by Tom Fitton –
Hillary Clinton thinks she’s above the law, including a key law regarding the protection of classified material that, if released, could compromise our nation’s security and get a lot of people killed. That’s why we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State to obtain records about Hillary Clinton’s training on “making and marking” classified information. The lawsuit also seeks similar records for Clinton’s top State Department aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. We filed the lawsuit last month after the State Department declined to comply with our simple information requests.
Here’s some background.
Barack Obama issued an Executive Order in 2009 requiring all employees with “original” or “derivative” classification capability to take mandatory training. The requirement became federal law in 2010. The State Department subsequently created a course, “Classified and Sensitive but Unclassified Information: Making and Marking,” to satisfy that requirement. Those employees with “original classification authority” who fail to take the course each year are supposed to have their classification authority suspended.
State Department employees also are routinely denied access to classified and unclassified networks and systems for failure to complete this required training, according to Judicial Watch’s investigation. This stands to reason, does it not? To have untrained officials accessing this sensitive material would be a menace to national security and could play into the hands of the Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians, and others who endanger American interests.
No wonder the Obama gang running the State Department ignored two separate FOIA requests for information on the required classification training by Clinton, Mills, Abedin, and other covered State Department officials.
Both requests were submitted on August 18, 2015. The first request sought:
• Records related to lists of employees required to complete the Foreign Service Institute course “Classified and Sensitive but Unclassified Information: Identifying and Marking” (PK323) either annually or biannually provided to A/GIS/IPS [Office of Information Programs and Services] by the Office of the Secretary of State; and
• Records regarding reports of employees whose classification authority was suspended due to failure to complete Foreign Service Institute course PK323 as required provided to A/GIS/IPS by the Office of the Secretary of State.
Our second request sought:
• Records concerning the successful completion of the Foreign Service Institute Course PK323, “Classified and Sensitive but Unclassified Information: Identification and Marking,” by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Such records include, but are not limited to, any records identifying the training requirements for former Secretary Clinton, any reports from FSI indicating the completion of the course by former Secretary Clinton, and any transcripts or certificate of completion for PK323 provided by former Secretary Clinton to the designated bureau training official in the Office of the Secretary of State;
• Records regarding the successful completion of the Foreign Service Institute Course PK323, “Classified and Sensitive but Unclassified Information: Identification and Marking,” by Huma Abedin. Such records include, but are not limited to, any records identifying the training requirements for Ms. Abedin, any reports from FSI indicating the completion of the course by Ms. Abedin, and any transcripts or certificate of completion for PK323 provided by Ms. Abedin to the designated bureau training official in the Office of the Secretary of State;
• Records of the successful completion of the Foreign Service Institute Course PK323, “Classified and Sensitive but Unclassified Information: Identification and Marking,” by Cheryl Mills. Such records include, but are not limited to, any records identifying the training requirements for Ms. Mills, any reports from FSI indicating the completion of the course by Ms. Mills, and any transcripts or certificate of completion for PK323 provided by Ms. Mills to the designated bureau training official in the Office of the Secretary of State.
The requests are quite simple. Show us that Hillary Clinton and others at State completed the required training. Tell us if anyone had their access at the State Department suspended for not completing the required training. In short, tell us that Hillary Clinton didn’t put the nation’s security at risk.
On December 29, 2009, President Obama made the classified information training mandatory with “Executive Order 13526 – Classified National Security Information:”
All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassification as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the sanctions in section 5.5 of this order that may be brought against an individual who fails to classify information properly or protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure. Original classification authorities who do not receive such mandatory training at least once within a calendar year shall have their classification authority suspended by the agency head or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order until such training has taken place.
In October 2010, the training became a federal law under the “Reducing Over-Classification Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-258).” According to the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual:
The training is mandatory:
On an annual basis for all employees who have original classification authority; and
On a biennial basis for all employees who classify information by using information already classified by another source or who classify based on a classification guide (derivative classification). Any employee with a security clearance may make a derivative classification decision. [Emphasis added]
Did Hillary Clinton and her top aides bother to take the training legally required for the handling of classified information? What training did Hillary Clinton take to allow her to make credible representations about classified information on her illicit email system?
The Obama State Department is illegally covering up the answers to these questions. And that’s why we sued in federal court to get the truth.
Judicial Watch Asks Appeals Court
to Halt Race-Based, Separatist Election in Hawaii
If you’re an American citizen in Hawaii, but lack the right racial “blood,” you are now excluded from voting in an election that could decide the fate of your state. That’s why our lawyers worked overtime to file an Urgent Motion for Injunction with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to stop a race-based, state-sponsored, Hawaiians-only election that violates the “fundamental constitutional rights” of American citizens.
The motion asks that the Appeals Court enjoin the counting of ballots, now scheduled for November 30, until the resolution of a Judicial Watch appeal of an earlier district court ruling in the case. Believe it or not, Hawaii uses a “one drop of blood” rule to define voter eligibility in the “Native-Hawaiian”-exclusive vote now under way.
We first went to court to stop this racist election this past August, when our team filed a lawsuit on behalf of the five Hawaiian residents who have joined with a Texas resident of Hawaiian descent to oppose voter registration requirements instituted under Act 195, which became a Hawaiian state law in 2011. Judicial Watch sought a preliminary injunction to stop the vote, scheduled for the month of November 2015, arguing that its clients were being denied the right to vote either because of their race or their political views in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Act 195, a recent Hawaiian law, authorizes the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission (NHRC) to create a list of “Native Hawaiians” who would be eligible to elect delegates to a planned constitutional convention, which would then prepare “governance documents” for a separate Native Hawaiian entity.
The Obama administration supported the race-based election in this litigation despite the fact that the State of Hawaii limits eligible voters in the election to those who have at least one drop of Native Hawaiian blood. Your JW notes that this “one drop of blood” rule is like other laws last seen in the racist Jim Crow era: “It also has an unfortunate resonance in American history. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 5 n. 4 (1967) (discussing Virginia statute holding that ‘[e]very person in whom there is ascertainable any Negro blood shall be deemed and taken to be a colored person’).”
The lower court declined to issue a preliminary injunction, ruling that the election was being conducted by the Na’i Aupuni foundation (NA), a “private actor holding a private election,” which would allow for race-based qualifications that would be obviously unconstitutional in any government-run election. Judicial Watch argues to the Ninth Circuit that the lower court erred on the facts and the law. Judicial Watch attorneys point out that it is undisputed that the allegedly “private” foundation was organized in late 2014 for the sole purpose of carrying out the election set in motion by Hawaii’s Act 195.
The brief cites to a mass of evidence suggesting the foundation is merely a front for the State of Hawaii:
NA was formed, three years after Act 195 was passed, for no other purpose than to hold the election that [the State Office of Hawaiian Affairs, or “OHA”] could not. NA’s bylaws refer to OHA’s legislative goals. OHA was, at least for a time, a member of NA. NA’s vice-president is married to the CEO of the NHRC. NA was given millions of dollars of public money to hold an election described in a state law, Act 195, in a series of contracts with OHA, wherein OHA retains all sorts of special rights and privileges. NA “decided” to use the race-based Roll the NHRC had been developing for years, and that OHA is statutorily required to use…Indeed, it is particularly telling that NA gave OHA assurances that it would use the race-based Roll to hold a race-based election before the two parties entered into contracts awarding NA millions of dollars to hold that election.
As Judicial Watch attorneys argue, the “historic” election is about important public issues, including whether to change the government under which Hawaiians live:
The delegates who win will attend a convention at which they may draft “governance documents” for an all-Native Hawaiian entity. Their decisions could affect the legal, social, and financial relationships of huge numbers of Americans. In 2010 there were 1.36 million people in Hawaii. The Department of the Interior estimates that there are 527,000 Native Hawaiians in the United States, of whom 290,000 reside in Hawaii. Indeed…Plaintiffs here have “views as to whether a change is appropriate and, if so, what that change should be.” They should not be shut out because they are the wrong race.
On July 20, 2012, using taxpayer funds from the State’s Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the NHRC launched the Kana’iolowalu campaign, opening a registration process strictly confined to Native Hawaiians – and even then only those who were also willing to “affirm the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people” and who desired to vote for a new race-based sovereign government.
We are proud to represent in federal court citizens harmed by the discriminatory Hawaiian election process. Keli’i Akina and Kealii Makekau are descendants of Native Hawaiians, who cannot register to vote because they will not positively affirm the statement contained in the registration materials to the effect that that they favor Native Hawaiian sovereignty and self-governance. Joseph Kent and Yoshimasa Sean Mitsui are citizens and residents of the State of Hawaii, who are prevented from registering to vote because of the race-based ancestry requirements of Act 195. Melissa Leina’ala Moniz and Pedro Kana’e Gapero are Native Hawaiians who were registered to vote without their knowledge or consent.
The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a Hawaii-based think tank, has been assisting Judicial Watch in its investigation of Hawaii’s plan for a race-based election. “Every day that this unconstitutional election is allowed to proceed is another day that Native Hawaiians are misled, people’s rights are bypassed, and the will of the thousands of Hawaiians who have voiced their opposition to the state’s nation-building scheme are ignored,” said Keli’i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute and one of the plaintiffs in the case. “We must stop wasting time, money, and good will on a divisive and unconstitutional race-based election and begin looking for ways to improve the lives of everyone who lives in our state.”
As symbols of the Confederacy are removed from public display, the political left is pushing for a racist separatist campaign in Hawaii with the help of Barack Obama’s administration. The federal courts cannot put an end to this constitutional abomination soon enough. This Hawaii race-based election is a comeback for segregation.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission are both hiding behind private parties in order to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and get around the civil rights protections afforded every American through the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.
Robert Popper, director of Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project, is Judicial Watch’s lead attorney on the lawsuit. Mr. Popper was formerly deputy chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. Michael Lilly of the Honolulu law firm Ning, Lilly & Jones is serving as Judicial Watch’s local counsel for the plaintiffs.
In separate litigation, Judicial Watch forced the release of the actual enrollment list, which includes the names of Hawaiian residents placed on that list without their permission. The Obama administration took controversial executive action towards “the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community.
I encourage you to get the word out about this attack on our system of government, funded with your tax dollars. The left would end America by carving it up along rancid racial lines and lies.
Hillary Clinton’s Rogue Agenda:
Why Sid Blumenthal Matters
Hillary Clinton’s relationship with her long-time adviser and friend Sidney Blumenthal deserves more public attention, especially as it likely involved international-level corruption that includes the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, and Libya (Benghazi, especially).
Micah Morrison, Judicial Watch’s chief investigative reporter, probed some of these links for a major investigative piece for the New York Post on October 31, 2015. I’m providing the full text below:
After the media inexplicably dubbed Hillary Rodham Clinton the “winner” of the Benghazi hearings, her apologists dismissed a line of questioning into her unofficial adviser, Sidney Blumenthal.
So he was sending her e-mail offering advice on Libya and other matters of state. In the immortal words of Clinton at an earlier Benghazi hearing, “What difference does it make?”
It matters because Clinton flouted President Obama’s authority, secretly employing a man the administration had banned – then Clinton and Blumenthal pursued a rogue agenda often motivated by political favors and payoffs for friends.
Blumenthal was an aide to President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001 and one of his most reliable hatchet men. Luca Brasi without the charm, Blumenthal had smeared Monica Lewinsky, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, Republicans – and, when the time came, presidential candidate Barack Obama himself. His nickname: “Sid Vicious.”
E-mails show Hillary Clinton wanted him hired at State. But still smarting from Blumenthal’s attacks during the campaign, the administration nixed the appointment.
Clinton was undeterred. Despite telling the Benghazi committee that Blumenthal was “not my adviser, official or unofficial,” records show the Clinton political machine paid him at least $320,000 a year.
Just after his rejection by the State Department, and through March 2015, the Clinton Foundation paid Blumenthal $10,000 a month. Blumenthal’s job, according to Politico, was “highlighting the legacy” of President Bill Clinton.
From the summer of 2009 to the present day, according to Fox News, Blumenthal was paid $200,000 a year by Media Matters, an aggressive pro-Clinton information outlet led by David Brock. Blumenthal provides “high-level strategy and messaging advice” to Brock and others.
Little exists in the public record showing work by Blumenthal for the Clinton Foundation or Media Matters, and both organizations did not respond to requests for clarification.
But there is plenty on Blumenthal’s labors for Clinton – hundreds of private e-mails.
Blumenthal’s unusual work arrangement was a triple play fraught with potential conflicts of interest: He simultaneously advised the secretary of state and possible future president; promoted the interests of her husband as the former president scoured the globe seeking millions of dollars in speech fees and donations to the Clinton Foundation; and provided advice to an organization devoted to destroying their enemies.
Blumenthal cast a wide net as a de facto Clinton ambassador, promoting dubious business deals and political schemes.
The e-mails reveal at least three examples:
A LIBYAN CONTRACT
In Libya, Blumenthal promoted a deal sought by US defense contractor Osprey Global Solutions. According to its Web site, Osprey offers a wide variety of services – including “security, training, armament” – as well as the sale of assault rifles.
In an Oct. 7 letter to Benghazi committee ranking minority member Elijah Cummings, the panel’s chair, Trey Gowdy, noted Blumenthal “acknowledged a personal stake in Osprey.”
In hundreds of pages of e-mails, Gowdy noted, Blumenthal served as Secretary Clinton’s “primary adviser on Libya” and pushed her hard “to intervene” as Khadafy was going down.
But Blumenthal’s real motivation, Gowdy claims, was “money.”
Specifically, a deal to bring Osprey together with the fledgling transitional government in Libya.
Gowdy wrote that “at the same time Blumenthal was pushing Secretary Clinton to war in Libya, he was privately pushing” the Osprey deal in Libya.
Blumenthal lobbied for more aggressive military action. In a March 2011 e-mail, he urged “another round or two of ferocious bombing” of Khadafy’s army. He also advised Clinton to take credit for Khadafy’s eventual fall.
“You must go on camera,” he e-mailed her in August 2011, two months before the dictator’s gruesome death. “You must establish yourself in the historical record.”
Meanwhile, in a July 14, 2011, e-mail cited in the Gowdy letter, Blumenthal wrote Clinton that “Osprey will provide medical help, military training, organize supplies and logistics” to the post-Khadafy government.
He and his colleagues, Blumenthal wrote, “acted as honest brokers, putting this arrangement together through a series of connections, linking the Libyans to Osprey and keeping it moving.”
“Got it,” Clinton wrote Blumenthal. “Will follow up tomorrow. Anything else to convey?” Clinton forwarded the Blumenthal e-mail to a top aide, Jake Sullivan.
AN AFRICAN DEAL
In June 2009, Blumenthal began promoting Joseph Wilson, the former US ambassador who rose to fame challenging intelligence claims that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium “yellowcake” in Niger. Wilson was a fierce Bush administration critic and longtime Clinton supporter who had criticized candidate Barack Obama for “timid” views.
Now Wilson was in business as an Africa consultant and deal-maker.
“You’re addressing a group on Africa on Thursday,” Blumenthal e-mailed Clinton in September 2009. “Joe Wilson will be there and . . . wants to say hello. Please look out for him.”
“Pls be sure I see Joe,” Clinton e-mailed aides Huma Abedin and Lona Valmoro a minute later, copying Blumenthal.
“Will do,” Valmoro replied.
“Blumenthal cast a wide net as a de facto Clinton ambassador, promoting dubious business deals and political schemes.”
Wilson wanted to do more than just say hello. He was looking for business.
Blumenthal became the go-between for Clinton and Wilson. In an e-mail passed to Clinton by Blumenthal a week later, Wilson pitched his new client, Symbion Power.
Symbion was seeking millions of dollars in contracts from an obscure government agency chaired by the secretary of state, the Millennium Challenge Corp. (MCC).
Symbion, an electrical-power developer, had been “hugely successful” in Iraq and Afghanistan, Wilson wrote Clinton. Symbion was now setting up shop in Tanzania, Wilson noted, “where we will be bidding on all of the upcoming MCC-financed power generation and distribution projects. I have asked Sid to pass a memory stick with a four-minute video that explains what Symbion does and how it does it.”
More e-mails followed, including one the State Department later classified as containing “confidential” information. The November 2009 e-mail was sent by Wilson to Blumenthal, who passed it on to Clinton. Most of Clinton’s reply to Blumenthal is redacted as classified.
In the e-mail, Wilson noted Symbion’s “competitive advantage,” saying he was “very enthusiastic” about the company. Wilson wrote that he was a “director of Symbion Power” and that he “may soon assume direct responsibility for all of Africa as Symbion expands there – claims the company later disputed when its relationship with Wilson fell apart in contentious litigation.
In September 2010, MCC awarded Symbion $47 million in US taxpayer money for power projects in Tanzania.
AN EU ELECTION
In October 2009, Blumenthal promoted a scheme to make former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair president of the European Council, an influential arm of the European Union.
The Clintons were intrigued. “I’m copying Doug [Band] and Justin [Cooper] who are traveling” with Bill Clinton “and may have some ideas,” Secretary Clinton e-mailed Blumenthal on Oct. 28. She added, “If I have any other ideas I will let you know.”
Band and Cooper at the time were key members of Bill Clinton’s personal office and the Clinton Foundation.
The White House was staying out of the EU election. No one in the Blumenthal scheme appears to have given any thought to the shoddy ethics of having the secretary of state secretly lobbying for a result in a foreign election.
In the end, Blair was passed over for a center-right candidate.
Within two years, however, Blair would receive another plum post. Blair – along with Band, Cooper, Bill Clinton himself and many outgoing senior State Department officials – were put on the payroll of another Clinton-affiliated entity, Teneo Holdings.
The Blumenthal saga is not over.
On Friday, the State Department released more than 7,000 pages of Hillary Clinton e-mails under a court order. Among them were dozens of e-mails to and from Blumenthal. And there is more to come from the State Department, the Benghazi committee and lawsuits from watchdog groups such as Judicial Watch.
More troubling for the Clinton presidential campaign: The FBI is investigating security issues related to Clinton’s e-mail server.
Whether any crimes were committed remains to be seen. But despite the dismissal of the e-mail scandal in liberal circles, the recovered messages have already established a clear record of Clinton’s underhanded and unethical actions in office.
On Jan. 9, 2009, Hillary Clinton signed a letter pledging to stay out of Clinton Foundation business. In a document first disclosed by Judicial Watch, Clinton had promised State Department officials that she would keep to the “highest standards of ethical conduct” and “not participate” in foundation matters.
Yet she went behind the president’s back to keep a friend in the fold, then mixed the nation’s business with the interests of Blumenthal and her private foundation, giving government contracts to people like Joseph Wilson and pushing behind the scenes for EU elections.
Hillary Clinton violated her own pledge and the government’s rules. “What difference does it make?” A big difference.|November.6.2015
Tom Fitton – President
425 3rd St, SW Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20024