf of several green card holders blocked from entering the country, told CBS Detroit on Friday, “It’s the first order of its kind across the nation. It makes absolutely certain that legal permanent residents — those with what we call in laypersons terms green card holders — can basically travel and leave the country as they please without hindrance by the executive order ban.”

Among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit were a U.S. citizen whose nine-year-old son was denied a visa to join his family; an immigrant who was issued a visa to enter the country as a lawful permanent resident; and the civil rights league itself, whose members have been “adversely affected” by the executive order.

The victory comes just after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other civil and immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of tens of thousands of immigrants currently residing legally in the U.S. who have been impacted by the executive order.

“These xenophobic policies do not make us safer,” said Trina Realmuto, litigation director for the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, on Thursday. “Instead, they undermine American values.”

Jennie Pasquarella, immigrants’ rights director for the ACLU of California and senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, added, “By freezing Muslim immigrants out of the ability to become U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, the president’s unconstitutional ban now takes aim at the very system that has made the United States a pluralistic nation.”

---

This article (Federal Judge Ruling Orders Trump to Halt Travel Ban) by Nadia Prupis, originally appeared on CommonDreams.org and is licensed Creative Commons 3.0. The Anti-Media radio show airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos: edits@theantimedia.org