Wash. Times: Hillary’s Anti-Transparency Bargain

hillary-photo-with-wash-times-jpb-oped-10-27-2016-campaign_2016_clinton_jpeg-0822a_c0-18-2000-1184_s885x516Washington Times, October 27, 2016

Hillary’s Anti-Transparency Bargain

by James Bovard

President Obama recently condemned the Republican Party, claiming that its “central principle” is to suppress voting. But, while his administration piously pledges to protect voting rights, it has almost guaranteed that Americans will be blindfolded on Election Day. While the Justice Department will deploy election monitors at polls in 25 states, no one watched Uncle Sam.

Attorney General Eric Holder promised in 2014 that the Justice Department would “ensure that every voter can cast his or her ballot free of intimidation, discrimination or obstruction.” Except when the feds themselves decide to obstruct. The Obama administration is shielding probably the most controversial aspects of Hillary Clinton’s official records as secretary of State. Her undisclosed emails may reveal decisions that provided windfalls to the Clinton Foundation and up to $50 million in speaking fees to her husband.

Democracy is one of America’s most cherished exports. The State Department spends $2.4 billion a year for its “democracy and good governance” programs around the world. In contrast, it budgeted only $33 million this year to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, despite a torrent of inquiries about Mrs. Clinton’s records. Thus, the State Department is spending more than 70 times as much to spread democracy abroad as it spends supporting the democratic process at home this election year. Overall, the State Department spends almost a thousand times as much on foreign aid as it does on fulfilling its obligations to American citizens for democratic transparency.

There is an old joke that a true friend is someone you can call at 3 a.m. to help you bury a corpse. In Washington, the ultimate proof of friendship is a willingness to destroy or suppress government records. Hillary Clinton has many friends in the Obama administration.

The State Department told the Republican National Committee that it would require 75 years to comply with its FOIA request for emails from Hillary’s top aides. State delayed for more than five years answering a simple request from The Associated Press for a list of Mrs. Clinton’s schedules and meetings as secretary of State. Federal judges and the agency’s inspector general slammed the FOIA stonewalling and foot-dragging. (WikiLeaks is disclosing emails from Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, but has thus far not disclosed Mrs. Clinton’s own emails.)

The Obama administration responded to criticism late last year by appointing a State Department “transparency czar” to speed up FOIA responses. However, the czar was actually a hefty donor to the Clinton presidential campaign and the glacial pace continues. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, complained last month, “The State Department is using taxpayer money to make sure that this information never gets out to the public.” Justice Department lawyers have provided legal cover for the State Department’s delaying tactics.

In Washington, violating FOIA is considered a victimless crime because it does no harm to the government. On the other hand, the Justice Department zealously challenges any state or local policy or practice that it believes discriminates against would-be voters. In 2012, the department deployed almost 800 federal monitors to 23 states to guard against election irregularities and abuses and will send monitors to 25 states for next month’s election.

In contrast, the State Department has only 82 employees in its FOIA office. The State Department has far fewer employees dealing with crucial issues in the 2016 election than it hires to sweep floors at its headquarters and embassies around the world. But a few score FOIA employees have been more than enough to sweep much of Hillary’s record under a rug.

In lieu of full disclosure, Mrs. Clinton champions letting anyone and everyone vote. Last year, she condemned voter identification requirements as part of a “sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people and young people.” A Washington Post headline aptly summarized her message: “Hillary Clinton Declares War on Voter ID.” This is the bargain Hillary offers: Voters don’t have to identify themselves and she doesn’t disclose what she did in office.

In an election in which Mrs. Clinton’s personal character and credibility is the key issue for many voters, the Obama administration obliges Americans to blindly trust the president’s favored candidate. But, as Mrs. Clinton noted in a 2012 speech on the perils of corruption, “lack of transparency eats away like a cancer at the trust people should have in their government.”

Suppressing the official record of one of the two major presidential candidates turns American democracy into a covert operation. The 2016 election is akin to a sales contract for a house with many of the settlement provisions blotted out. Regardless of redactions to the “contract with voters,” taxpayers are liable for all the costs for the next four years.

Attorney General Ramsey Clark warned in 1967, “Nothing so diminishes democracy as secrecy.” What is the point of sending out poll watchers across the nation when no one is watching the State Department? What is the point of voting if politicians are permitted to blindfold voters?

• James Bovard is the author of “Attention Deficit Democracy” (Palgrave, 2006) and “Lost Rights” (St. Martins, 1994).

On Twitter @jimbovard



, , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to Wash. Times: Hillary’s Anti-Transparency Bargain

  1. jim carter October 29, 2016 at 6:17 pm #

    Jim, wonderful article on Transparency. At the risk of trolling, is the pasted original writing of interest ? So many people cannot accept (the inescapable ) fact that the Federal Reserve is embezzling money from the government.


    Deficit spending is a constant subject of interest, but few observers reflect on the handling of Treasury securities after Congress authorizes them. And the Federal Reserve does not want you to look.

    The Federal Reserve is a giant Ponzi game that yields humongous profit for select Wall Street financiers. By law, all profit of the Fed belongs to the government. If the people found out they were being ripped off, they would undoubtedly revolt—as has happened in numerous European societies.

    “How does the Federal Reserve steal billions daily from the U.S. government ?” you may ask.

    Let me make it simple. The FRBNY has exclusive control of the $8-10 trillion annually received from the auctions of Treasury securities. Ref. 31 CFR 375.3. Approximately one trillion is to fund deficit government spending. The rest is to roll over prior debt which is perpetual; mathematically, the national debt can never be paid off.

    The accounts are client accounts–not operating accounts. There are no reports or audits of the accounts given to Congress or the public.

    The profit of the Fed, derived from deficit spending securities, legally belongs to the government. Concealing and taking what belongs to the government is embezzling. Details are below.


    The Federal Reserve system is used by the Wall Street bankers to conceal the theft of $6 billion daily using the FRBNY’s exclusive control of the accounts of auction funds of Treasury securities. They have successfully operated the scheme for 100 years. Ref. 31 CFR 375.3.

    The evidence that the Federal Reserve is diverting the money from the government using the above accounting scam is in plain sight for those who wish to see it:

    ONE: The FRBNY will only establish a line of credit for the government (book entry money) when they receive a Treasury security in the amount of the line of credit.

    TWO: The deficit security is sold as a small percentage on the auctioned roll-over securities. The FRBNY handles all of the accounts and disbursements. Ref. 31 CFR 375.3. The accounts are client accounts (not operational accounts) and have never been audited. Audits of the FR are conducted according to guidelines established by the BOG.

    THREE: Funds from auctioning the deficit security issues (currently $2 trillion annually, $6 billion daily) cannot go to the government. If they did, they would have to buy the securities just issued since no other securities have been purchased. Under those circumstances, there would be no increase in the money in circulation (inflation) nor would there be any increase in the national debt. The money from the auction must go somewhere but it cannot go to the government.

    FOUR: The only feasible destination for the funds is to members of the Primary Dealers who are tasked with collecting called and redeemed Treasury securities. As hidden owners of the corporate Board of Governors (privately owned corporations are not required to file records with the SEC), they can receive deficit spending profit along with funds for the roll-over security work. The owners have put up no consideration for receiving $6 billion daily, even though it is touted as a loan. (If the non-existing loan was being paid off by the hidden money, it would then result is eliminating any increase in the National Debt. In addition, who, or what, is the source of the putative loan. The Fed does not have the assets in advance of receiving the security.) (The operation of the BOG readily lends itself to a corporate structure; the FR System does not.)

    FIVE: Profit of the Federal Reserve legally belongs to the government. Hiding money that belongs to the government is a crime. Ref. http://www.scribd.com/doc/48194264/rip-off-by-the-Federal-Reserve-revised.

    It is assumed the same profitable scam has been set up with the Euro with each nation pledging to guarantee payment on the securities sold by the ECB. The money from the sale of the securities is theorized, based upon the Federal Reserve documented scheme, to go to the controllers/owners of the ECB. Money from the above operations has been theorized to fund the New World Order scheme. Ref.

    Is any of this information of interest ?
    Jim Carter


  1. Rational Review News Digest, 10/28/16 - Jury acquits leaders of Malheur wildlife refuge standoff - Thomas L. Knapp - Liberty.me - October 28, 2016

    […] http://jimbovard.com/blog/2016/10/26/wash-times-hillarys-anti-transparency-bargain/ […]