Hillary's Nightmare: FOIA Meets the Internet

August 27, 2016

Hillary's Nightmare: FOIA Meets the Internet

By William F. Marshall

Perhaps the most interesting development in this most interesting of presidential election seasons has been the convergence of the power of the Freedom of Information Act with the power of the Internet. The impact of these conjoined forces may well determine the political fate of one of our presidential candidates.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was signed into law, fittingly, on July 4, 1966. This piece of legislation, which has been amended and strengthened numerous times since its inception, is a testament to that unique "American exceptionalism" of which Barack Obama was so famously dismissive at a NATO summit meeting in February 2009. (Who can forget “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”?) FOIA truly embodies the spirit of Lincoln's immortal description of America representing "government of the people, by the people, for the people." It requires our government to be accountable to its citizens by allowing anyone to demand that the records of its operations be produced to those very citizens.

The Internet -- that other great product of American exceptionalism -- allows for the immediate dissemination of thousands of pages of raw documents to millions of people simultaneously. That immense set of eyes belongs to individuals with expertise in a wide array of fields, like medicine, national security, and forensic accounting (not to mention ethics).

Therein lies a problem for Hillary Clinton.

Never before in the history of American politics have the American people, with all their varied talent and knowledge, had the ability they now wield to scrutinize a presidential candidate with a long history in the political system and government employment by reviewing reams of their daily communications, calendars and other records generated in their careers. This capability exposes Mrs. Clinton's vulnerabilities on three fronts: her health, her reckless attitude toward national security information, and her degree of corruption arguably on a scale unprecedented for an American political figure.

To take one example in the first category, consider the new information that is coming to light about Hillary Clinton's health. While her ardent supporters and campaign flacks try to dismiss concerns being raised about this topic as the fevered imaginings of right-wing haters, newly released emails obtained through FOIA are adding pieces to a puzzle forming a very troubling picture. An email obtained through FOIA by Judicial Watch, for instance, revealed top Clinton aide Huma Abedin instructing a subordinate to be sure to repeat to Secretary Clinton the names of foreign dignitaries with whom she was to speak the next day because, Ms. Abedin explained, Mrs. Clinton is "often confused." This is a very disconcerting revelation by Hillary's "body woman" -- the person most intimately knowledgeable of Mrs. Clinton among her courtiers. As Dr. Jane Orient, the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, told Breitbart News, that observation along with other evidence, such as reports of falls taken by Mrs. Clinton, photos of Mrs. Clinton being physically supported by aides, and her use of prism eyeglasses, typically used to correct double vision, during her Benghazi testimony all potentially point to a very serious medical issue which should compel her to release all of her medical records to American voters before Election Day.

Considering Mrs. Clinton's second vulnerability, her treatment of national security information, records obtained by Judicial Watch through FOIA requests and litigation revealed an extraordinarily blasé attitude on the part of both Mrs. Clinton and her senior aides toward their oaths to protect highly sensitive, often classified, material. Examples of this cavalier attitude abound in the records Judicial Watch obtained. To cite just a few among many, Mrs. Clinton received classified documents on her unsecured email server containing information revealing the identities of U.S. personnel operating in intelligence capacities in foreign countries. Other records obtained through FOIA by Judicial Watch revealed Huma Abedin leaving Secretary Clinton’s presumably sensitive daily planning book on top of her bed in Ms. Abedin’s unlocked hotel room in a Caribbean country while she was off attending meetings. Ultimately, of course, the FBI investigated the egregiously lax operational security of Mrs. Clinton and her aides, and chose not to recommend prosecution, but that investigation itself would not have been initiated had Judicial Watch not obtained, again through FOIA, the infamous Ben Rhodes “talking points email,” which forced Congress into forming the Benghazi select committee, ultimately leading to the discovery of Mrs. Clinton’s secret email network.

Finally, the Freedom of Information Act has been decidedly critical in exposing for the American people the breathtaking pay-for-play schemes of the Clinton Foundation, working in concert with the State Department while Mrs. Clinton was at its helm. Revelations of the special access granted to the secretary of state for large donors to the Clinton Foundation are coming fast and furious (to coin a phrase). Large contributors such as Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain, Slimfast founder S. Daniel Abraham, and sports entertainment mogul Casey Wasserman were all granted expedited attention of one sort or another, which we know, again, from records obtained by Judicial Watch. Thankfully others, such as the Associated Press, are now doing their own fine reporting through the use of FOIA on the Clintons’ massive corruption, revealing the remarkable number of donors to the Clinton Foundation who had unrivalled access to the secretary of state. Similarly, excellent investigative work by Citizens United revealed top State Department official Cheryl Mills, whose phone logs Citizens United obtained through FOIA, essentially moonlighting for the Clinton Foundation.

The beauty of FOIA in enabling ordinary American citizens to obtain records from the government while being able to share those records with countless other individuals seamlessly via the Internet has opened up a new dimension in representative democracy. Medical doctors can glean insights from observations by aides of presidential candidates. Could John F. Kennedy’s drug addiction or Woodrow Wilson’s near-infirmity following his strokes while in office been concealed had FOIA and the Internet been existent in those eras? Those of us familiar with government classification systems can now see up close how blatantly our most senior foreign diplomat and her aides routinely violated the most basic regulations and laws relating to the protection of national security information. Financial analysts (and everyone else) can connect the dots between donations made to the secretary of state’s family foundation and privileges granted to those very same donors by the powerful government department she led, based on casual conversations in email exchanges, which are government records.

In short, the combination of FOIA and the Internet allows for the unprecedented, virtually instantaneous, scrutiny of huge numbers of government records in a way never envisioned just a few short years ago. It has resulted in the crowd-sourcing of intelligence analysis.

Our Founders, if their spirits are still observing us, must be overjoyed at this convergence of technology and the legally codified requirement for the government to furnish the records it generates to the people it represents. It is the quintessential tool of informed self-government.

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government and private sector for 30 years. He is presently a Senior Investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc. (The views expressed are the author’s alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.) 

Perhaps the most interesting development in this most interesting of presidential election seasons has been the convergence of the power of the Freedom of Information Act with the power of the Internet. The impact of these conjoined forces may well determine the political fate of one of our presidential candidates.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was signed into law, fittingly, on July 4, 1966. This piece of legislation, which has been amended and strengthened numerous times since its inception, is a testament to that unique "American exceptionalism" of which Barack Obama was so famously dismissive at a NATO summit meeting in February 2009. (Who can forget “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”?) FOIA truly embodies the spirit of Lincoln's immortal description of America representing "government of the people, by the people, for the people." It requires our government to be accountable to its citizens by allowing anyone to demand that the records of its operations be produced to those very citizens.

The Internet -- that other great product of American exceptionalism -- allows for the immediate dissemination of thousands of pages of raw documents to millions of people simultaneously. That immense set of eyes belongs to individuals with expertise in a wide array of fields, like medicine, national security, and forensic accounting (not to mention ethics).

Therein lies a problem for Hillary Clinton.

Never before in the history of American politics have the American people, with all their varied talent and knowledge, had the ability they now wield to scrutinize a presidential candidate with a long history in the political system and government employment by reviewing reams of their daily communications, calendars and other records generated in their careers. This capability exposes Mrs. Clinton's vulnerabilities on three fronts: her health, her reckless attitude toward national security information, and her degree of corruption arguably on a scale unprecedented for an American political figure.

To take one example in the first category, consider the new information that is coming to light about Hillary Clinton's health. While her ardent supporters and campaign flacks try to dismiss concerns being raised about this topic as the fevered imaginings of right-wing haters, newly released emails obtained through FOIA are adding pieces to a puzzle forming a very troubling picture. An email obtained through FOIA by Judicial Watch, for instance, revealed top Clinton aide Huma Abedin instructing a subordinate to be sure to repeat to Secretary Clinton the names of foreign dignitaries with whom she was to speak the next day because, Ms. Abedin explained, Mrs. Clinton is "often confused." This is a very disconcerting revelation by Hillary's "body woman" -- the person most intimately knowledgeable of Mrs. Clinton among her courtiers. As Dr. Jane Orient, the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, told Breitbart News, that observation along with other evidence, such as reports of falls taken by Mrs. Clinton, photos of Mrs. Clinton being physically supported by aides, and her use of prism eyeglasses, typically used to correct double vision, during her Benghazi testimony all potentially point to a very serious medical issue which should compel her to release all of her medical records to American voters before Election Day.

Considering Mrs. Clinton's second vulnerability, her treatment of national security information, records obtained by Judicial Watch through FOIA requests and litigation revealed an extraordinarily blasé attitude on the part of both Mrs. Clinton and her senior aides toward their oaths to protect highly sensitive, often classified, material. Examples of this cavalier attitude abound in the records Judicial Watch obtained. To cite just a few among many, Mrs. Clinton received classified documents on her unsecured email server containing information revealing the identities of U.S. personnel operating in intelligence capacities in foreign countries. Other records obtained through FOIA by Judicial Watch revealed Huma Abedin leaving Secretary Clinton’s presumably sensitive daily planning book on top of her bed in Ms. Abedin’s unlocked hotel room in a Caribbean country while she was off attending meetings. Ultimately, of course, the FBI investigated the egregiously lax operational security of Mrs. Clinton and her aides, and chose not to recommend prosecution, but that investigation itself would not have been initiated had Judicial Watch not obtained, again through FOIA, the infamous Ben Rhodes “talking points email,” which forced Congress into forming the Benghazi select committee, ultimately leading to the discovery of Mrs. Clinton’s secret email network.

Finally, the Freedom of Information Act has been decidedly critical in exposing for the American people the breathtaking pay-for-play schemes of the Clinton Foundation, working in concert with the State Department while Mrs. Clinton was at its helm. Revelations of the special access granted to the secretary of state for large donors to the Clinton Foundation are coming fast and furious (to coin a phrase). Large contributors such as Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain, Slimfast founder S. Daniel Abraham, and sports entertainment mogul Casey Wasserman were all granted expedited attention of one sort or another, which we know, again, from records obtained by Judicial Watch. Thankfully others, such as the Associated Press, are now doing their own fine reporting through the use of FOIA on the Clintons’ massive corruption, revealing the remarkable number of donors to the Clinton Foundation who had unrivalled access to the secretary of state. Similarly, excellent investigative work by Citizens United revealed top State Department official Cheryl Mills, whose phone logs Citizens United obtained through FOIA, essentially moonlighting for the Clinton Foundation.

The beauty of FOIA in enabling ordinary American citizens to obtain records from the government while being able to share those records with countless other individuals seamlessly via the Internet has opened up a new dimension in representative democracy. Medical doctors can glean insights from observations by aides of presidential candidates. Could John F. Kennedy’s drug addiction or Woodrow Wilson’s near-infirmity following his strokes while in office been concealed had FOIA and the Internet been existent in those eras? Those of us familiar with government classification systems can now see up close how blatantly our most senior foreign diplomat and her aides routinely violated the most basic regulations and laws relating to the protection of national security information. Financial analysts (and everyone else) can connect the dots between donations made to the secretary of state’s family foundation and privileges granted to those very same donors by the powerful government department she led, based on casual conversations in email exchanges, which are government records.

In short, the combination of FOIA and the Internet allows for the unprecedented, virtually instantaneous, scrutiny of huge numbers of government records in a way never envisioned just a few short years ago. It has resulted in the crowd-sourcing of intelligence analysis.

Our Founders, if their spirits are still observing us, must be overjoyed at this convergence of technology and the legally codified requirement for the government to furnish the records it generates to the people it represents. It is the quintessential tool of informed self-government

.

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government and private sector for 30 years. He is presently a Senior Investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc. (The views expressed are the author’s alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.) 

MultiCulturalism - Why It does not Work

We are constantly assaulted by the left about how America needs to be like other countries and how much better the world would be if we were actively pursuing the concept of an  "open Border"
policy in this country.  It simply will not work.  All one has to do is recall what is going on in
in Germany, France and Britain.  This is multiculturalism at its' worst. I read blogs daily and an some of what I read is excellent writing and thinking and some is not worth the time wasted spent reading different viewpoints and proposed solutions.  During my daily readings I'm always looking for articles that make sense and what follows is one of those I consider worth reading. The author of  one such article is James L Miller PHD and his quote is as follows:"I Am A Humanitarian Which Is Why I FIRMLY Believe In Racial Separation".

SYNOPSIS: Those who promote multiracial/multicultural societies generally mean well in that they feel they’re creating a more peaceful world. But they ignore the lessons of history and thus are essentially laying the seeds for unimaginable future conflict and bloodshed.

Multiculturalism within a nation leads to internal tension and eventual violent conflict… 6,000 years of human warfare proves this (i.e., roughly 80% of all wars throughout history are rooted in racial/ethnic/religious conflict). All races and ethnicities are “tribal” & separatist in nature – these innate characteristics of human nature must be accepted and public policy should be crafted with such characteristics in mind. Hence, racial/ethnic homogeneity should be encouraged by policy makers. Pursuing racial/ethnic homogeneity is the most humane way to organize the world’s peoples.

Any realistic humanitarian (such as myself) understands this reality of human nature and works within its framework.

I don’t have anything against Mexicans…. in Mexico. I don’t have anything against Nigerians… in Nigeria. Mexicans should remain in Mexico. Nigerians should remain in Nigeria… and so on. Further, I hope Mexicans, Nigerians and all peoples of the world live healthy and productive lives in their respective countries. I do not wish ill on any peoples of the world.

The next point I will make is a central concern of all people on the political far-right. As established by the United Nations Charter in 1945, each people/ethnicity/racial group should have their own geographic area on Earth (i.e., a bordered country) in which to exercise their right to self-determination as a unique people/ethnicity/racial group. The UN essentially follows this policy for nearly all non-White peoples of the world. However, the UN pressures White nations to maintain (and even increase) their multiracial/multicultural policies. The UN essentially demands that White nations continue allowing millions of non-Whites to immigrate into White nations. Is this a double standard? Of course.

Whites make up a mere 16% of the world’s population and this percentage is measurably shrinking with each passing year. White nations are under attack — a slow, creeping attack often appropriately termed ‘demographic warfare on the West’ (i.e., radical demographic change via non-White immigration into the Western World). At the present Third World immigration rates into White nations, Whites will become a minority in each White nation by 2045. And by 2080, Whites will make up 20% – 25% of each (historical) White nation. The White Western World is gradually being erased… and… once the West is gone… its gone forever. Approximately 3,500 years of Western Civilization reduced to mere scattered pieces – and this colossal transformation will likely be accomplished in a little over a century. Just ponder this for a moment: a White baby born today will likely live to see a future, say, “France” where only 25% of that country is White. Or Sweden (same story). Or America (same story). Or Greece (same story), etc. Essentially then, the people who more or less invented just about everything (i.e., Whites) are being gradually eliminated.

Some people have dismissed my concerns by saying, “every country has immigration, you’re singling out White countries to make it look like they’re being targeted” or they say, “human migration is part of history, get used to it.” First, as to the latter, “human migration is part of history” … yes, indeed it is. But it’s important to focus on what’s relevant, which is the modern world as defined by the formation of the modern nation-State. Human migration which took place centuries ago (or more) is irrelevant to the modern world and those who try to include ancient human migration patterns into the debate are generally trying to confuse the listener. As to the first comment I often hear (i.e., “every country has immigration, you’re singling out White countries…) I say to them, yes, most countries have a immigration policy. However, such policies are typically restricted to, 1) a handful of diplomats and their families, 2) a few rare cases of political asylum, and 3) perhaps even a small guest worker program which is carefully monitored to ensure the workers return to their home country upon completion of work. Only White countries have systematic immigration policies which result in a demographic transformation of entire cities and eventually the entire country. Name me one non-White country which has such an immigration policy? There isn’t one.

The multiculturalising of the Western World began after World War II. Each White Western nation adopted a liberal immigration policy during this period; this legislative process began in 1954 and was complete by 1972 (see this article, point #12). Initially, only a trickle of non-White immigrants were allowed in but within a few years the quota was increased and has increased ever since. Within 100 – 125 years, the White Western world will be de facto erased from the Earth, never to come back. And not through guns, bombs, and great armies. Rather, by way of massive immigration, mostly from the third world. This is called “demographic warfare” – it is, for all intents and purposes, the gradual conquering of a nation by flooding it with immigrants.

A corollary to my Ethnic Nationalism worldview is the following –> I’m 100% opposed to imperialism and empire building… either carried out by European-derived peoples or carried out by any peoples of any race/ethnicity. Further, as one who is on the political far-right (and like nearly everyone on the far-right), I have been against the U.S. led Middle East wars from day one. In short, the United States has no business being in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Global humanity works best when the world is divided into nation-states where each nation-state has racial/ethnic homogeneity. Nations can trade (i.e., fair trade, not so-called “free” trade), have diplomatic relations; compete in the Olympics, etc. And, of course, there should be tolerance between nations. However, when we start mixing VERY different peoples in the same country, what generally happens??? History tells us that trouble brews and internal violent conflict results – this is not a humane way to organize the world’s peoples.

Global humanity has enough difficulty maintaining peace between nations. We don’t need to make matters worse by creating, via official government policy, multiracial countries which ALWAYS gravitate towards internal conflict (again, as history illustrates). Hence, humanitarians (like myself) who are realistic about human nature believe FIRMLY in racial/ethnic separatism. On the other hand, those pushing for multiculturalism are actually anti-humanitarian since they are laying the seeds for future internal national conflict (via their promotion of multicultural/multiracial nations) even though they naively think they are “building a better world.”

Texvet1968