Cheryl Mills to erase Hillary emails

The attorney for a top aide to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state has informed a federal judge presiding over FOIA requests from Judicial Watch related to Huma Abedin's employment status, that she will destroy electronic communications not already handed over.

“Ms. Mills does not believe that she has paper copies of potential records in her possession. Following our production on August 10, 2015 [of the defense counsel’s version of the electronic records], we have instructed her to delete any and all electronic records in her possession,” said the attorney. 

Breathtaking arrogance.

Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch announced that the State Department today provided a status report as required by a July 31 federal court order requiring the State Department to request that Hillary Clinton and her top State Department aides Human Abedin and Cheryl Mills confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all government records in their possession, return any other government records immediately, and describe their use of Hillary Clinton’s email server to conduct government business.  The State Department filing shows that the agency sent the former officials the request and a copy of Judge Sullivan’s order but that both Mills and Abedin, who responded through their attorneys, ignored Judge Sullivan’s request to submit information under penalty of perjury.  The State Department reports that Mrs. Clinton has yet to respond.  Contrary to both Judge Sullivan’s order and the State Department’s request, Ms. Mills’ attorney said that she told Ms. Mills to destroy federal records in her possession on Monday, August 10. Tonight, Judicial Watch filed an urgent response informing Judge Sullivan of this plan to destroy federal records. 

The State Department produced the August 5 letter it sent to Mrs. Clinton, which included a copy of Judge Sullivan’s order. 

The developments come in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, the former Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)). The lawsuit was reopened last month because of revelations about Hillary Clinton’s email records. 

Letters produced yesterday show that, on July 31, the State Department, for the first time, demanded that Mills and Abedin “return all copies of potential federal records in your possession.”  The State Department did not provide correspondence demanding Mrs. Clinton return all copies of potential federal records.  Despite the court’s July 31 order for immediate disclosure, the State Department and its Justice Department attorneys took six days to disclose the 13 letters, which total 19 pages. 

Prior to August 5 court-ordered letters, the State Department had asked no questions of Clinton, Mills, and Abedin about Mrs. Clinton’s separate email system or classified material.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.... 

OBAMA PROVIDING EXTRA MILLION ALIEN WORK PERMITS ANNUALLY

The Obama administration has issued more than 7.4 million work permits to foreign nationals from 2009 – 2014, beyond the approximately one million lawful permanent residents and 700,000 foreign guest workers admitted to the U.S. each year.

In written responses to the Senate Judiciary Immigration and the National Interest Subcommittee Republicans obtained by Breitbart News, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reveal that the Obama administration has been approving work authorizations for immigrants beyond admission limits and for some categories of immigrants that Congress never intended to work in the U.S.

Green card holders and foreign nationals on guest worker visas do not need work authorizations.

Beyond those limits each year, these new and renewed work permit approvals amounted to about 1.23 million in fiscal year 2009, 1.08 million in FY 2010, 970,277 in FY 2011, 1.24 million in FY 2012, 1.68 million in FY 2013 and 1.24 million in FY 2014.

Such categories of immigrants that received permits include: Illegal immigrants granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, immigrants granted Temporary Protective Status (TPS), spouses of guest workers, various types of foreign students, immigrants granted voluntary departure, parolees, as well as asylees and refugees.

Further, more than 113,800 individuals with final orders of deportation also were granted work permits in that six year span.

A number of categories of immigrants granted work permits simply had immigration applications pending without approval. Those work permit approvals include immigrants with TPS pending, application for suspension of deportation, “in proceedings,” adjustment applicants, asylum applicants, and pending Special Agricultural Workers (SAW) applicants.

For example,from FY 2009-FY 2014 more than 356,600 applicants for asylum were granted work permits. Another 2.69 million work permit approvals were for immigrants applying for an adjustment of status.

In addition to the raw work permit data, USCIS also provided a list of every zip code in the country, revealing where these extra work permits or EADs were issued each fiscal year.

The two zip codes with the greatest number of extra EADs in FY 2014 was in Flushing, NY (11355 and 11354) with 6,529 and 4,800 EADs. The zip code with the third most EADs in FY 2014 was Brooklyn, NY (11220) with 4,106 EADs. A zip code in San Gabriel, CA (91776) boasted the fourth most EADs at 3,803. And the zip code with the fifth most EADs was a zip code in Miami (33126) at 3,220.

Readers may see how many extra work permits have been granted in their area by finding their own zip codes here.

The data comes on the heels of a Center for Immigration Studies report, authored by expert Jessica Vaughan, which also revealed 7.4 million excess work permits issued in what she described as a “parallel immigrant work authorization system outside the numerical limits and categories set by Congress.”

Vaughan’s data obtained, via a Freedom of Information Act request, yielded different categories of immigrants. USCIS explained in its response that the new data is an update to the data provided in the FIOA.

Of the updated data, Vaughan explained to Breitbart News that the numbers show the Obama administration has been “abusing what should be considered very limited authority to issue work permits.”

She noted that while work permits have been intended to be a benefit for those who are applying for legal status or as a temporary benefit, the administration has issued them to people who are not eligible for legal status.

“Work permits have always been intended as a transitional benefit to assist someone that is in the process of applying for legal status, or as a temporary benefit.  The administration has used them as a way to secretly give out benefits to huge numbers of people who are not eligible for a legal status,” she wrote in an email to Breitbart News.  “They are using them to bypass the law and evade the rules set by Congress that limit the number of people who can take jobs here.

Vaughan further called on Congress to take action to rein in the issuance of these work permits.

“It’s no wonder people are flocking here to claim asylum, enrolling in school, and using other tactics to get here by hook or by crook.  This shadow immigration system is displacing Americans and legal workers from jobs, and Congress needs to take back control of the process without delay,” she emailed.

When Vaughan’s report broke earlier this year, the chairman of the immigration subcommittee, 

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

80%

, called for an investigation.

“This massive increase in the labor supply has occurred simultaneously with a steep drop in family incomes and a sharp rise in the number of Americans pushed out of the workforce. All jobs gains since the recession have gone to foreign workers, while the slack labor market has depressed median family incomes almost $5,000 in that time,” he said at the time.

Via Breitbart

Continue Reading...

State Department Has No Record of Clinton IT Security Training

The State Department has no record of former Secretary Hillary Clinton or her two top aides receiving IT security training while Clinton led the department, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

In response to a Freedom of Information request filed by the nonprofit Competitive Enterprise Institute in March, State said it could not locate any record of Clinton, chief of staff Cheryl Mills, or deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin undergoing any sort of IT security training.

“One former, senior executive branch personnel official contacted me to point out the requirement that appointees take this training, and that if Mses. Clinton, Abedin or Mills had deigned to follow the law, a record of this would exist,” explained CEI senior fellow Chris Horner, who filed the FOIA request.

“He also noted, however, that if anyone was to turn up their noses and refuse the training—and be permitted to—these are the folks.  We now know this to be the case,” Horner said in an email.

The request also asked for “all separation documents … completed or submitted” by Clinton, Mills, or Abedin. State returned no responsive documents to that request.

The department previously stated that it had no record of Clinton signing such separation documents, designed to ensure that former employees do not retain confidential information after their departure. State’s reply appears to confirm that neither Clinton nor her top aides submitted those documents.

Cybersecurity experts say Clinton, Mills, and Abedin should have undergone IT security training at State, and that their apparent failure to do so is part of a systemic problem.

“She should have done it, but the data point that she did not is sadly unsurprising,” said Steve Bucci, the director of the Heritage Foundation’s Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading....

Journalists Tell Oversight Committee: Bureaucrats Make FOIA Process ‘Useless

U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) (L) speaks with Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC) (R) during "The Security Failures of Benghazi" hearing on Capitol Hill, Washington D.C. October 10, 2012. Diplomatic security in Libya was drawn down ahead of last month's fatal attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi and U.S. officials did not have enough protection, the former head of a U.S. security team in Libya told lawmakers on Wednesday. REUTERS/Jose Luis Magana (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST) - RTR38ZVU

Members of a House oversight committee were outraged during a bizarre hearing Tuesday in which congressmen listened to journalists discuss how government agencies intentionally botched formal requests for information.

The reporters told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of numerous instances where agencies needlessly delayed, denied or redacted Freedom of Information Act requests. The FOIA guarantees the public access to all government documents, subject only to nine exemptions such as for privacy, commercial privilege and national security.

The journalists also suggested that government employees who violate the FOIA law should be prosecuted. There are currently no consequences to bureaucrats who don’t abide by the statute that has been on the books since 1966.

FOIA is a “pointless, useless shadow of its former self,” said former CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson

“Our role of objectively reporting the facts has been increasingly blocked,” said Newsweek Finance Editor Leah Goodman. “There is a motive for unresponsiveness and unaccountability.”

Committee chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, noted that President Obama promised at the outset of his first term that his administration would champion an unprecedented level of openness in the federal government.

Chaffetz held up an April 2009 memo that ordered agencies to allow the White House to review any requested documents that involved “White House equities.” There is no provision in the FOIA for the assertion of such a White House privilege.

“I don’t care who’s in the White House, it’s wrong, it’s wrong, it’s wrong,” Chaffetz shouted.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

State Dept. Makes Curious Redaction in Hillary Email

Among the emails released by the State Department today was one sent by Hillary Clinton to Jake Sullivan on April 8, 2011. Clinton was forwarding a private intelligence report that Sidney Blumenthal had sent her with the subject line: "UK game playing; new rebel strategists; Egypt moves in."

In the State Department release today, Clinton responds with "FYI" and a sentence that is redacted. 

But the New York Times posted its versions of the emails earlier this week and the sentence is not redacted. In theTimes's version the redacted sentence reads: "FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered." 

The redaction in the State Department version is labeled a "B5" Freedom of Information Act exception, which provides for a "deliberative privilege" in keeping the information from the public.

The obvious question: Why did the State Department redact that sentence?

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading.....

Newspaper presses FOIA fight for food stamp payment data

South Dakota's Argus Leader newspaper urged a federal appeals court Wednesday to reverse a ruling blocking the newspaper from receiving data on how much the federal government pays to stores that redeeem food stamp benefits.

Jon Arneson, an attorney for the newspaper, told a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit that a lower court judge misinterpreted the law by ruling that a confidentiality provision for retailer applications allowed the U.S. Department of Agriculture to withhold all data on payments to those retailers. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the newspaper requested the data on annual payments to each retailer approved to take part in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

"The Argus is not asking for the invoices. They’re asking for the payment information. All we’re really doing is asking: how does the government spend its money in this instance?" Arneson told the three-judge panel sitting in St. Paul, Minn. "Because of the way FOIA is intended to be applied, we’re entitled to the benefit of the doubt. If there’s doubt here, the Argus is entitled to that benefit."

(Also on POLITICO: Palestinian leader's son appeals loss of Foreign Policy libel lawsuit)

However, Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephanie Bengford said the confidentiality provision applies because the cumulative amount of payments to each retailer is based on the series of purchase transactions the stores submit to USDA.

"But for the fact of gathering that information as to each transaction, USDA would not have the total amount of what it paid to the retailers," she told the judges. She also said that a provision in the law protecting information like "income and sales tax filing documents" authorized USDA to withhold data on its own payments to retailers, because they became part of the stores' income.

Via: Politico

Continue Reading.....

RNC petitions administration for Obamacare enrollment numbers

The Republican National Committee is sending a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on Monday. The GOP body is seeking information on the number of Americans who have successfully enrolled in the Obamacare exchanges through Healthcare.gov.

The web portal to the Obamacare exchanges has been plagued by problems since its opening on Oct. 1. To date, the Obama administration has failed to release official enrollment numbers.

In its FOIA, the RNC specifically seeks:

• “Any and all data recording each successful purchase of a health insurance policy…on any of the Affordable Care Act exchanges administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services…”
• “Any and all documents or communications, including but not limited to relevant emails and letters, regarding the collection of successful enrollee data on or after October 1, 2013…”

An RNC spokesman explained to The Daily Caller that the GOP body has only issued a few FIOAs this year and only does so when it believes the administration is not being forthcoming with important information.

“[Health and Human Services Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius and the Obama administration spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on this website, but Americans trying to use it have gotten little more than error messages and crashing web pages,” RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement.

“It’s important for Americans to see these numbers because they illustrate just how terrible the system is and how poorly designed the law was,” he added. “The administration isn’t living up to its promises, and they must be held accountable.”

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is scheduled to examine the Obamacare rollout failures on Thursday. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has refused to testify before the panel.

Reuters reports that an unnamed administration official said Saturday that nearly half a million people have applied for health insurance under Obamacare. Official numbers are expected to be released in November.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading......

U.S. Has Cash to Close Memorials, Can’t Afford Enforcing FOIA

The U.S. government can spend money shutting down and barricading memorials around Washington D.C., but it won’t dedicate the necessary resources to obey transparency laws, using the shutdown as an opportunity to ignore the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Without the accountability and transparency that FOIA is meant to provide, the government will essentially operate in secrecy. Nothing, not even a temporary, partisan impasse among lawmakers, should justify a furlough in the enforcement of government transparency laws. But that’s exactly what’s happening, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a decades-old nonprofit that works to protect journalists’ FOIA rights.

“Parts of the federal government have declared transparency non-essential, deciding requests under the Freedom of Information Act will go unprocessed during the shutdown,” the group says in an announcement posted on its website this week. “Some agencies have indicated they won’t even accept FOIA requests until everything is back to normal and have suspended their websites.”  Additionally, those seeking information from federal agencies should be “prepared for longer than usual delays in receiving the requested records,” the group says.

Among the federal agencies that have officially announced they won’t process FOIA requests during the shutdown are the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Others—like the Agriculture, Interior and Transportation departments—have simply disabled their FOIA websites without notifying the public. Some have confirmed “reduced FOIA operations.” They include the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Government Information Services and the National Security Administration (NSA).

Even when FOIA is supposedly in full force, stonewalling and unnecessary delays are the norm when requesting public records from the government. Judicial Watch knows this firsthand because FOIA is a valuable tool in our work and JW files dozens of requests with a number of federal agencies every year. Generally the government must respond to a FOIA request within 20 days, though that rarely occurs and JW must take legal action to force compliance.

Just this week JW filed a FOIA request with the Department of the Interior for information related to blocking public access to national monuments in Washington D.C. due to the federal government shutdown. JW also seeks all records related to the cancellation of planned visits by veterans’ groups to the National World War II Memorial due to the shutdown. In the official request JW reminds the agency of a 2009 memorandum issued by President Obama. It states: “All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA…The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.”

Via: Judicial Watch

Continue Reading.....