August 27, 2016
Hillary's Nightmare: FOIA Meets the
Internet
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.)
