Thank goodness for Judicial Watch! Over and over they have filed Freedom of Information requests on Obama and his minions. At least they’re trying to get to the bottom of the corruption but the stonewalling continues…
Everyone’s focused on Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the FBI about the e-mail scandal. But that’s not the only FBI interview of a top Obama official that’s starting to get attention.
There was another interview – with Barack Obama himself – that now is the subject of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit because the government is withholding details from the public.
“This lawsuit highlights the personal corruption issues of Barack Obama,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Barack Obama and his closest aides were interviewed by the FBI in a criminal investigation and his administration doesn’t want Americans to have the details.
“The Chicago way shouldn’t trump the American people’s right to know,” he said.
The FBI interview with Obama, which reportedly lasted two hours, was at the time when former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was facing charges for trying to sell Obama’s U.S. Senate seat.
Judicial Watch said Thursday it has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice in Washington to obtain the FBI interview records of Obama, who at the time was leaving the Senate as president-elect.
Obama, top aide Valerie Jarrett and his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, now mayor of Chicago, were interviewed, Judicial Watch said.
Blagojevich eventually was convicted on multiple counts and is serving a prison sentence.
Judicial Watch filed its FOIA request in 2011 for records of FBI interviews with Obama, Emanuel and Jarrett “concerning or relating” to Blagojevich.
The Washington watchdog group reported that in 2012, the FBI denied the FOIA request, claiming the records were exempt.
At the time, Record/Information Dissemination Section Chief David M. Hardy said, “I have determined that the records responsive to your request are law enforcement records; that there is a pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these requests; and that the release of the information contained in these responsive records could reasonably be expected to interfere with the enforcement proceedings.”
Read more: wnd