The WH, the Wilful Failures on FOIA Requests

Posted on March 18, 2016March 18, 2016 by Denise Simon

WashingtonExaminer 2014: It’s Sunshine Week, so perhaps some enterprising White House reporter will ask press secretary Jay Carney why President Obama rewrote the Freedom of Information Act without telling the rest of America.

The rewrite came in an April 15, 2009, memo from then-White House Counsel Greg Craig instructing the executive branch to let White House officials review any documents sought by FOIA requestors that involved “White House equities.”

That phrase is nowhere to be found in the FOIA, yet the Obama White House effectively amended the law to create a new exception to justify keeping public documents locked away from the public.

The Greg memo is described in detail in a new study made public today by Cause of Action, a Washington-based nonprofit watchdog group that monitors government transparency and accountability.

How serious an attack on the public’s right to know is the Obama administration’s invention of the “White House equities” exception?

“FOIA is designed to inform the public on government behavior; White House equities allow the government to withhold information from the media, and therefore the public, by having media requests forwarded for review. This not only politicizes federal agencies, it impairs fundamental First Amendment liberties,” Cause of Action explains in its report.

Equities are everything

The equities exception is breathtaking in its breadth. As the Greg memo put it, any document request is covered, including “congressional committee requests, GAO requests, judicial subpoenas and FOIA requests.”

US gov’t sets record for failures to find files when asked

WASHINGTON (AP) – When it comes to providing government records the public is asking to see, the Obama administration is having a hard time finding them.

In the final figures released during President Barack Obama’s presidency, the U.S. government set a record last year for the number of times federal employees told disappointed citizens, journalists and others that despite searching they couldn’t find a single page of files requested under the Freedom of Information Act. In more than one in six cases, or 129,825 times, government searchers said they came up empty-handed, according to a new Associated Press analysis.

The FBI couldn’t find any records in 39 percent of cases, or 5,168 times. The Environmental Protection Agency regional office that oversees New York and New Jersey couldn’t find anything 58 percent of the time. U.S. Customs and Border Protection couldn’t find anything in 34 percent of cases.

“It’s incredibly unfortunate when someone waits months, or perhaps years, to get a response to their request – only to be told that the agency can’t find anything,” said Adam Marshall, an attorney with the Washington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

A Justice Department spokeswoman, Beverly Lumpkin, said the administration answered more records requests and reduced its backlog of leftover requests, which should be considered good work on the part of the government in fulfilling information requests.

The AP’s annual review covered all requests to 100 federal agencies during fiscal 2015. The administration released its figures days ahead of Sunshine Week, when news organizations promote open government and freedom of information.

It was impossible to know whether more requests last year involved non-existent files or whether federal workers were searching less than diligently before giving up to consider a case closed. The administration said it completed a record 769,903 requests, a 19 percent increase over the previous year despite hiring only 283 new full-time workers on the issue, or about 7 percent. The number of times the government said it couldn’t find records increased 35 percent over the same period.

“It seems like they’re doing the minimal amount of work they need to do,” said Jason Leopold, an investigative reporter at Vice News and a leading expert on the records law. “I just don’t believe them. I really question the integrity of their search.”

In some high-profile instances, usually after news organizations filed expensive federal lawsuits, the Obama administration found tens of thousands of pages after it previously said it couldn’t find any. The website Gawker sued the State Department last year after it said it couldn’t find any emails that Philippe Reines, an aide to Hillary Clinton and former deputy assistant secretary of state, had sent to journalists. After the lawsuit, the agency said it found 90,000 documents about correspondence between Reines and reporters. In one email, Reines wrote to a reporter, “I want to avoid FOIA,” although Reines’ lawyer later said he was joking.

When the government says it can’t find records, it rarely provides detailed descriptions about how it searched for them. Under the law, federal employees are required to make a reasonable search, and a 1991 U.S. circuit court ruling found that a worker’s explanation about how he conducted a search is “accorded a presumption of good faith, which cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims” that a better search might have turned up files.

For a deeper and accurate summary, go here.

Foreign Fundraisers for Hillary

Posted on March 18, 2016March 18, 2016 by Denise Simon

Hillary Clinton campaign totals 13 fundraisers in foreign countries

SunLightFoundation: As the 2016 election rolls toward November, candidates are travelling far and wide to raise money to fill their campaign coffers. At Political Party Time, we previously mapped and detailed Hillary Clinton’s fundraising tour de force in the states. While Clinton benefits from many fundraisers outside of the Beltway, she’s also cashing in on at least 13 events outside of the country, according to an analysis of Party Time‘s fundraising data.

Clinton’s campaign has held eight total fundraisers in London, including two in March. And her offshore fundraising operation has so far reached Munich with one fundraiser; Durban, South Africa with one fundraiser; and Mexico City with two fundraisers. It is worth noting, that to the best of our knowledge Clinton herself, won’t be attending any of these fundraising parties.

Donors at these events presumably are U.S. citizens who currently live in the countries where the events are held. However, it is also worth nothing that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) permits U.S. permanent residents (as well as U.S. citizens) to donate to presidential campaigns.

According to the FEC, “Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that ‘green card’ holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute.”

These “foreign nationals” include foreign governments, political parties, corporations, associations, partnerships, persons with foreign citizenship and non-permanent resident immigrants.

Overseas fundraisers are relatively common for leading presidential candidates, but hosting over a dozen events before spring illustrates the vast reach of Clinton’s fundraising machine. By comparison, according to Party Time, no other presidential candidate has any official overseas fundraisers to his/her name. For a map and details click here.

*****

This is clearly not a new rodeo for Hillary and her team. A matter to be noted is the experience she has with regard to the Clinton Foundation. Are we to assume her run for the White House is for more global favors and access?

Hillary’s foreign fundraising mess: Even the liberal press is fed up

FNC: It’s not surprising that Hillary Clinton was the constant target of attacks at CPAC, second only to Barack Obama.

What was striking is how many of those barbs involved foreign money. And that didn’t require much explanation.

I was in the audience when Ted Cruz joked that the former secretary of State could have been there, but no one could find a foreign government to foot the bill.

The more I think about it, the more I find it inexplicable that the Clinton Foundation created this mess. It was entirely predictable that the foreign cash story would blow up as Hillary was gearing up to run for president, creating yet another financial controversy for the dominant Democratic front-runner.

But critics of the liberal media should take note of how the story surfaced. The news side of the Wall Street Journal revealed that the foundation had dropped its self-imposed ban on taking dough from foreign governments now that Hillary was no longer in Obama’s Cabinet.

Then the Washington Post advanced the story with two strong pieces, the second of which said:

“The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration.”

And there was damning detail: “In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.”

So even when Clinton was secretary of State, foreign regimes looking to curry favor with the administration were able to use the backdoor route of the foundation run by her husband. These included Kuwait, Qatar and Oman. And the foundation didn’t even follow its own rules.

What’s more, what is now the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation thinks it’s all right once again to solicit foreign governments that of course would love to buy influence with a potential president.

A New York Times editorial urged Hillary “to reinstate the foundation’s ban against foreign contributors” and “reassure the public that the foundation will not become a vehicle for insiders’ favoritism, should she run for and win the White House.”

When you’re a Democrat and lose the Times editorial page, you’re in trouble.

Now the broadcast networks have largely blown off the story, except for half a minute on CBS. But I have seen it on CNN and MSNBC as well as Fox.

On CNN’s “New Day,” National Journal columnist Ron Founrier said:

“I wrote a couple weeks ago that this was ethically sleazy and politically stupid. I stand by those words and actually, what we’ve seen since then, I think I’ll double down on them. Again, this proves that the Clintons’ biggest blind spot for all — the admirable things about them is — the biggest blind spot is they actually think that the ends justify the means.”

On yesterday’s “Fox News Sunday,” former Democratic Rep. Jane Harman made no attempt to defend the Hillary situation, saying the appearance is “poor.”

Even the liberal New Republic is uncomfortable, saying “it’s worth questioning why the Foundation has accepted those donations in recent years, particularly in 2014 with the 2016 cycle about to get going. The Foundation had to know that accepting foreign donations would generate negative coverage and would give Republicans an easy way to attack Hillary.” The magazine’s mild verdict? Poor judgment.

Even a Salon headline says: “The Clinton Foundation’s Fundraising Is a Big Problem for Hillary.”

All this is happening while Hillary continues to give big money speeches, a subject that has brought her enormous political grief.

There’s no question that the foundation donations have gone to such worthy causes as earthquake relief and cheaper HIV drugs. But the appearance created by a foreign money pipeline is awful, as even Hillary’s defenders recognize.

The whole mess was utterly avoidable, and even now it’s hard to understand why the Clinton team is providing fodder for places like CPAC.

Click for more from Media Buzz

Iran Broke Int’l Law Arresting U.S. Sailors

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

CNO Richardson, Who Will Make Final Review Of Farsi Island Investigation, Says Iranian Actions Violated Law

USNI:

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson is awaiting the findings of a U.S. 5th Fleet investigation into the boarding and seizure of two Navy riverine command boats in January, but he told senators this week ahead of the investigation’s conclusion that Iran’s actions violated international law.

The results of the investigation are currently with leadership at U.S. 5th Fleet and ultimately will be reviewed by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson, a Navy official told USNI News on Wednesday.

The service elected Richardson to be the final arbiter of the investigation because the majority of the issues that led to the 10 sailors being held by the Iranians had to do with manning, training and equipping issues rather than operational problems, the official said.

Press reports have said one of the RCBs had suffered mechanical issues and that the crews had worked late into the night before the incident cannibalizing parts from a third boat. The crews had never made the transit from Kuwait to Bahrain before and suffered problems with their navigation gear while underway.

What remains unclear, and will likely be revealed in the final report, is the rules of engagement the crews were operating under when they were approached by Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy boats. Several experts have said that the IRGCN violated international law by boarding and seizing the ships and that there are typically protocols for the crew to follow if they’re approached by those seeking to board. It is still unknown if those rules were clearly established and communicated to the crews.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday, Richardson said that “there is always the inherent right to self defense in our rules of engagement. The specific ROE and what exactly unfolded as that happened will be part of the detailed investigation when that’s complete.”

Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. John Richardson testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 15, 2016. US Navy Photo

“Clearly international law would prohibit boarding U.S. sovereign territory, which those riverine craft were,” he added.

Committee chairman Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) expressed concern at both the administration’s response at the time of the incident and at recent news reports that Iran gained thousands of pages of information from Navy laptops, GPS systems and maps during the 18-hour detention.

“By failing to affirm and defend basic principles of international law, the Administration has placed our Navy and Coast Guard vessels, and the men and women who sail them, at greater risk in the future,” McCain said in his opening statement.

McCain later added that Iran forced the sailors to apologize on video photographed them on their knees with their hands behind their heads, broadcast images of a sailor crying while being detained, and then awarded the Iranian sailors involved in the incident.

“Wouldn’t you agree this was a humiliation for the most powerful nation on earth?” McCain asked.

Richardson told him that “according to international law there was no authority to board those vessels – those were sovereign U.S. vessels, they had the right to be where they were and they should not have been seized.” McCain, however, seemed unsatisfied that the Navy so far had only expressed protest and not taken any other action towards Iran.

Pentagon chief: Iran went against law in sailors’ detention

TheHill: Iran’s detention and treatment of 10 U.S. sailors earlier this year was inconsistent with international law, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Thursday.

“As I made clear then, Iran’s actions were outrageous, unprofessional and inconsistent with international law, and nothing we’ve learned about the circumstances of this incident since then changes that fact,” Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Thursday’s remarks appear to be his strongest public statements against Iran’s behavior in January.

Carter previously said Iran’s actions angered him, but avoided labeling the incident a violation of international law.

“I was very, very angry at it,” Carter told reporters in January. “And I’m not going to give you the international law answer, but I can tell you, Americans wouldn’t have done that.”

On Jan. 12, Iran detained the sailors for 16 hours after their two riverine boats strayed into Iranian waters.

Since the incident, Iran has been releasing propaganda, such as videos showing sailors kneeling with their hands behind their head, apologizing and crying. This week, Iran also claimed that it collected 13,000 pages worth of information from laptops and other devices during the detention.

Carter’s labeling of the incident as inconsistent with international law comes after the Navy has repeatedly called it that.

Sen. John McCain who has been critical of the administration’s handling of the incident, said he appreciated Carter’s comments.

But McCain also pressed Carter on whether he’s planning any specific action to respond to the incident.

“You’ve made it quite clear that you’re outraged and all that, but what specifically do you recommend to do in response to that?” asked McCain, chairman of the committee.

During the incident, Carter said, the Pentagon was prepared to protect the sailors. But he did not offer a recommendation for how to respond to Iran’s behavior since then.

“At the time of the incident, we prepared to protect our people,” he said. “Turns out they were released in time. We later had the opportunity to see them being filmed and the way they were, and it made it very clear that that’s not the kind of behavior we would want to engage in.”

March Terror Threat Snapshot

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

March Terror Threat Snapshot: 147 Homegrown Terror Cases Since 9/11

March 17, 2016

March Terror Threat Snapshot: 147 Homegrown Terror Cases Since 9/11

Story highlights:

31 percent of the 147 homegrown jihadist cases since 9/11 happened in just the last 12 months
7,000 Western fighters have traveled to various conflict zones in order to join ISIS
ISIS-related arrests last month in four U.S. states

By Glynn Cosker
Managing Editor, In Homeland Security

U.S. Representative Michael McCaul (R-Texas) released his Terror Threat Snapshot for March 2016 on Wednesday.

McCaul is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and his monthly reports detail the threats from Islamic terror groups to the United States and its Western allies. McCaul’s analysis is always a stark reminder that vigilance and knowledge are both vital elements in the current War on Terror.

According to the current report, 31 percent of the 147 homegrown jihadist cases since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks happened in just the last 12 months. Another key fact from the snapshot is that there have been 83 total ISIS-linked arrests in the United States since 2014, with eight people arrested so far in 2016 – in seven different states – on various terrorism-related charges. Also of note, almost 7,000 Western fighters have traveled to various conflict zones in order to join ISIS.

Terror Threat Snapshot’s McCaul: Iranian Regime Grows More Emboldened

“This week’s Islamist terror plots in Canada and Europe are a grim reminder of the heightened threat environment America and our allies confront. ISIS and al Qaeda are growing deeper roots in their sanctuaries around the world while plotting terror against the West,” stated McCaul. “The Iranian regime grows more emboldened as it capitalizes on the economic stimulus afforded to it by President Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal. Unfortunately, these trends will continue to worsen without a resolute, U.S.-led strategy to defeat Islamist terrorists and restore global order.”

McCaul was referring to reports that Iran was building a “complex terror infrastructure” around the world while “escalating its threats against Israel.”

ISIS-Related Arrests in United States Ongoing

The March Terror Threat Snapshot reported on these homegrown cases that occurred last month:

MISSOURI: Safya Roe Yassin was arrested for threatening FBI agents via social media; she ultimately expressed her support for ISIS.

OHIO: Mohamed Berry attacked diners at a Columbus restaurant using a machete; Berry was known to law enforcement as having “expressed radical Islamist views.”

WASHINGTON: Daniel Seth Franey was arrested near Montesano, Wash., for possessing illegal firearms while expressing his support for ISIS; he also advocated for the murdering of U.S. law enforcement members and U.S. military personnel.

MICHIGAN: Khalil Abu-Rayyan was arrested for a planned attack on a church in Detroit; he told authorities that he supported ISIS and said “If I can’t do jihad in the Middle East, I would do my jihad over here.”

On the global front, the terror snapshot reported on events that happened earlier this week in Europe when at least two terror suspects ambushed Belgian and French police in Brussels. One of those attackers was said to have an ISIS flag and a powerful assault rifle in his possession.

Other key points from the March Terror Threat Snapshot:

“ISIS commands a “sophisticated external plotting network” from its sanctuaries and continues to inspire jihadist recruits worldwide. A senior U.K. official recently warned the group has “big ambitions for enormous and spectacular attacks … Al Qaeda and its affiliates – far from being degraded – are poised to build on recent territorial gains by capitalizing further on instability and inaction … Islamist terrorists are infiltrating the West by exploiting massive refugee flows. European security services continue to struggle with the magnitude of a crisis that is “masking the movement” of future terror plotters.”

Stay tuned to In Homeland Security for the April Terror Threat Snapshot report. See the House Homeland Committee’s March Terror Threat Snapshot here.

Gowdy Prevents Cummings From Leaking Benghazi Testimony

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

Sheesh…. leaking purposely? To save Hillary? Permission granted for Cummings to leak testimony? Has Cummings considered the impact of leaks to media to other witnesses?

Judge for yourself.

Benghazi Republicans limit Democrats’ access to witness records

WaPo: Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi are placing new restrictions on Democrats’ access to key documents out of fear they could be made public before the panel concludes its investigation.

The move arrives amid growing speculation about when Republicans will release their final report about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks and what conclusions it will draw about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is solidifying her position as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Under new rules communicated Wednesday by Republicans, Democratic lawmakers and staff will no longer be given their own physical and digital copies of witness interview transcripts. Instead, they will only be able to access to hard copies of the transcripts inside GOP offices during business hours.

Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) argued the arrangement became necessary after panel Democrats led by ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) threatened to unilaterally release transcripts from interviews with key witnesses, including White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and former CIA director David Petraeus.

“Democrats have threatened to leak more transcripts and therefore I have no choice but to protect past witnesses, future witnesses, confidential material and the integrity of the investigation by allowing the Democrats equitable access but not control,” Gowdy said in a statement.

“Once they stated their intention to misuse transcripts, I could not in good faith allow them to do so. Mr. Cummings likes to frequently lecture people how ‘we’re better than this,’ but his actions and the actions of his staff with regards to this investigation unfortunately prove otherwise.”

Cummings accused Republicans of breaking House rules and working to time disclosures in order to maximize harm to Clinton in the election.

“Democrats on the Select Committee will not agree to conditions that prevent us from putting out the facts that witnesses have told the Committee in order to rebut the conspiracy theories about Benghazi,” Cummings said in a statement.

“Republicans are so desperate to keep us from sharing these facts with the public, they denied Democrats any access to some of these witness transcripts for weeks. Republicans are writing a secret, partisan report that they plan to make public shortly before the election – and they are violating House Rules in order to try to silence Democrats from putting out the facts before then.”

The conflict represents yet another stalemate for the dysfunctional select committee and its leaders, Gowdy and Cummings. And the rancor is only expected to build as the investigation approaches its two-year anniversary in May.

Republicans would not provide a deadline for their final report, arguing the Obama administration would merely stonewall on further document and interview requests until that date. Instead, Gowdy has said he hopes for completion as soon as possible “before summer.”

The question remains whether that timetable includes a window for the CIA to complete a classification review of the report, which could take several months. Democrats argue that, adding time for the review, the schedule would put the release of the report just before the general election in November.

Cummings said his side must have full access to the transcripts in order to conduct its work, including efforts to counteract what Democrats see as a Republican campaign to unfairly target Clinton. Aides described the limits on their access to documents as unprecedented and another sign of the GOP’s desire to manipulate the investigation.

“By limiting Democratic access to these transcripts, you impair our ability to share the evidence supporting our fact-based analysis with the public, essentially quieting any dissent from your report from the start,” Cummings wrote to Gowdy on Tuesday.

Gowdy defended his decision.

“I have consulted with the House Parliamentarian and I am confident this arrangement complies with the letter and intent of House rules,” he wrote back on Wednesday.

The process for sharing documents in a congressional investigation is usually straightforward.

Under normal circumstances, the stenographer recording the closed-door interviews would pass along transcripts to the majority — in this case, the Republicans — who would then pass them to Democrats.

This is how the panel functioned until mid-February, when Democrats threatened in a comment to the Washington Post to release transcripts in order to rebut the GOP’s claims of “significant breakthroughs” in the investigation. After that, according to aides from both sides, Republicans withheld transcripts from interviews as they took place.

The new rules for access were not communicated until Republican and Democratic staffers spoke on Wednesday. Aides to Gowdy said he spoke to Cummings on the House floor, offering free access to transcripts if Cummings promised not to release them.

“He would not give me that assurance,” Gowdy said in a statement.