A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election

Oversight and Review Division 18-04 June 2018

Chapter Fifteen

FBI RECORDS VAULT TWITTER ANNOUNCEMENTS

1. Introduction

On November 1, 2016, in response to multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, the FBI Records Management Division’s records/ Information Dissemination Section (RIDS) posted records to the FBI Records Vault, a page on the FBI’s public website, concerning the “William J. Clinton Foundation” (Clinton Foundation). The bulk of those records concerned the 2001 investigation into the pardon of Marc Rich. The @FBIRecordsVault Twitter account announced this posting later that same day.270 This Twitter announcement or “tweet” followed a series of 20 tweets released from the @FBIRecordsVault account on October 30, 2016, after a year-long dormant period during which no tweets announcing FOIA releases on the FBI Records Vault had been issued. One of the 20 tweets on October 30, 2016, concerned a release of records for Fred C. Trump, the father of then candidate Donald Trump.

Several newspaper reports suggested that the timing of the Clinton

Foundation tweet—coming four days after FBI Director James Comey had

announced the re-opening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation—was “further evidence of FBI meddling” in the 2016 election.

The FBI Inspection Division (INSD) conducted a review of the circumstances leading to the Clinton Foundation tweet that focused particularly on the causes of the one-year dormant period and the circumstances surrounding the release of 20 tweets on October 30, 2016, which as noted above included the Fred C. Trump information. INSD’s investigation found that: (1) the materials responsive to the FOIA requests were “properly posted” to the FBI Records Vault and (2) a technical malfunction that began in October 2015 and went unnoticed caused the @FBIRecordsVault Twitter account to cease posting automatic Twitter announcements about records posting to the Vault. The malfunction was corrected with a software update on October 30, 2016. After this correction, INSD found that the tweet function operated properly—automatically posting overdue tweets on the @FBIRecordsVault Twitter feed for FOIA releases posted during the dormant period on the FOIA Vault page—and then functioning as intended from that point forward, to include the November 1, 2016 tweet concerning the Clinton Foundation. Therefore, INSD concluded that the tweet concerning the Clinton Foundation was not affected by the software malfunction that prevented the issuance of other tweets for the one-year period.

The OIG conducted this follow-up review focused in particular on the

circumstances surrounding the November 1, 2016 FOIA posting on the FBI Records

270 The posting date for the records on the Vault is October 31, 2016, but the RIDS Section

Chief and a RIDS analyst told us that October 31 reflects the date when the records were uploaded into the system to be reviewed by RIDS and OPA personnel, but not the date the records were published for the public.

485

Vault and the subsequent tweet announcing the posting. The purpose of this

review was to determine whether there was any evidence that improper political considerations were a factor in the timing of these events. As part of this investigation, the OIG reviewed FOIA requests received by the FBI on the Clinton Foundation prior to November 1, 2016, documents associated with the FBI’s processing of these requests, and email records for individuals involved in processing and releasing the requests. The OIG interviewed eight individuals from RIDS and the FBI’s Office of Public Affairs (OPA).

Based on our investigation, we found no evidence to indicate that improper political considerations influenced the FBI’s processing and release of the Clinton Foundation documents or the use of an FBI Twitter account to publicize the release. The evidence indicates that the FOIA requests related to the Clinton Foundation were processed according to RIDS’ internal procedures like other similarly-sized requests. Likewise, we found no evidence to indicate that the FOIA response was either expedited or delayed in order to impact the 2016 Presidential election. Below are the factual findings and conclusions reached by the OIG’s investigation.

1. Background

This section discusses the laws, regulations, guidance, and procedures

governing the FBI’s activities in receiving, researching, processing, and responding to FOIA requests and, in appropriate cases, publicly releasing documents produced in response to FOIA requests by posting such documents on the FBI Records Vault.

1. Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552

The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (FOIA), requires federal agencies to make agency records available to the public and sets forth the specific requirements to do so along with guidance on records and information exempt from public release. On June 30, 2016, the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (the FOIA Improvement Act), Public Law No. 114-185, 130 Stat. 538, updated 5 U.S.C. § 552 with a notable change pertinent to this case regarding when an agency must release previously-requested records to the public. Before the FOIA Improvement Act, FOIA permitted agencies to proactively release records, “which, because of the nature of their subject matter, the agency determines have become or are likely to

become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records.”271 This wording, often referred to as the “frequently requested record” provision of FOIA, allowed agencies latitude to decide when to make these records available and for how long.272 However, the FOIA Improvement Act now also requires agencies to publicly release records once they have received three or more requests for the same or substantially similar records. This is commonly referred to as the “rule of

271 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(D) (2009).

272 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(D) (2009).

486

three.”273 An agency may also pre-emptively release the records if it believes they will receive additional requests for the records.274

Under FOIA, agencies are authorized to withhold information from public release that is specifically exempt from release under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b), traditionally referred to as FOIA exemptions. Exemptions cover material such as classified information, trade secrets, personnel and medical files, and law enforcement information.275 Under this provision however, the agency is tasked with redacting the information that cannot be disclosed, but releasing as much of the requested information as possible.276

In sensitive law enforcement matters, FOIA allows a law enforcement agency to “treat the records as not subject to the requirements of [FOIA].”277 This is known as a FOIA exclusion, which “provide[s] protection in three limited sets of circumstances where publicly acknowledging even the existence of the records could cause harm to law enforcement or national security interests.”278 The first exclusion protects records in an ongoing criminal investigation, the release of which

could “reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”279 The second exclusion protects from the acknowledgment of confidential informant records.280 The last exclusion protects the FBI’s classified foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, and international terrorism records.281 The Department’s Office of Information Policy (OIP) requires Department components—including the FBI—to obtain OIP’s approval to use a FOIA exclusion.282

FOIA allows agencies to expedite the processing of records in cases where the requester can “demonstrate[] a compelling need” or in other situations as defined by each agency.283 A “compelling need” is defined in FOIA as a situation where not receiving the requested records quickly “could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual” or in situations where individuals who disseminate information demonstrate an “urgency

273 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(D)(ii) (2016).

274 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(D)(ii).

275 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).

276 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).

277 5 U.S.C. § 552(c)(1).

278 Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy, Implementing FOIA’s Statutory

Exclusion Provisions, Aug. 15, 2014, https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-guidance-6.

279 5 U.S.C. § 552(c)(1)(B)(ii).

280 5 U.S.C. § 552(c)(2).

281 5 U.S.C. § 552(c)(3).

282 36 C.F.R. § 16.6(g)(1) (2017).

283 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(i).

487

to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.”284 If

the agency grants the request, it must process the FOIA request “as soon as

practicable.”285

1. The FBI FOIA Process

RIDS oversees the FBI’s FOIA program. This section describes the RIDS FOIA process, their coordination with other FBI entities on “high visibility” and “rule of three” requests, and the posting of FOIA requests on the FOIA Vault.

1. Records/Information Dissemination Section’s FOIA Process

FBI Policy Directive 0481D, Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Requests, February 8, 2012, establishes the FBI’s FOIA and Privacy Act programs and provides top-level guidance. It sets forth that the FBI’s policy is to respond to FOIA and Privacy Act requests within 20 business days (the requirement set forth in the FOIA) and establishes an over-arching list of responsibilities for various offices within the FBI to assist RIDS to meet that goal. Policy Directive 0481D provides no additional procedural guidance beyond this top-level listing of roles and responsibilities. With the exception of Policy Directive 0481D, RIDS does not have any formal rules or manuals that outline the FBI’s FOIA process.286

FOIA requests received by the FBI are initially reviewed during a weekly meeting by senior RIDS personnel, including the section chief, assistant section chief, and unit chiefs. During that meeting, “high visibility” and complex requests are identified, as well as those that may qualify for expedited treatment (if requested). RIDS personnel told us that high visibility requests are generally those dealing with current political issues; anything dealing with a significant issue or person of interest to the public and the FBI; or items that have potential to impact the FBI. According to RIDS personnel, the RIDS Section Chief and Assistant Section Chief normally determine which requests will be designated high visibility requests. As detailed below, responses to high visibility requests receive a higher

level of supervisory review at the end of the process, and are also made available to the public on the FBI Records Vault.

Following intake, a FOIA request is then submitted to the Work Process Unit (WPU) in RIDS for initial processing. FOIA analysts send the requestor an acknowledgement of the request and provide them a FOIA number. They then search the FBI’s central records system, including Sentinel and the Automated Case Support (ACS) system, and contact relevant FBI personnel to locate responsive

284 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v). The Department’s FOIA Regulations add two more categories

in which the Department may grant expedited processing: the loss of substantial due process rights

or matters of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about

the government’s integrity that affects public confidence. 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(i)-(iv).

285 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii).

286 As a result, the following description of the FBI’s process is based on interviews with RIDS

managers and analysts.

488

records. If no records are found, the FBI communicates this fact to the requestor. If responsive records are identified, they are compiled, quality checked, and then uploaded into the FOIA Document Processing System.

Once the collection of documents has been completed, the response is placed

in a workflow “queue” to await processing by a RIDS disclosure analyst in one of the RIDS processing units. The FBI has established four separate workflow “queues” based on the volume of responsive documents. Responses that qualify for expedited treatment under FOIA are moved to the front of the appropriate workload queue. All other responses enter the queue from the back, in a “First In, First Out” order.

According to the RIDS Section Chief, requests with 50 or fewer pages of responsive documents enter the “small” queue and are typically processed within approximately 4 months from the date of the request to the date of the response.287

Requests generating between 50 and 950 pages of responsive documents are directed to the “medium” queue and are typically completed in approximately 9 to 10 months. Completion time for requests placed in the “large” queue, those that generate 950 to 8,000 pages of relevant documents, is approximately 2 and a half years. The fourth queue, for extra-large requests that generate over 8,000 pages of responsive documents, can take upwards of 4 years to fulfill. For larger requests, requestors do not have to wait the full time period for documents; RIDS provides interim releases in batches of 500 pages at a time.

RIDS personnel explained that once a request has worked its way to the front of the appropriate workflow queue, a supervisor assigns the responsive documents to a disclosure analyst for processing. Processing the documents involves a line-by-line review of the documents to identify and redact information exempt from release under the FOIA. After the disclosure analyst’s review is complete, RIDS experts and supervisors conduct a quality review. If the request is not a high visibility request, the analyst finalizes the release, sends the appropriate correspondence to the requestor, and closes the matter. Responses to high visibility requests are subject to additional management review before being released to the requestor or posted to the FBI Vault, including by the RIDS Section Chief and the FOIA attorney supporting RIDS, to ensureaccurate and proper application of exemptions, classification decisions, and redactions and to spot any other potential issues. The processing analyst drafts a “high visibility” memorandum to accompany the package through these additional reviews. According to the RIDS Section Chief, the designation of a request as “high visibility” does not mean it will be processed quicker than any other request, unless it otherwise qualifies for expedited treatment. Rather, these requests are processed according to the same prioritization procedures as other FOIA requests.

287 The average processing times are based on regular analysis of queue processing times by

RIDS personnel in order to provide estimated completion dates to FOIA requestors.

489

2. Release of FOIA Documents on the FBI Vault

The FBI Records Vault is a page on the FBI.gov public website. Requests

posted to the FBI Records Vault fall into one or both of the following categories:

high visibility requests or requests that meet the “rule of three” standard as defined in the 2016 updates to FOIA.

Although OPA manages the overall FBI.gov public website, RIDS is

responsible for the content and postings for the FBI Records Vault page. According

to RIDS personnel, in the fall of 2016, once RIDS management determined that a

post would be made to the FBI Records Vault, RIDS would notify the RMD chain of

command, OPA’s National Press Office, and often the General Counsel’s FOIA

Litigation Unit Chief of the upcoming post. To assist historians and researchers who

use the FBI Records Vault, RIDS would often ask the FBI Historian to draft a

summary of the documents to accompany the posting on the FBI Records Vault.

The purpose of RIDS’s notification to the National Press Office was to allow the

National Press Office an opportunity to prepare for any media inquiries and to notify

OPA management and FBI executive management as necessary.

Ultimately, once all these offices had been notified of the upcoming post, and

a summary had been drafted to be posted with the responsive documents, the

RIDS Section Chief made the final determination of when to post the documents.288

Postings could be delayed by the Section Chief and Assistant Section Chief of RIDS,

as well as the Office of Public Affairs and FBI executive management. The RMD

Section Chief told us that postings could only be delayed for short periods of time to

give FBI executive management notice that information with high public interest

was about to be posted. Once the release was posted to the FBI Records Vault, the

@FBIRecordsVault Twitter account was configured to automatically announce (autotweet)

the addition of new content to the FBI Records Vault.

III. Findings

This section presents our findings with regard to the timeline of events and

our analysis of whether there were any improper political considerations involved with the timing of the FOIA release and its associated tweet.

1. Facts
2. Timeline

Nov 10, 2015 FBI Records Management Division (RMD) receives the first FOIA request for documents relating to the Clinton Foundation.

Several subsequent requests for the same or similar materials

are later combined with the initial request for processing.

288 The Assistant Section Chief of RIDS could make the determination in the absence of the

Section Chief.

490

Dec 17, 2015 Records/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS) analysts

begin searching for responsive documents.

May 12, 2016 RIDS analysts complete the search for responsive documents.

The resulting collection (the “Clinton Foundation documents”) is

placed in the “medium workflow queue” to await processing for

release on a “First In, First Out” basis.

Aug 15, 2016 RIDS begins reviewing the Clinton Foundation documents for

exempt and classified material.

Oct 25, 2016 RIDS completes its review and redaction of the documents.

Because RIDS had designated this release as a “high visibility”

response, it receives review by the RIDS Assistant Section Chief

and the FBI Office of Public Affairs (OPA) prior to release to the

requesters and to the FBI Records Vault. The FBI Historian is

asked to draft a summary of the documents’ contents to

accompany the release to the Vault.

Oct 28, 2016 OPA informs RIDS that it concurs with the proposed release of

the Clinton Foundation documents.

Oct 31, 2016 OPA requests RIDS to postpone posting the Clinton Foundation

documents for one day because of workload resulting from Director Comey’s October 28 letter to Congress announcing reactivation of the Clinton email investigation.

Nov 1, 2016 RIDS publishes the Clinton Foundation documents on the FBI

Records Vault. The posting is announced on a systemgenerated

tweet from @FBIRecordsVault.

2. Detailed Chronology

The first Clinton Foundation request received by RMD on November 10, 2015,

sought any and all records about the Clinton Foundation. Between November 11

and December 15, 2015, the request was pending assignment for initial processing.

The Work Processing Unit opened a request for the Clinton Foundation on December

15. Materials from six subsequent, similar requests were later combined with this

request.289 These multiple requests met the “rule of three” standard for posting on

the FBI’s FOIA Vault page. The Clinton Foundation request was designated as a

high visibility request during processing due to its subject and the expectation it

could attract media attention. The request was not designated for “expedited”

treatment.

289 The subsequent requests were dated April 1, 2016; July 13, 2016; July 14, 2016; August

16, 2016; August 17, 2016; and August 30, 2016.

491

Between December 17, 2015, and May 12, 2016, RIDS analysts searched for

and gathered material responsive to the request. During this initial phase, RIDS

identified additional documents that were responsive to the FOIA request but

potentially qualified for a FOIA exclusion. The RIDS Section Chief stated to the OIG

that when they located these documents, he coordinated with the relevant

investigative section chief and determined the FBI should seek Department

approval to use a FOIA exclusion. The RIDS Section Chief explained to the OIG

that the Department’s policies required the FBI to “write up an exclusion” for

approval by OIP. The Director of OIP ultimately approved the FBI’s use of an

exclusion for these documents on July 25, 2016.

Responsive materials also included documents involving a closed 2001 FBI

investigation probing whether donations to the Clinton Foundation had been made

to influence former President Clinton to pardon Marc Rich. After discovering the

Marc Rich records on May 9, 2016, the RIDS Section Chief released the records to

the medium processing queue.

In the three months between May 12 and August 15, 2016, the documents

collected in response to the request (the “Clinton Foundation documents”) were in

the medium workflow queue awaiting processing. During this timeframe, additional

relevant records were located and added to the documents already in the queue,

but the request remained in the medium queue.

On August 16, 2016, the Clinton Foundation request entered the processing

and review phase in which the analyst reviewed the pages for exempted material

and performed a declassification review, and the supervisor performed a quality

review. Because the Clinton Foundation request had been designated as a high

visibility request, it received additional review by the FOIA Unit Chief, the RIDS

Assistant Section Chief and the RIDS Section Chief.

On October 25, 2016, the RIDS Assistant Section Chief notified two

individuals in OPA’s National Press Office—the Unit Chief and a Public Affairs

Specialist—and the FBI Historian via email that documents responsive to the Clinton

Foundation request, a high visibility FOIA release, were ready for their review prior

to release. The Assistant Section Chief noted in his email that RIDS planned to post

the FOIA response to the FBI Records Vault on October 28 or 31, 2016. The

Assistant Section Chief noted in his email that “the timing, of course, may draw

attention” to this release and provided a copy of the high visibility memo drafted by

the FOIA review unit, which provided a brief overview of the substance of the

release. The Assistant Section Chief told us and the recipients stated that they

understood this statement to refer to the short time before the 2016 election and

thus the expected media interest in any release involving the Clintons. In the email

the Assistant Section Chief also requested that the FBI Historian write a synopsis

for the FBI Records Vault posting.

On October 26, the National Press Office Unit Chief sent an email to the

Public Affairs Specialist in her office and the FBI Historian stating, “Can you give this [reviewing the Clinton Foundation documents] priority in the event we need to consider timing?” According to the Unit Chief, her timing concern involved the

492

election being close and with the potential media coverage, needing to allot time to review documents to be prepared for any issues that might arise after the documents were released. The Unit Chief told us that the press office wanted to review the documents in order to determine whether to alert FBI executive management, potentially including the FBI Director, to the potential media coverage. She stated that her reference to the timing was not to make it a high priority to ensure that it was released prior to the election, but that it meant “that they need[ed] to stop what they’re doing and review this so that we can make a decision if we need to, or raise it to another level.”

On October 27, the Public Affairs Specialist provided the high visibility

memorandum and about 15 pages of the FOIA release documents to the Assistant Director (AD) of OPA, Michael Kortan, for his review. The FBI Historian told us that in response to the request from RIDS and the National Press Office Unit Chief, he drafted a synopsis to accompany the release of records and sent it to the National Press Office Unit Chief on October 27, 2016. That same day, the FBI Historian also emailed the Assistant Section Chief with a short summary of the release to accompany the FBI Records Vault posting, and cautioned the Assistant Section Chief not to make the post “live” before checking back with the Public Affairs Specialist on whether OPA was ready for the release.

On Friday, October 28, the Public Affairs Specialist emailed RIDS to say that

OPA reviewed the FOIA response, and had no issues with the proposed release.

On Monday, October 31, the Public Affairs Specialist sent an inquiry to RIDS

at 9:17 a.m. asking whether the responsive materials had been released to the requester yet. When the RIDS Assistant Section Chief responded that they were in the process of posting it to the FBI Records Vault, the Public Affairs Specialist requested an hour delay to give AD Kortan an additional heads-up. As a result, RIDS planned for an 11:30 a.m. release and informed OPA. The Public Affairs Specialist then called the RIDS Section Chief and requested to delay the posting for a full day. The RIDS Section Chief stated that the Public Affairs Specialist told him they needed the delay because they were overwhelmed by the reaction to Director Comey’s announcement regarding the Clinton email investigation and “that there’s not any way [the National Press Office] can deal with this today.” However, the Public Affairs Specialist told us she could not recall the reason for the delay. The National Press Office Unit Chief stated that this was a typical delay needed to ensure that AD Kortan had the time to review the documents and make notifications to executive management. The RIDS Section Chief agreed to delay the posting until the next day.

On the morning of November 1, the RIDS Section Chief sent an email to

members of his team as well as individuals in OPA stating that RIDS was ready to make the Clinton Foundation documents public on the FBI Vault site. In the absence of further delay requests or other inputs from OPA, the RIDS Section Chief approved the public posting of the materials and instructed one of his subordinates.

493

a Supervisory Government Information Specialist (SGIS), to publish it on the FBI Records Vault. The SGIS then posted the FOIA records.290

Witnesses told us that the fact that the presidential election was just a week ahead was not a factor in deciding when to release the Clinton Foundation documents to the public, though they knew the timing would call attention to their release. They stated that the FBI does not take into account elections in deciding how to process FOIA requests or when to release responsive documents to the public. Witnesses told us that there was no FOIA equivalent to the Election Year Sensitivities guidance that addresses overt investigative steps and the timing of charges. Further, they told us that there were no discussions about delaying the release of the Clinton Foundation documents until after the election and that the fact that the release occurred the week before the election was a coincidence.

In response to OIG inquiries regarding the processing and the timing of the release, the RIDS Assistant Section Chief emphasized that FOIA is a release statute and presumes release: “[T]he legal duty under the FOIA is to release something…when it’s ready to be released…[i]rrespective of any timing, irrespective of any election. [The] FOIA statute says when something is ready to be released, we release it.” He also stated, “We deal with the most sensitive issues…every day…. [Y]ou have to stick to the process.” The RIDS Section Chief told us that the only guidance they received regarding the timing of FOIA releases came “from the Director himself when he released [a summary of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI].”291 The FBI had received criticism for releasing the documents on a Friday to minimize press attention. The Section Chief told us that, in a message to the FBI, he understood Comey to say that the FBI does not “hold onto anything for political purposes” and “when it’s ready it goes out.” The attorney supporting RIDS stated that in her interactions with RIDS management, “they have always been very clear that the FOIA process operates rather independently of any politics with a small p or the big P for that matter, that may be going on.” She added:

[T]he way that RIDS works, it’s such a massive beast that it’s

essentially a machine…. And it could be the dogcatcher case next to

the Hillary Clinton case, and you’re going to handle them the same.

The next one in your queue pops up, you’re going to work it until it’s

done, and then you’re going to move onto your next one. So, the

FOIA process…does not sort of cherry pick the things that we want to

handle at any particular time in any particular way, either fast or slow.

290 The public FBI Records Vault webpage indicates that the Clinton Foundation documents

were posted on October 31, 2016. However, the RIDS Section Chief and the SGIS told us that this date refers to when the documents were uploaded to the system for review by RIDS and OPA. The documents were not made available to the public until November 1, 2016.

291 On September 2, 2016, the FBI posted Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI

concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal email server she used during her tenure.

494

Later on November 1, a system-generated tweet from @FBIRecordsVault

announced the posting on FBI’s Records Vault. Shortly thereafter, NPO began

receiving inquiries from the media questioning the timing of the posting of the records and the associated tweet. The SGIS stated that he received multiple inquiries about the tweet because individuals within OPA and RMD were concerned

that he had manually tweeted the release. The SGIS told us he informed the

individuals who called that he had not manually tweeted concerning the release.

He then checked the Twitter feed on his phone and realized the attention it was

getting, so he looked into what happened. The SGIS stated he then learned about

the issues with the automatic Twitter feed, that those issues had been corrected on

October 30, and that upon correction the system released multiple tweets

concerning posts over the prior year.

1. Analysis

In order to determine whether the Clinton Foundation release was impacted

by any improper political motivation, we examined two issues. First, we explored

whether the Clinton Foundation request was handled differently than other

similarly-sized, high visibility FOIA requests. Next, we also examined whether any

FBI officials improperly attempted to affect the timing of the processing or release

of the responsive documents to either advance or harm the prospects of either

presidential candidate.

We found no evidence that the Clinton Foundation request was handled any

differently than other FOIA requests. Within RIDS, all of the individuals we

interviewed told us that the Clinton Foundation request was processed just like any

other FOIA request. The RIDS Section Chief told us the FOIA process is a

regimented process based on workload queues, and that the Clinton Foundation

request “just fell right into line with this [process]” and this request “was a number

on somebody’s spreadsheet.” The RIDS Assistant Section Chief said that they

followed “the business process at the time.”

We found no evidence that anyone in RMD or OPA expedited or delayed the

processing or posting of the request for any improper purpose. The RIDS Section

Chief stated that the Clinton Foundation request was processed according to its size

queue and consistent with that queue’s processing timeline. Our review of the

timeline for the processing of this request confirmed the Section Chief’s

assessment. RIDS located over 500 pages responsive to the request, putting the request in the medium queue with a stated average processing time of 9-10 months.292 The request was received on November 10, 2015, and was posted on November 1, 2016—just under 12 months. The RIDS Section Chief told the OIG

that the response did not meet the average processing time because it was “an unusual request” due to the potential FOIA exclusion, “which totally skew[ed] what happen[ed].” However, the RIDS SGIS who monitors the FOIA processing time

292 We did not perform an independent audit of RIDS’ medium queue, but utilized the

averages as reported to us by the RIDS Section Chief and Assistant Section Chief.

495

statistics, told the OIG that the time it took RIDS to produce this response “wasn’t off of the, off-timing,” and he did not think anyone had rushed it or slowed it down.

Additionally, the individuals we interviewed told us that there were no efforts to delay the release of the Clinton Foundation documents until after the election or efforts to expedite the release before the election. In fact, all of the witnesses we spoke to said that at no time were there any discussions about holding the Clinton Foundation release until after the election or ensuring that it was released before the election. The RIDS Section Chief told us that “there was no actual timing involvement to get it out before the election.” The RIDS Assistant Section Chief said there were no internal discussions about whether to hold the release until after the election. He told us that “FOIA is a disclosure action…. There was no consideration of [timing].” The National Press Office Unit Chief told us that documents are released when they are ready for release, regardless of the date or time period they fall under. She stated that OPA might ask for a delay of a few hours or a day or two if they needed time to review the documents, but would not hold back releasing information for a substantial period of time. The witnesses interviewed denied taking any action, or delaying any action, with regard to the FOIA request in order to assist or harm either candidate’s prospects in the election. None of the witnesses had knowledge of any attempt to do so.

496