Yesterday, the FBI said that Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted because, though she clearly violated laws about management of confidential information, she had no "intent" to do so. Two thoughts
- Even if she had no intent to violate secrecy laws, she did - beyond a reasonable doubt - have intent to violate public transparency and FOIA laws. She wanted to make it hard, or impossible, for Conservative groups to see her communications, communications that the public has the right to see. In violating this law with full intent, she also inadvertently violated secrecy laws. I don't consider this any different than being charged for murder when your bank robbery inadvertently led to someone's death.
- If politicians are going to grant each other a strong mens rea (guilty mind or criminal intent) requirements for criminal prosecution, then politicians need to give this to the rest of us as well. Every year, individuals and companies are successfully prosecuted for accidentally falling afoul of some complex and arcane Federal law. Someone needs to ask Hillary where she stands on Federal mens rea reform.
Hans Bader submitted a FOIA on October 9 about US Forest Service and Dept. of Agriculture decision-making leading up to the unprecedented shutdown of private operations on US Forest Service land. I have seen the FOIA results and -- almost laughably -- virtually all of the documents relate to the end of the shutdown, and all of the documents are dated after the date of his FOIA. In other words, the US Forest Service essentially ignored the documents requested by the FOIA request and submitted a stacks of unrelated documents.
More from Mr. Bader here
This is pretty amazing -- a FOIA and a subsequent string of emails between a USA Today reporter and the Department of Justice. Like any email string, you need to go to the end and then read up. Essentially, the DOJ tells the reporter that they have information that undermines the reporter's story but won't tell him what it is. Instead, they threaten to hold it until after the reporter has published, and then give the information to another media outlet in order to embarrass the reporter, all because the reporter is "biased" which in Obama Administration speak means that he is an outlier that does not dutifully fall in line with the Administration's talking points.
My guess is that this is a cheap bluff to prevent a story from being published that the DOJ does not want to see in the public domain. Even if it is not a bluff, this is a horrendous approach to releasing information to the public.
Blogging has been light during the holidays, but here are some predictions I made back in 2007 I feel pretty good about (note these were made a year before Obama was elected)
What I will say is that folks who have enthusiastically supported the war should understand that the war is going to have the following consequences:
- In 2009 we will have a Democratic Congress and President for the first time since 1994.
- The next President will use the deficits from the $1.3 trillion in Iraq war spending to justify a lot of new taxes
- These new taxes, once the war spending is over, will not be used for deficit reduction but for new programs that, once established, will be nearly impossible to eliminate
- No matter what the next president promises to the electorate, they are not going to reverse precedents for presidential power and secrecy that GWB has established. Politicians never give up power voluntarily. [if the next president is Hillary, she is likely to push the envelope even further]. Republicans are not going to like these things as much when someone of the other party is using them.
1. The prediction was 100% correct, and in fact even went further as the donkeys gained a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, at least for a year. Though the war likely had little to do with the outcome, which was driven more by the economy
2. Dead-on. Five years later Obama still blames the deficit on Bush. This is no longer true -- Obama has contributed far, far more than Bush to the deficit -- but the Republicans' fiscal irresponsibility during their tenure have robbed them of any credibility in criticizing Obama
3. Mostly true (and usually a safe bet with government). Tax increases were deferred for four years due to an economy I had not foreseen would be so bad, but they are coming. At the time, it seemed logical to blame a lot of the deficit issues on war spending. Today, though, 1.3 trillion is barely 8% of the debt and is almost trivial to more recent money wasting activities.
4. Absolutely true. In spades. The only thing I missed was I thought Obama might be less likely to go overboard with the whole executive authority and secrecy thing than Hillary, but boy was I wrong. Obama has absolutely embraced the imperial presidency in a way that might have made Dick Cheney blush. Accelerated drone war, constant ducking of FOIA and transparency, increased use of treason laws to prosecute whistle blowers, claiming of power to assassinate Americans on the President's say-so, accelerated warrant-less wiretapping, using executive orders to end-run Congress, etc. etc. And I never guessed how much the media which so frequently criticized Bush for any expansions in these areas would roll over and accept such activity from a President of their party.
Transparency and accountability are always loved by those out of power but seldom by those in power. Thus we hear a lot about them on the campaign trail, and then suddenly, once folks are in office, silence. Two examples today.
First, this unbelievably anti-democratic and egregious proposal
A proposed rule to the Freedom of Information Act would allow federal agencies to tell people requesting certain law-enforcement or national security documents that records don't exist—even when they do.
Under current FOIA practice, the government may withhold information and issue what's known as a Glomar denial that says it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records.
The new proposal—part of a lengthy rule revision by the Department of Justice—would direct government agencies to "respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist."
The second story is in the same spirit, of using secrecy to avoid scrutiny and accountability
Sometime in 2012, I will begin the ninth year of my life under an FBI gag order, which began when I received what is known as a national security letter at the small Internet service provider I owned. On that day in 2004 (the exact date is redacted from court papers, so I can’t reveal it), an FBI agent came to my office and handed me a letter. It demanded that I turn over information about one of my clients and forbade me from telling “any person” that the government had approached me....
For years, the government implausibly claimed that if I were able to identify myself as the plaintiff in the case, irreparable damage to national security would result. But I did not believe then, nor do I believe now, that the FBI’s gag order was motivated by legitimate national security concerns. It was motivated by a desire to insulate the FBI from public criticism and oversight.
Since many advocates of anthropomorphic global warming theory have declared the twenty-year-old science to be "settled," then there must not be very much controversy or disagreement in the peer review reader comments to the UN's Fourth IPCC report. Except, no one seems willing to publicize these comments. Even US government organizations paid for by taxpayers. Steve McIntyre is again having to resort to filing FOIA's to get the details of climate research.
Update: It appears that Congress is taking a similar approach to climate research when it comes to openness about earmarks.