JW Victory: FBI Capitulates!

[WEEKLY UPDATE]

FBI CAPITULATES ON MCCABE TEXTS AFTER ADVERSE COURT RULING

[[link removed]]

For three years we have been in court for the text messages of
former-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe that we think could shed
light on the FBI’s squelching of any serious investigation of her
email and Clinton Foundation abuses.

Finally, the FBI will begin processing these messages for release.
This comes after a federal court rejected the FBI’s request to
dismiss our FOIA lawsuit.

We had sued on behalf of Jeffrey A. Danik, a retired FBI supervisory
special agent, for McCabe’s emails and text messages (_Jeffrey A.
Danik v. U.S. Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:17-cv-01792). Mr. Danik filed his first request for the records
in 2016.

After years of suggesting that text messages are not subject to FOIA,
the FBI told the court in a recent filing
[[link removed]]
that it has located 150 text messages and 5,696 emails but will not
have a schedule to release the records until August 28, 2020.

We filed the suit
[[link removed]]
in 2017 in support of Danik’s October 25, 2016, and February 28,
2017, FOIA requests for records about McCabe’s “conflicts of
interest” regarding his wife’s (Dr. Jill McCabe’s) political
campaign and Hillary Clinton. Specifically, the two FOIA requests are
for:

Text messages and emails of McCabe containing “Dr. Jill McCabe,”
“Jill,” “Common Good VA,” “Terry McAuliffe,”
“Clinton,” “Virginia Democratic Party,” “Democrat,”
“Conflict,” “Senate,” “Virginia Senate,” “Until I
return,” “Paris,” “France,” “Campaign,” “Run,”
“Political,” “Wife,” “Donation,” “OGC,” Email,” or
“New York Times.”

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan denied the DOJ’s motion
to dismiss the case, concluding that DOJ had not provided sufficient
evidence to support its attempt to end the lawsuit without providing
all emails and text messages responsive to the FOIA requests.

The FBI has outrageously stonewalled for years the release of these
McCabe text messages about Clinton. You can be sure the text messages
are something the corrupted FBI doesn’t want the American people to
see.

In November 2017, in a related case, we uncovered
[[link removed]]
Justice Department records concerning ethics issues related to
McCabe’s involvement with his wife’s political campaign. The
documents include an email showing Mrs. McCabe was recruited for a
Virginia state senate race in February 2015
[[link removed]]
by then-Virginia Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam’s office. The
news that former Secretary of State Clinton used a private email
server broke five days later
[[link removed]],
on March 2, 2015. Five days after that, former Clinton Foundation
board member
[[link removed]]
and
Democrat party fundraiser, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, met with
the McCabes. She announced her candidacy on March 12. Soon afterward,
Clinton/McAuliffe-aligned political groups donated nearly
[[link removed]]
$700,000
(40%
[[link removed]]
of the
campaign’s total funds) to McCabe’s wife for her campaign.

Also in November 2017, we discovered Justice Department records
[[link removed]]
showing that McCabe secretly had recused himself from the
investigation into Clinton’s unsecure, non-government email server
on November 1, 2016
[[link removed]],
one week prior to the presidential election. The Clinton email probe
was codenamed “Midyear Exam
[[link removed]
While working as Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field
Office, McCabe controlled resources supporting the investigation into
Clinton’s email scandal. An October 2016 internal FBI memorandum
labeled “Overview of Deputy Director McCabe’s Recusal Related To
Dr. McCabe’s Campaign for Political Office
[[link removed]
details talking points about McCabe’s various potential conflicts of
interest, including the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s illicit
server, which officially began in July 2015.

McCabe was fired from the FBI in March 2018 for leaking to the media
and lacking “candor
[[link removed]
Though
now, we look forward to seeing his candid text messages!

IS ADAM SCHIFF ABOVE THE LAW?

A federal court decision
[[link removed]],
which we may appeal, just upheld the secrecy of controversial
subpoenas for phone records issued by Adam Schiff, chairman of the
U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, relating to the
impeachment of President Trump.

Our lawsuit sought the controversial impeachment-related subpoenas for
phone records, including those of Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s
lawyer. Schiff and the Committee are being represented by the Office
of General Counsel for the House of Representatives.

The phone records led to the publication
[[link removed]]
of
the private phone records of Giuliani, Congressman Devin Nunes,
journalist John Solomon, Trump attorney Jay Sekulow, attorney Victoria
Toensing, and other American citizens.

In their 14-page motion Schiff and the Committee claim “sovereign
immunity;” “Speech or Debate Clause” privilege; immunity from
FOIA and transparency law; that the records are secret; and that
Judicial Watch and public do not need to see them. Today’s court
decision suggested that Schiff and the House have “absolute”
immunity from inquiries about the subpoenas.

We filed our lawsuit
[[link removed]]
under
the public’s common-law right of public access to examine government
records after we received no response to a December 6, 2019, records
request (_Judicial Watch v. v Adam Schiff and U.S. House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence
[[link removed]
(No.
1:19-03790)):

* All subpoenas issued by the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on or about September 30, 2019 to any telecommunications
provider including, but not limited to AT&T, Inc., for all records of
telephone calls of any individuals
* All responses received to the above subpoenas.

“The records are of critical public importance,” our lawsuit
argued, “as the subpoenas were issued without any lawful basis and
violated the rights of numerous private citizens.”

Schiff secretly subpoenaed, without court authorization, the phone
records of Rudy Giuliani and then published the phone records of
innocent Americans, including President Trump’s lawyers, a member of
Congress, and a journalist. And now a federal court has ruled that
Schiff, or any member of Congress, can’t be held accountable for
this unprecedented and potentially criminal abuse of power.

Every American should be concerned about a ruling that suggests
Congress has unlimited power to take and publish their private phone
records!

BUREAUCRATS TRY TO EXPLAIN CHINESE EQUIPMENT BAN TO CONTRACTORS

We have been at the forefront on reporting
[[link removed]]
efforts by the Chinese
government to extract vital national security secrets, and we’re not
finished.

A new rule
[[link removed]]
prohibits the use of Chinese equipment “to protect U.S. networks
against cyber activities conducted through Chinese
Government-supported telecommunications equipment and services.” An
attempt by a government agency to explain this to government
contractors is worth your review, as our _Corruption Chronicles_ blog
reveals
[[link removed]].


The U.S. government has crafted an amusing new guide to help federal
agencies and contractors comply with the ban on Chinese
telecommunications and surveillance equipment. The rule was issued
last year to combat national security and intellectual property
threats against the United States and details were published
[[link removed]]
in August 2019 in the Federal Register. Officials from the Department
of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA) and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) helped design the
measure, which covers a portion of the 2019 National Defense
Administration Act that restricts the use of federal funds to do
business with Chinese telecommunications firms and forbids government
contractors and recipients of government grants from working with
Chinese companies or those that utilize their technology.

This month, the GSA, the huge syndicate that helps manage federal
agencies, released a colorful two-page guide
[[link removed]]
to assist them in navigating the new rule. With around 12,000
employees, the GSA provides centralized procurement for the federal
government and manages billions of dollars in products, services and
facilities. The bloated agency has an extensive history of
mismanagement and waste, though it touts itself as an innovation
engine that helps the government cut costs. In 2010 the GSA was
embroiled in a big scandal for hosting a lavish Las Vegas event for
employees featuring luxury accommodations for staff and their loved
ones, fine cuisine, wild parties and expensive gifts. Dozens of agency
workers were awarded cash bonuses for arranging the outlandish Sin
City celebration and a senior GSA executive got criminally charged for
submitting fraudulent reimbursement claims and making false statements
in connection with the costly shindig. In 2013 Judicial Watch
uncovered more GSA extravagance by obtaining several embarrassing
videos
[[link removed]]
showing senior GSA officials and staff participating in costumed
playacting and parodies.


That background is relevant in introducing the GSA’s colorful—and
seemingly pointless—pamphlet on the Chinese telecom ban, which
includes advice for government contractors and other information
associated with implementing the new measure. The flyer is titled
“Section 889” after the portion of the 2019 Defense Authorization
bill
[[link removed]]
that covers the ban on equipment from Chinese firms. It specifically
names Huawei, ZTE, Hytera, Hikvision, and Dahua and their subsidiaries
as banned companies and mandates that contractors immediately report
any covered equipment or services “if discovered during the course
of contract performance
[[link removed]
Various agencies, including the DOD, NASA and the GSA have hosted
meetings to help federal agencies and government contractors navigate
the implementation of the Chinese telecom ban, which officially takes
effect in August for businesses hired by the feds.

The GSA brochure encourages government contractors to read and
understand the rules and “determine through reasonable inquiry”
whether they use the “covered telecommunications equipment or
services.” Contractors are also directed to educate their purchasing
and materials management professionals to assure they are familiar
with the compliance plan and alert the government if use of banned
Chinese equipment is discovered during contract performance. Those
that replace prohibited Chinese telecom equipment or services must
“ensure” the new equipment is “compliant,” the GSA writes,
stating the obvious: do not exchange banned Chinese materials with
banned Chinese materials. Firms doing business with the government are
also encouraged to develop a phase-out plan with the complete laydown
of equipment and services banned under the new law.

A section that explains why the changes are important reveals that
U.S. foreign adversaries are using increasingly sophisticated methods
such as supply chain and cyber operations to gain access to critical
infrastructure and steal sensitive information. Additionally, the GSA
flyer says, the increasing reliance on foreign owned or controlled
telecommunications equipment creates vulnerabilities in U.S. supply
chains. “China is increasingly asserting itself by stealing U.S.
technology and intellectual property to erode U.S. economic and
military superiority,” the GSA pamphlet states. A section on waivers
says every federal agency must designate a senior official for Supply
Chain Risk Management and every waiver must include a compelling
justification for additional time needed, full laydown of banned
equipment and phase-out plan.

A TRUMP VICTORY ON HOSPITAL COSTS

With little notice in the adversarial media, President Trump has been
moving to untangle our nightmare healthcare system, including actions
[[link removed]]
to lower prescription costs. Micah Morrison, our chief investigative
reporter, informs
[[link removed]]
us of the success of another presidential effort in our _Investigative
Bulletin_:

A little-noticed court ruling last month signals a major Trump
Administration victory for healthcare transparency. The likely result?
Lower hospital bills.

Anyone ever confronted with a hospital bill knows it can be a
frightening and bewildering experience. In 2019, Trump moved to fix
that, instructing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to
come up with a plan, and a clear-language format, that would inform
patients “about actual prices.”

The executive order
[[link removed]
HHS to propose a regulation requiring hospitals to “publicly post
standard charge information, including charges and information based
on negotiated rates and for common and shoppable items and
services.” HHS complied, issuing a rule that defined hospital
charges, set an easy-to-understand format, and established an
enforcement schedule.

Hospital groups were not happy. Led by the powerful American Hospital
Association, they challenged the ruling, arguing HHS did not have the
authority to issue the rule. They threw in for good measure a
violation of the First Amendment and arbitrary and capricious behavior
under the Administrative Procedure Act.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols didn’t buy it.

In a victory for freedom of information, Judge Nichols, a 2019 Trump
appointee
[[link removed]],
rejected the hospitals’ arguments. “The impenetrability of
hospital bills is legendary,” he noted. The hospitals’ position is
“essentially attacking transparency matters generally, which are
intended to enable consumers to make informed decisions.”

Under the new rules, hospitals must publish the gross or
“chargemaster” charge—that is, the often highly inflated fee
used internally as an accounting tool and starting point in billing.
The “discounted cash price”—charges to individuals who pay cash
or who do not, or cannot, use insurance to cover the fee. The
“payer-specific negotiated charge”—the charge the hospital has
negotiated with a third party, such as your insurance provider. And
the “de-identified minimum and maximum charges”—as Judge Nichols
explains, these are “the highest and lowest charges the hospital has
negotiated with all third-party payers for an item or service.”

The Nichols ruling shows us the power of transparency in a real-world
setting. Price transparency helps consumers make decisions about where
to put their money and where to maybe get a better deal. It puts
downward pressure on costs. It hands power to patients.

Hospital groups say they will appeal. The regulations do “nothing to
help patients understand their out-of-pocket costs,” said an
attorney for the hospitals. “It also imposes a significant burden on
hospitals at a time when resources are stretched thin and need to be
devoted to patient care.”

Read the full Nichols ruling here
[[link removed]].

Until next week,





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU01"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2020, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]