Judge Lamberth’s reference to “constantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials” certainly describes the challenge to our effort to get to the bottom of the scandal.In another recent development, we obtained State Departmentfrom February 2009 containing emails that appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department and that she did not use her clintonemail.com email system until March 2009.The emails also contain more evidence of the battle between security officials in the State Department, National Security Administration, Clinton and her staff over attempts to obtain secure Blackberrys.The documents were obtained in response to a court order in an April 28, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State, filed after the Department of State failed to comply with a March 10, 2015, FOIA request seeking:On Feb. 13, 2009, Cheryl Mills (Clinton’s then-chief of staff) sent Clinton an email describing efforts by the National Security Agency to address demands for a secure BlackBerry: "In meeting with the NSA person today ([Redacted] NSA’s rep to DOS) – she indicated they could address our BB so that BB could work in the SCIFF [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility] and be secure based upon some modifications that could be done to each BB (more below)."Mills attaches an email from an unnamed NSA official that reports: "Debbie Plunkett, D/Chief of our Information Assurance Directorate, is personally assembling a knowledgeable team to work with you and other members of your staff to move forward on your Blackberry requirement."She will engage State’s CIO and DS/comms security folks to ensure everyone is aware of the art of the possible . . . I am confident we can get to YES on this! [Emphasis in original]"That same day, on Feb. 13 at 12:33 p.m. Clinton, using her unsecured hdr22@clintonemail.com account responds, “That’s good news.”As we have, National Security Agency personnel had denied Clinton’s requests for secure BlackBerry devices, telling Clinton staff to “shut up and color.”The new documents include another Feb. 13, 2009, email, written after the Mills-Clinton exchange, showing that State and NSA security officials were shocked and surprised by Clinton’s Blackberry demands.The new emails show that despite prior concerns about security and cost, the NSA and State Department officials came up with a plan to modify six Blackberry devices for Clinton and her staff. AState Department email states: "Pat Donovan [head of Bureau of Diplomatic Security] tasked us with a memo that he wanted by today and that we finished last night and that it outlines the vulnerabilities and risks of BB use inside and outside a SCIF (because they’re essentially the same) and concludes with our collaboration with NSA to seek an acceptable solution for their desired BB use."Despite this warning about using Blackberry “outside a SCIF,” Mrs. Clinton and her staff continued to use unsecured Blackberrys. The documents suggest a continued push for secure Blackberrys in late March 2009, but the documents are heavily redacted.Hillary Clinton has 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.In response to a court order in other Judicial Watch litigation, she declared under penalty of perjury that she had “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.”Now we know that, contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Hillary Clinton did not turn over all her government emails.We also know why Hillary Clinton falsely suggests she didn’t use clintonemail.com account prior to March, 18, 2009 – because she didn’t want Americans to know about her February 13, 2009, email that shows that she knew her Blackberry and email use was not secure.That Judicial Watch was able to make this astonishing find is a testament to excellent work by our tenacious and expert staff. The Washington Post did aon us last week titled “Judicial Watch, pursuing the Clintons like Inspector Javert for two decades, scores again.”I’m not too enamored by the Inspector Javert comparison, but the writer grudgingly compliments our work.The piece highlights the work of our “band of expert Freedom of Information Act lawyers — and make no mistake, they are good.”So with that “endorsement,” I encourage you toour “band” of members who want the truth about what our government is up to and believe no politician is above the law.