Sunday, April 23, 2017

Judicial Watch

by -
Oops! We missed these. Sorry America.

Judicial Watch announced today that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reported to a U.S. District Court that it located “an additional 6,924 documents of potentially responsive records” relating to a 2015 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit about the Obama IRS targeting scandal. The FOIA lawsuit at issue sought records about the IRS selection of individuals and organizations for audits based upon applications requesting non-profit tax status filed by Tea Party and other 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations (Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:15-cv-00220)).

These newly identified records are presumably not records that were contained in the “Congressional Database,” which the IRS created in 2013 to house records responsive to congressional inquiries into the IRS scandal.

The IRS is unwilling to commit to a timeframe in which the new documents will be made public:

At this time, the Service is unable to provide an estimate regarding when it will complete its review of the potentially responsive documents. The Service will begin producing any non-exempt, responsive documents by March 10, 2017, and, if necessary, continue to produce non-responsive records on a bi-weekly basis.

“The corruption at the IRS is astounding.  Our attorneys knew that there were more records to be searched but the Obama IRS ignored this issue for years,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “President Trump needs to clean house at the IRS as quickly as possible.”

In July 2015, Judicial Watch released Obama IRS documents confirming that the agency used donor lists of tax-exempt organizations to target those donors for audits.  The documents also show IRS officials specifically highlighted how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may come under “high scrutiny” from the IRS.

In September 2014, another Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit forced the release of documents detailing that the IRS sought, obtained and maintained the names of donors to Tea Party and other conservative groups. IRS officials acknowledged in these documents that “such information was not needed.” The documents also show that the donor names were being used for a “secret research project.”

by -
Going after the Deep State

Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the United States Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury regarding records related to the investigation of retired United States Army Lieutenant General Michel Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (Judicial Watch v. Central Intelligence Agency et al. (No.1:17-cv-00397)).  (The National Security Agency refused to confirm or deny the existence of intelligence records about communications between Gen. Flynn and Amb Kislyak.)

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the agencies failed to respond to a January 25, 2017, FOIA request seeking:

Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the investigation of retired Gen. Michael Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak between October 1, 2016 and the present.

This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all related warrants, affidavits, declarations, or similar records regarding the aforementioned investigation.

For purposes of clarification, please find enclosed a CNN report regarding the investigation, which cites information that was provided to CNN by members of the Intelligence Community.

In its complaint Judicial Watch asks the court to order the agencies to search for all records responsive to its FOIA requests and demonstrate that they employed reasonable search methods; order the agencies to produce by a specific date all non-exempt records and a Vaughn index of all withheld records; and instruct the agencies to cease withholding all non-exempt records.

On January 23, 2017, CNN reported that the government was investigating Flynn, former national security adviser to President Trump:

The calls were captured by routine US eavesdropping targeting the Russian diplomats, according to the intelligence and law enforcement officials. But the officials said some of the content of the conversation raised enough potential concerns that investigators are still looking into the discussions, amid a broader concern about Russian intelligence-gathering activities in the United States.

The officials all stressed that so far there has been no determination of any wrongdoing.

FBI and intelligence officials briefed members of the Obama White House team before President Barack Obama left office about the Flynn calls to the Russian ambassador, sources said.

“President Trump is on to something. The Obama-connected wiretapping and illegal leaks of classified material concerning President Trump and General Flynn are a scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Judicial Watch aims to get to the truth about these crimes and we hope the Trump administration stands with us in the fight for transparency.”

by -

What a difference a year—and a presidential victory—makes. President Donald Trump was persona non grata at last year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) outside Washington D.C. He ended up bailing at the last minute from speaking at the annual event, but had he kept the appointment grass-roots conservatives were planning to walk out during the address.

At the time the bombastic billionaire, a CPAC veteran known for engaging deliveries, was running for president and many conservatives shunned him, asserting that he wasn’t conservative enough. It didn’t help that he blew them off. The former chairman of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which hosts the annual event said in a news report that Trump’s cancellation was “about as strong a slap in the face as you can get.”

Fast forward to this year’s conference in National Harbor Maryland, outside of Washington D.C. Trump received a rock star ovation and, appropriately, exited the stage to the classic Rolling Stones tune “You Can’t Always Get What You Want.” He took the stage to Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the U.S.A.” Ronald Reagan was the last U.S. president to speak at CPAC in his first year in office and that was more than three and a half decades ago.

Trump came out firing at the media, which occupied about half of the ballroom floor. More than 1,300 credentialed reporters, photographers and camera crew covered the event, some from student outlets and conservative organizations but the traditional mainstream media was also represented in full force. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and the Los Angeles Times were among those present.

Trump spent a chunk of his speech trashing the establishment, charging that “fake news” outlets are “the enemy of the people.” His delivery was sprinkled with blow after blow directed at the mainstream media. “They’re very smart, they’re very cunning,” Trump said as the crowd cheered loudly.

“There are some terrible dishonest people and they do a tremendous disservice to our country.” Needless to say, the targets were less than thrilled and the media sphere exploded. One mainstream newspaper called it “a declaration of war on the news media.” Another accused the president of being “totally obsessed with the media.” Yet another major paper determined that Trump used CPAC to complain about the media.

The electrified crowd sucked it up and often erupted chanting “U.S.A, U.S.A!” The president spoke about strengthening the military, protecting the southern border, trade and repealing Obamacare. “As part of my pledge to restore safety for the American people, I have also directed the defense community to develop a plan to totally obliterate ISIS,” Trump said. He also revealed that “as we speak today, immigration officers are finding gang members, drug dealers and criminal aliens and throwing them the hell out of our country. And we will not let them back in.

They’re not coming back in folks.” Of interesting note is that small flags resembling Russia’s flag with Trump plastered across them, were waved by a few dozen attendees. It’s not clear if it was a prank, but a young man with a blue CPAC bag was distributing them for free in the hallway outside the ballroom where the president spoke. CPAC staff members were observed confiscating some of the flags.

Genevieve Peters, an educator who works for the Los Angeles public school district, described Trump’s speech as “phenomenal.” Peters made the trek from her home in the bastion of liberalism with a friend, who is Mexican-American, and also a big Trump supporter.

The women let loose at CPAC because they assert that it’s downright dangerous to express conservative ideas where they live in Los Angeles County. “I can’t wear my ‘Make America Great Again’ hat in L.A.,” Peters said. “I’m as bold as they get and I attended campaign events all over the country, but when I got back home, everything went in the drawer.” Her favorite thing about Trump is that he’s “America first.”

by -

On the second day of CPAC, it was obvious who the crowds came to see and Trump delivered a memorable speech.

Many in the Trump administration also spoke at the convention. The administration was well represented on the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) outside Washington, D.C. The president’s beleaguered counselor, Kellyanne Conway, kicked off a morning session at the annual political event and a few hours later Education Secretary Betsy DeVos took the stage of the main ballroom of the Gaylord Resort in National Harbor Maryland just south of the capital.

Both women have served as mainstream media punching bags lately and undoubtedly enjoyed a friendlier crowd at the annual powow. Conway ran President Trump’s campaign and spoke about what it’s like to work for the commander-in-chief.

DeVos, who recently endured hostile Senate confirmation hearings, joked; “I’m sure you heard all the wonderful things the media has called me” and reminded the crowd that she was the was the first to tell former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders that there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Minutes after DeVos spoke in the main ballroom, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and White House Strategist Steve Bannon took the stage together. Always good for an entertaining soundbite, Bannon referred to the media as the opposition party and said “they’re corporatist, globalist media that are adamantly opposed to an economic nationalist agenda.”

Reporters from virtually all of the nation’s mainstream media outlets sat in the back area cordoned off for press. Priebus countered rumors that he and Bannon are rivals competing for influence in the White House. Thursday was the day of appetizers, but everyone is really excited for Trump.

The big talk among the thousands of attendees, many of them college students, is the presidents much-anticipated appearance on Friday. Trump has spoken at CPAC many times, but only as a sort of entertainment figure.

Now he’s the leader of the free world. “It’s very exciting to see a president, right here,” said a college junior from Nebraska. A Florida woman who hasn’t missed a CPAC in six years, predicts she won’t sleep tonight. “I thank God he won the election,” she said. “Can you imagine what would become of our country if he didn’t.” A similar feeling of enthusiasm filled the conference.

When Trump took stage the crowd was incredibly enthusiastic, and why shouldn’t they be excited.

See the speech below.

Thoughts? Comment below.

by -
Native Hawaiian

The Department of the Interior (DOI) last year promulgated a rule intended to provide a way to organize “a Native Hawaiian government” that could “seek a government-to-government relationship with the United States.” In plain English, this is an attempt to grant tribal status to Native Hawaiians by executive decree. The means for accomplishing this would be a vote, restricted by the regulation to those who had at least one drop of Native Hawaiian blood.

This atrocious rule, which is almost certainly unconstitutional, should immediately be repealed. Congress has the power to do so now under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). This law allows Congress a certain time to object to any new rule if it believes, for example, that an agency has overstepped its legal authority. If the President agrees, the rule is repealed.

The DOI’s regulation amounts to (another) attempt by the now-departed Obama Administration to use an executive order to circumvent Congress – and the Constitution. Under art. I, § 8, Congress is vested with the authority to regulate commerce with Indian tribes. This has been interpreted to mean that Congress has complete power to make this decision. Starting in 2000 and for more than a decade, Hawaii’s Senator Akaka tried to convince Congress to pass the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, popularly known as the “Akaka Bill.” The Akaka Bill would have granted Native Hawaiians a pathway to federal tribal status. But Congress never passed the bill.

Switching tactics, the Obama Administration decided to try to accomplish the same thing by executive action. Relying on a hodgepodge of federal statutes, the DOI argued that a “special” or “trust” relationship existed between the U.S. government and Native Hawaiians, and that this provided the basis for the DOI to adopt a regulation creating a pathway to Native Hawaiian tribal status. This approach is dishonest. The federal government has never recognized Native Hawaiians as a sovereign entity like other Indian tribes. If it had, there would have been no need for the Akaka Bill. When members of Congress expended political energy for more than a decade trying to pass that bill, were they wasting their time? The DOI’s regulation is based on a fiction and ignores the obvious: Native Hawaiians have not been granted federal tribal status because Congress rejected the effort to do so.

Even worse is what the DOI’s regulation does. It requires members of the Native Hawaiian community to adopt a “governing document” – meaning a constitution – and then to submit that document to a “ratification vote.” Under the DOI’s regulation, that ratification vote would be restricted to voters who can prove that they were descendants “of the aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii.” A single drop of blood is enough to be allowed to vote. This is the same ugly standard applied during the Jim Crow era to define a person as black for the purposes of the segregation statutes.

Such a rule would define more than 500,000 Americans as “Native Hawaiian.” (Only 1.3 million people live in Hawaii.) If such a tribe ever were formed, it would instantly become the largest tribe in the United States, by a wide margin. Indeed, this looks more like a secession movement that the designation of a tribe. When Hawaii tried to take advantage of this regulation by holding an election restricted to “Native Hawaiians,” using the same definition as the DOI, Judicial Watch sued on the grounds that this constituted racial discrimination in violation of the Constitution. (Akina v. State of Hawaii, No. 15-322.) The Supreme Court appeared to agree when it granted an injunction in December 2015 stopping the election. Hawaii later abandoned its efforts to hold such an election.

This is a strong sign that the Supreme Court would also enjoin any other attempt to hold a racially exclusive, “Native Hawaiian” election. The DOI’s rule is nothing but an invitation to violate the Constitution. It should be repealed now under the CRA.

by -

A mosque situated about an hour’s drive from the nation’s capital recently held a ceremony to honor a radical Islamist who murdered a beloved political figure in Pakistan for publicly chastising the Muslim country’s blasphemy laws and supporting a Christian woman. The facility, Gulzar E. Madina Mosque, sits in the Maryland suburb of Pikesville, roughly 50 miles from Washington D.C. and a dozen or so miles from Baltimore.

A Pakistani digital news publication covered the outrageous celebration and published a detailed account, including pictures and speeches delivered by radical clergy.

The event is officially known as an “Urs”, a Muslim celebration to commemorate the death anniversary of saints. In this case, the Maryland mosque was honoring an Islamist assassin named Mumtaz Qadri who shot the governor (Salman Taseer) of Punjab province in 2011 for speaking out against the nation’s abhorrent blasphemy laws. Qadri was the governor’s bodyguard and he shot him 28 times in Islamabad’s Kohsar Market in broad daylight, according to an international news report.

He was charged with terrorism and murder by an anti-terrorism court in Pakistan and was hanged in 2016. The execution ignited violent protests throughout Pakistan, where Islamist groups hailed Qadri as a hero. That’s hardly surprising for an Islamic south Asian country with an official law that bans the use of derogatory remarks about the holy prophet Mohammad. Violators are punished with death or life imprisonment.

But nearly 12,000 miles across the Atlantic, in the land of the free and the civilized, it’s downright unacceptable that these atrocities are praised. Nevertheless, that’s exactly what occurred at the Gulzar E Madina Mosque in Maryland earlier this week. In a Sunday “Urs” commemoration attended by dozens of people, including children and teenagers, the radical Islamist assassin was honored. The event had been advertised in the largest Urdu newspaper in the U.S., the Urdu Times, and a large crowd turned out for the festivities.

Among them was a New Jersey-based Islamic scholar named Syed Saad Ali who referred to Qadri as surpassing all warriors and blasted the crowd for not helping him while he was in jail, kissing the noose in love for Prophet Mohammed. “Qadri did everything for us and for the love of Islam and we could not even stand by him,” the fiery scholar told the crowd. “People say Islam teaches peace…I say Islam teaches us ghairat (honor). Who will now stand up?” Ali also glorified another Islamist assassin named Tanveer Ahmad, who stabbed a fellow British-Pakistani man to death in Scotland for posting blasphemous statements on social media.

Also, delivering the pro terrorist rhetoric at the U.S. mosque was a Baltimore-based imam named Ijaz Hussain, who said Qadri was not a terrorist and whoever says “we are with you O prophet cannot be a terrorist.” He proceeded to denounce American Muslim groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), for failing to act against those who commit blasphemy and praised free speech in the U.S. for allowing the terror-praising powwow to take place.

An unidentified speaker, whose photo is included in the article, took the podium and said this: “Whoever disrespects the Holy Prophet Muhammad is worthy of death, and even if disrespects indirectly he is still worthy of death. Even if someone asks for forgiveness it is not acceptable.”

It’s disgraceful that this sort of support for terrorist acts is glamorized and praised in the United States. Undoubtedly, eight years of Obama administration policies protecting Muslim rights and downplaying the connection between Islam and radical terrorism caused a lot of damage. Obama launched a government-wide Muslim rights initiative that forced federal agencies to go out of their way to accommodate Muslims and avoid offending them by, among other things, caving into their demands involving law enforcement anti-terrorism training considered offensive.

Read a Judicial Watch report on that here. Last year a Homeland Security Advisory Council recommended eliminating divisive Islamic terms like “jihad” and “sharia” to avoid “us versus them” in government anti-terror programs.

by -

Weeks after the House Minority leader blasted President Donald Trump for pledging to investigate voter fraud, a federal appellate court has ruled that a Peruvian immigrant can be deported from the U.S. for illegally voting in a federal election. The decision comes on the heels of a spat between Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and the president.

The California Democrat accused Trump of making false claims of election fraud and said that undermining the integrity of our voting system is “really strange.” Most Democrats in Congress agree with the former House Speaker and strongly oppose an investigation, asserting it will limit access to voting.

Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of the mainstream media coverage promotes the Democrats’ inaccurate version of the facts. One news network referred to Trump’s voter fraud claims as “baseless” and simply an excuse to enact restrictive voting laws. Another wrote that “Trump’s ‘iIlegals voting’ comments are false and divisive,” calling voter fraud by undocumented immigrants “patently false.”

In an editorial titled “The Latest Voter Fraud Lie,” a mainstream newspaper writes that the “baseless claims continue to get converted into policy in the form of stricter voting laws like requiring prospective voters to show a photo ID…” A multitude of similar media reports have flooded the news wires in the week’s following Trump’s meeting with congressional leaders to address the issue.

This week’s appellate court ruling provides a jolt of reality that the media has chosen to ignore. Election fraud was a significant concern in 2008 and 2010, which is why Judicial Watch launched an election integrity project in 2012. The project is a legal campaign to force cleanup of voter registration rolls as well as monitor elections. As an example of the pervasive fraud, Judicial Watch uncovered that 1,046 aliens, or residents who are not U.S. citizens, were on the voter rolls in eight Virginia counties leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

If that rate of non-citizen registration held in the rest of Virginia’s counties, that would mean that about 6,500 non-citizens are registered to vote in the state. Additionally, Judicial Watch’s investigation found that 57,923 Virginians were registered to vote in at least one other state as well as 19 deceased individuals. Similar issues have been uncovered in several other states as part of Judicial Watch’s ongoing probe into election fraud.

The Latin American woman in the recent court ruling who voted illegally is hardly an isolated case. Her name is Margarita Del Pilar Fitzpatrick and she lied about being an American citizen on an Illinois Department of Motor Vehicle form. It was that easy. Fitzpatrick, a legal U.S. resident with three kids, voted in two federal elections in 2006 and claims that she had official approval to cast a ballot after presenting her Peruvian passport and green card.

An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, the government’s highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, determined that Fitzpatrick should be deported because non-U.S. citizens cannot vote in federal elections and can be removed from the country for doing so.

The Peruvian woman did not back down, appealing the decisions in federal court. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the two previous rulings in favor of deportation, though it acknowledged that Fitzpatrick “led a productive and otherwise-unblemished life in this country.” In its decision, the court states that the motor vehicle form sternly warns aliens not to check the U.S. citizen box and that Fitzpatrick is “literate in English and has no excuse for making that misrepresentation.”

Aliens are forbidden to vote in federal elections, the ruling says, adding that “another statute provides for the removal of aliens who vote in violation of either state or federal law.” During oral argument, the appellate judges inquired whether Fitzpatrick is the kind of person the Attorney General and Department of Homeland Security want removed from the United States. “The answer was yes,” the ruling states.

by -
The pace of government.

Judicial Watch today announced a hearing will be held Tuesday, February 7, 2017, regarding Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking records held by the FBI containing text messages and emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stored on the equipment of Datto Inc., a commercial data management company, as well as FBI records about the device and what materials were recovered on it (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02369)).  The case is before U.S. District Court Judge Randolph D. Moss.

At the previous hearing Tuesday, January 24, 2017, Trump administration lawyers for the FBI informed Judicial Watch and the court that it located 35 FBI records that concern the Datto device and that it may take up to two years to release the records.  In addition, the FBI recovered approximately 10,000 messages from the Datto device.  The messages were turned over to the State Department to be processed and released on its website.

Tomorrow’s hearing should address whether the Trump FBI will be able to slow walk the release of these records.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeks:

  • All records, including but not limited to emails or text messages (SMSs, MMSs, BBMs, iMessages, etc.), discovered, recovered, retrieved from, or found on any Datto device, equipment, or hardware connected to or used to backup or support former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s clintonemail.com email system.
  • All records relating to the FBI’s efforts to discover, recover, retrieve, or find emails or text messages stored on the Datto device, equipment, or hardware …

Clinton reportedly was using an online backup service called Datto Inc. to create copies of her data during a time when she and her aides were improperly handling classified material. Datto’s website company promises data is “invincible, secure, and instantly restorable at any time.

Datto announced it had turned over a “hardware device” to the FBI, along with all Clinton emails the company had in its possession, possibly including Clinton’s deleted private emails:

“With the consent of our client and their end user, and consistent with our policies regarding data privacy, yesterday, Tuesday, October 6, Datto delivered a hardware device to the FBI containing all backed up data related to Platte Rivers Networks’ client known to be in its possession,” said the company.

The court hearing is scheduled for Tuesday morning.

by -

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton today made the following statement regarding the proposed change to House rules that would eliminate its Office of Congressional Ethics:

It is shameful that House Republicans are trying to destroy the Office of Congressional Ethics, the most significant ethics reform in Congress when it was established nearly a decade ago. This drive-by effort to eliminate the Office of Congressional Ethics, which provides appropriate independence and transparency to the House ethics process, is a poor way for the Republican majority to begin “draining the swamp.” The American people will see this latest push to undermine congressional ethics enforcement as shady and corrupt. The full House should seriously consider whether it wants to bear the brunt of public outrage and go through with the rule change this afternoon.

Background: Judicial Watch worked with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement to push for an independent body to help handle ethics investigations of House members. This effort led to the establishment of the Office of Congressional Ethics in 2008. Today’s proposed rule change by the House majority would eliminate the Office of Congressional Ethics and create a new entity under the complete control of the House Ethics Committee that is less transparent and subject to severe restrictions on any investigations of allegations of misconduct by House members.

by -

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding today’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a case that would require Secretary of State John Kerry to seek the help of the attorney general in recovering additional Hillary Clinton emails:

The courts seem to be fed up with the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce the rule of law on the Clinton emails. Today’s appeals court ruling rejects the Obama State Department’s excuses justifying its failure to ask the attorney general, as the law requires, to pursue the recovery of the Clinton emails. This ruling means that the Trump Justice Department will have to decide if it wants to finally enforce the rule of law and try to retrieve all the emails Clinton and her aides unlawfully took with them when they left the State Department.

The appellate ruling reverses a decision in which the District Court declared “moot” a Judicial Watch’s lawsuit challenging the failure of Secretary of State John Kerry to comply with the Federal Records Act (FRA) in seeking to recover the emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other high level State Department officials who used non-“state.gov” email accounts to conduct official business (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. John F. Kerry (No. 16-5015)). According to the FRA, if an agency head becomes aware of “any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal . . . or destruction of [agency] records,” he or she “shall notify the Archivist . . . and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of [those] records.”

An appellate panel found:

Appellants sought the only relief provided by the Federal Records Act—an enforcement action through the Attorney General. But nothing the Department did (either before or after those complaints were filed) gave appellants what they wanted. Instead of proceeding through the Attorney General, the Department asked the former Secretary to return her emails voluntarily and similarly requested that the FBI share any records it obtained. Even though those efforts bore some fruit, the Department has not explained why shaking the tree harder—e.g., by following the statutory mandate to seek action by the Attorney General—might not bear more still. It is therefore abundantly clear that, in terms of assuring government recovery of emails, appellants have not “been given everything [they] asked for.” Absent a showing that the requested enforcement action could not shake loose a few more emails, the case is not moot.

In May 2015 Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the State Department failed to take action following a letter to Kerry “notifying him of the unlawful removal of the Clinton emails and requesting that he initiate enforcement action pursuant to the FRA,” including working through the Attorney General to recover the emails. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit subsequently was consolidated with a later lawsuit by Cause of Action Institute. This ruling reverses a January 2016 decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissing the case and remands it.

TRENDING STORIES

lawsuit

First Lady Melania Trump triumphed in her lawsuit against the Daily Mail for writing a scandalous story she says was completely false. Trump will...