By Tom Fitton
[Editor’s Note: The Freedom of Information Act makes the pathway to lawsuit easy. If you don’t get the material you request you can enter federal court to demand it.]
It is outrageous that the Justice Department is covering up key FISA court transcripts that would shed light on how the Clinton-DNC dossier was used to obtain surveillance of the Trump team. Frankly, President Trump should order that the DOJ and FBI release all documents about the FISA court process that was subverted by the corrupt use of the Clinton-DNC dossier.
In January 2018, we sued the DOJ for text messages and other records of FBI official Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)). Strzok reportedly oversaw the FBI’s interviews of former National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn; changed former FBI Director James Comey’s language about Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding her illicit email server from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless;” played a lead role in the FBI’s interview of Clinton; and is suspected of being responsible for using the unverified dossier to obtain a FISA warrant in order to spy on President Trump’s campaign.
In February 2018, we sued the DOJ for FBI documents regarding the FISA warrant application submitted to – and responses from – the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court related to alleged collusion between Russia and Trump campaign associates (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00245)).
And last month, we sued the DOJ for records about top Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr’s involvement in the Trump dossier authored by Christopher Steele (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No.1:18-cv-00490)) and (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No.1:18-cv-00491)).
As the rest of Washington pretends to be concerned about Stormy Daniels, Judicial Watch stays focused on the core government corruption issue of our time – the Deep State attack on our constitutional system of government.
Clintons and Education
Recently, Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton invited their followers to a reception in New York City for which contributions ranging from $2,500 to $100,000 will be graciously accepted.
They’re back!
Of course, she never went away. Micah Morrison, our chief investigative reporter, has even more of the Clintons’ doings in his Investigative Bulletin.
The summons from Chelsea Clinton came via email, an invitation to “be the change.”
“I am so excited about the Clinton Global Initiative University,” Chelsea wrote. In October, student leaders from “CGI U” will converge on Chicago, working on “projects big and small to address climate change, poverty, gender inequality, and other pressing issues facing their generation — and all of us.” The email provided four opportunities to donate to the Clinton Foundation. “None of this great work would be possible without you and your continued support.”
In January 2017, the New York State Labor Department issued a statutory notice that the Clinton Global Initiative—the annual glitterati schmooze fest that brought hundreds of millions of dollars into Clinton coffers—would be laying off twenty-two employees. The news went out: CGI was dead. Hillary would not be president; the gravy train had run out of steam. The Clintons closed up shop.
But in fact, reports of the death of the Clinton Global Initiative were greatly exaggerated. It continues in a kind of zombie afterlife, along with other Clinton Foundation efforts, including CGI U. “Building on the successful model of the Clinton Global Initiative,” the Clinton Foundation website says, “President Clinton launched the Clinton Global Initiative University in 2007 to engage the next generation of leaders on college campuses around the world.”
Laureate
Mr. Clinton made a fortune from CGI U. His early partner in the project was the for-profit university system, Laureate Education. Laureate donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and signed Mr. Clinton up as “honorary chancellor” in 2010. Over the next five years, Laureate paid Mr. Clinton more than $17 million. That’s when Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State and gearing up her presidential run. Laureate was controlled Doug Becker, a big Democratic donor. Becker stepped aside as CEO in 2017 with a $23 million package after taking the company public.
What does an honorary chancellor do to earn $17 million? Laureate told CNN that Mr. Clinton “inspired” people. The State Department stonewalled Judicial Watch’s attempt to uncover more details, eventually producing a heavily redacted contract that blacked out descriptions of the former President’s role. Laureate lately seems to have been shoved down the memory hole—it does not appear in current CGI U promotional material and both the Clinton Foundation and Laureate did not respond to requests for clarification. But Chelsea Clinton is carrying on the work. “We’re here with one of the most remarkable world leaders,” a Laureate student said in a video interview at a CGI U event reported by the Washington Post. “We’re here with Chelsea Clinton.”
The Clinton cash machine continues churning and you can bet there will be more attendant corruption!
–-Tom Fitton is an American conservative activist, and is the President of Judicial Watch.
Freedom of Information Acts are no joke. Use ’em while we’ve still got ’em.
The state of New South Wales’ thingie is called the Information and Privacy Commission. See their helpful website: ipc.nsw.gov.au. It contains, for example: “How to access your medical records.” I quote:
Access to your health information along with the privacy of your health information is covered by the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW) (HRIP Act).
If you would like to access your own health information or records, you have a right to request this by contacting the health service provider with whom your information is being held. This may be your GP, specialist or a hospital where you are or were a patient.
We recommend you put your request in writing to access the information you are requesting.
If the health service provider refuses to release the information to you, you have six months from becoming aware of the situation to make a complaint or seek a review of the conduct:
If it’s a private health service or organisation, make a complaint directly to our office
If it’s a public health service, lodge an internal review directly to the relevant Local Health District.
Our Fact sheet: how to access health information, has details of how to do so.
You know we run two shifts here. Daylight hours, we say things that should interest Aussies – that’s during the deep Seppo sleep [DSS]. Come Johnny Carson time in Adelaide – such as now — we try to upload American stuff.
What about the original FOIA? It was very hot in its day, especially the 1960s revelations of COINTELPRO documents. (Though I wonder if that was to condition us to the coverts being able to get away with anything and everything….)
You can get too much info, though. Way too much, as in the Starr Report:
http://www.famous-trials.com/clinton/924-starrreport-2
OK, never mind the lascivious stuff. Just think of the egregious obstructions of justice at the Tsarnaev trial when you read what paltry accusations were listed in the actual Articles of Impeachment against Clinton on December 19, 1998:
“Lying to aides about his relationship with Lewinsky when he knew they were potential grand jury witnesses who would repeat the falsehoods before the grand jury. After the Lewinsky story broke in the press, Clinton denied having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky to five aides who were later called before the grand jury.
“For example, he told John D. Podesta, now his chief of staff, that he did not have any kind of sexual encounter with Lewinsky. He told aide Sidney Blumenthal that he hadn’t ‘done anything wrong’.”