Archive for October 2016

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

White House Warns Trump Not to Attack First Lady After She Savages Him

October 14, 2016

White House Warns Trump Not to Attack First Lady After She Savages Him, PJ Media, Rick Moran, October 13, 2016

wookieYouTube Screenshot. Michelle Obama tells the crowd “no,” when they chant, “Four More Years!”

Michelle Obama said during an emotionally charged speech at a rally in New Hampshire that Donald Trump’s lewd comments about women “have shaken me to my core.” She went on to harshly criticize the GOP candidate for his “demeaning” attitude toward women.

Politico:

“The fact is in this election we have a candidate for president of the United States who over the course of his lifetime and the course of this campaign has said things about women that are so shocking, so demeaning, I simply will not repeat anything here today,” she said at a campaign rally in New Hampshire. “And last week we saw this candidate actually bragging about sexual assaulting women. I can’t believe I’m saying that a candidate for president of the United States has bragged about sexually assaulting women.”Her voice breaking at times, Obama warned the crowd that “I’m going to get a little serious here, because I think we can all agree that this has been a rough week in an already rough election.” She said remarks from Trump recorded in 2005, in which he crudely described language how his celebrity allowed him to sexually assault women without consequence, constituted “hurtful, hateful language.”

“Language that has been painful for so many of us,” she continued. “Not just as women, but as parents trying to protect our children and raise them to be caring, respectful adults. And as citizens who think our nation’s leaders should meet basic standards of human decency.”

Trump has apologized for the language captured on the tape, on which he can be heard bragging that he would “grab [women] by the pussy,” but also chalked the remarks up to little more than “locker room talk” that did not reflect anything he had actually done. But the first lady said it was much more, describing Trump’s remarks as “a powerful individual speaking freely and openly about sexually predatory behavior.”

She said that the GOP nominee’s comments reminded women of being catcalled on the street or leered at by a coworker and of stories from mothers and grandmothers about what it used to be like for women in the workplace.

“I listen to all of this and I feel it so personally, and I’m sure that many of you do, too, particularly the women,” Obama said. “The shameful comments about our bodies, the disrespect of our intelligence. The belief you can do anything to a woman? It is cruel. It’s frightening. And the truth is, it hurts. It hurts.”

Within hours, the White House issued a statement warning Trump not to attack the first lady.

“I can’t think of a bolder way for Donald Trump to lose even more standing than he already has than by engaging the first lady of the United States,” principal deputy White House press secretary Eric Schultz told reporters during a gaggle aboard Air Force One.Trump has proven to be a counterpuncher throughout his presidential bid, launching retaliatory attacks at everyone from Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama to Republicans, the media, a Gold Star family and even Heidi Cruz, who’s married to Trump’s former GOP rival Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

But Trump has repeatedly pulled his punches when it comes to the first lady, who has spoken out against him while campaigning for Clinton, including earlier Thursday, when she pilloried him in the wake of his comments about sexually assaulting women with impunity in an “Access Hollywood” tape leaked last week.

If the White House doesn’t want Trump to go after Michelle, they should have thought about that before they unleashed the first lady against the GOP candidate. It’s absurd for the White House to claim that Michelle Obama is off limits to criticism when she has engaged in bitter partisan tirades against Trump.

The press has treated Michelle Obama with kid gloves for eight years despite her being fair game due to her meddling in public policy. She has received very little criticism for the spectacular failure of her school lunch program, as kids would rather go hungry than eat the swill her food nazis want to force them to consume.

And now she jumps into the political fray with both feet and the White House expects Trump to just let her run her mouth with no answer? Sorry, guys, but politics doesn’t work that way.

 

Categories: Donald Trump misogynist, Michelle Obama on Trump, Warning shots
Tags: ,

Comments: 4 Comments

WikiLeaks exposes Clinton emails revealing link to President

October 14, 2016

WikiLeaks exposes Clinton emails revealing link to President, Fox News via YouTube, October 14, 2016

 

Categories: Clinton cover ups, Clinton e-mails, Clinton unsecured server, Obama and Clinton e-mails
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Palestinians: “We Are Proud of You. You Killed Jews!”

October 14, 2016

Palestinians: “We Are Proud of You. You Killed Jews!” Gatestone Institute, Bassam Tawil, October 14, 2016

(On and on it goes. The article does not focus on the recent UNESCO resolution, which may well incite further incitement against “Jews with dirty feet.” Perhaps the violence and its incitement will end with the Obama-Kerry “two state solution.” Not. — DM)

Musbah Abu Sbeih is now the latest “hero” of many Palestinians and not only his family. He is being hailed as a “brave” man and a “hero” because he woke up in the morning, grabbed an M-16 assault rifle and set out on a mission to kill as many Jews as possible.

These calls have come not only from Hamas and Islamic Jihad extremists, but also from “moderate” leaders such as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah faction.

“We bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah, Allah willing. Every martyr will reach Paradise and everyone wounded will be rewarded by Allah.” – Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian leader.

As holders of Israeli ID cards, they were even entitled to drive cars with Israeli plates, which is what Abu Sbeih took advantage of to carry out his attack in Jerusalem. His family owns at least two homes in the city and are considered middle-class. Still, this did not stop Abu Sbeih from setting out on his deadly mission. And it did not stop his family members from celebrating the attack.

This is the inevitable result — as in the Spanish Inquisition, the French Revolution, the Turkish Genocide of the Armenians, Rwanda, Darfur, or Nazi Germany — of the poisoning of a people.

The family of Musbah Abu Sbeih say they are “very proud” of what their 40-year-old son did. So are many Palestinians representing all walks of life in Palestinian society. Members of his family, including his parents and daughter, have appeared on too may TV stations to keep track of to commend Abu Sbeih. They have even gone out onto the streets to hand out sweets in jubilation over the terror attack that he carried out in Jerusalem this week, which resulted in the death of a 60-year-old grandmother and a 29-year-old police officer.

Abu Sbeih is now the latest “hero” of many Palestinians, and not only by his family. He is being hailed as a “brave” man and a “hero” because he woke up in the morning, grabbed an M-16 assault rifle and set out to kill as many Jews as possible. His mission was “successful”: he managed to shoot and kill two Jews before he himself was eliminated by policemen.

In a video that he left behind, Abu Sbeih claimed that he carried out the terror attack in response to visits to the Temple Mount by Jews. He claimed (falsely) that these visits were part of an Israeli scheme to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount.

This is the same false claim that was originally made by Hitler’s friend, the Mufti of Jerusalem at the time, Haj Amin al-Husseini, to pretend there was a good excuse to attack the Jews; it is, as we see, still trotted out from time to time to “justify” killing Jews.

For the record, it is a lie — like Palestinian claims that Israel is poisoning wells and water, which Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas was later, for lack of evidence, forced to retract.

Like many other Palestinians who have carried out, or attempted to carry out, terror attacks over the past year, Abu Sbeih was in fact simply heeding his leaders’ call to stop Jews from “desecrating with their filthy feet” the Al-Aqsa Mosque. These calls have been coming for months not only from Hamas and Islamic jihad extremists, but also from “moderate” leaders such as Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah faction.

These are the Palestinian leaders that European leaders appear to adore. These leaders in Europe, especially the French, keep prodding Israel to negotiate with groups that openly say they want no Israel at all, and that at best are uninterested in the truth — whether about Israelis or Palestinians.

These European leaders would like Israel to keep pretending that the people with whom they are negotiating are actually acting in good faith. They seem to be trying to offer up to the Arabs, Muslims and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the destruction of Israel — physical, diplomatic, economic, whatever they can get — most likely as a bribe to stop Muslims from terrorizing them. They will soon find out, however, that nothing they offer will be seen as adequate. The Europeans will soon find out, as the Persians, Turks, Greeks, North Africans and Eastern Europeans all did, that anything short of submission will just be pocketed as a down-payment on a far bigger mark.

These European leaders are happy to make us in the region, Muslims, Christians and Jews, live under a brutal Islamic dictatorship so long as — in their woozy fantasy — they will not have to. They are in for a shock.

Anyhow, in September 2015, Abbas used the very words from 1924 of Haj Amin al-Husseini, days before the current wave of stabbing, vehicular and shooting attacks began.

Since then, incitement over Jews’ visits to the Temple Mount has been feeding what many Palestinians call the “Al-Quds Intifada.” Abbas has promised that those who die while defending the Al-Aqsa Mosque will go straight to Heaven:

“We bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah, Allah willing. Every martyr will reach Paradise and everyone wounded will be rewarded by Allah.”

To repeat: Abbas made this statement two weeks before the Palestinians unleashed a new wave of anti-Israel terrorism. We know, then, what spurred these attacks. They are the direct result of ongoing indoctrination and incitement against Israel that is being waged by Palestinians representing almost all Palestinian institutions and parties in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Abbas’s words have clearly not fallen on deaf ears. This week’s terror attack, which was carried out by Abu Sbeih, shows that the “Al-Quds Intifada” is anything but dying out. On the contrary, there is increased fear that the terror campaign may escalate from the use of knives, vehicles and stones to pistols and rifles.

1948Musbah Abu Sbeih (right) is the latest “hero” of many Palestinians, because he murdered two Jews this week, acting on the incitement of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (left).

Why is this scenario not far-fetched? Not only because of the motivation of the assailants, but also because of what appears to be widespread popular support among Palestinians for any attack on Israelis. Not a single Palestinian official has dared to come out against the Jerusalem terror attack. And no ordinary Palestinian has dared to question the damage the attacks cause to the Palestinian public, especially those who are directly affected by Israeli retaliatory measures, such as travel restrictions.

Far from crying out against such butchery, many Palestinians have been heaping praise on the assailant.

Abu Sbeih, who as a permanent resident of Jerusalem carried an Israeli ID card and thus enjoyed all rights and privileges granted to Israeli citizens (with the exception of voting in general elections), did not come from an impoverished family at all. Unlike his fellow Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, he had free access to Israel and could go anywhere and anytime he wanted to, any place in Israel.

He and his family were able to wake up in the morning and drive to the Tel Aviv beach or eat in any restaurant in Israel without having to pass through Israeli checkpoints. As holders of Israeli ID cards, they were even entitled to drive cars with Israeli plates, which is what Abu Sbeih took advantage of to carry out his attack in Jerusalem. His family owns at least two homes in the city and are considered middle-class. Still, this did not stop Abu Sbeih from setting out on his deadly mission. Nor has it stopped his family members from celebrating the attack.

The first to express her “joy” and “pride” over the death of two Jews was Abu Sbeih’s 15-year-old daughter, Eman. “Thank God, we are very happy and proud of my father,” she said in an interview with a local Palestinian television station.

As in previous cases, some Palestinians, including the sister of Abu Sbeih, handed out sweets to “well-wishers” as a way of expressing their joy over the terror attack. Hours after the attack, dozens of Palestinians gathered outside the family house, chanting slogans praising the assailant as a “hero” and calling on Hamas and other Palestinian groups to step up their attacks against Israel. Such scenes are familiar in the Palestinian arena and are reminiscent of those that used to take place following the wave of suicide bombings against Israelis during the Second Intifada.

Several Palestinian factions lauded Abu Sbeih, calling for stepped up “armed operations against the Zionist enemy.” Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, who together with his family lives in the comfort of Qatar, was quick to phone the assailant’s family and “congratulate” them on the “martyrdom” of their son. “Our people and nation are proud of their heroism and courage displayed by your son, who sacrificed his life for the sake of Allah,” Mashaal told Abu Sbeih’s parents. He stressed that their son was a role model for Palestinians of his generation.

It was not clear whether the Hamas leader was making the phone call from his suite in one of Qatar’s five-star hotels, or from his private gym.

Thus, for Hamas and many other Palestinians, a man who kills two Jews is the desired role model for young Palestinians. Accordingly, Abu Sbeih’s supporters have taken to social media to praise him and urge Palestinians to follow suit. Because he managed to kill two Jews, Abu Sbeih is now being hailed on Twitter and Facebook as the “Lion of Al-Aqsa.” As they see it, his was a noble act, an effort to save the mosque from being “defiled” with the “filthy feet” of Jews.

Support for Abu Sbeih seems to cross all Palestinian political factions. Even many belonging to President Abbas’s Fatah faction came to the Abu Sbeih home in a show of solidarity with them. Fatah has also declared Abu Sbeih a “martyr.” A Palestinian who goes to meet with a Jew is strongly condemned and accused of seeking “normalization” with the enemy. But a Palestinian who carries a knife or rifle and sets out to kill Jews gains the stars of a “martyr” and wins nearly universal Palestinian praise. This is the current mindset in Palestinian society, the fruit of decades of Palestinian incitement and delegitimization of Israel. This is the inevitable result — as in the Spanish Inquisition, the French Revolution, the Turkish Genocide of the Armenians, Rwanda, Darfur, or Nazi Germany — of the poisoning of a people.

Categories: Abbas - man of peace, Fatah, Hamas, Israeli security, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian heroes, Palestinian incitement, Palestinian terrorists, Palestinians and Jews, Two state solution
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Memory Lane, With a Suggestion for Trump and a Cartoon

October 14, 2016

Memory Lane, With a Suggestion for Trump and a Cartoon, Power Line, John Hinderaker, October 14, 2016

It is interesting to see the news dominated by allegations of sexual boorishness by Donald Trump. Some of us are old enough to remember when Bill Clinton was disbarred and fined $90,000 because he committed perjury in a sexual harassment case. In those days, of course, Democrats insisted all of that was “just about sex,” and demanded that we stop talking about it. Same with the Lolita Express, I guess.

That was then and this is now. Or, more pertinently, that was a Democrat and this is a Republican. So here is an idea: Trump should point out that he was a Democrat when the boorishness in question happened (or didn’t), and therefore it is dirty pool to mention those events. Or else he can say that since then he has reformed his behavior, as well as his politics.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton appears to have stopped campaigning. She has no public appearances scheduled prior to the final presidential debate. Apparently she is happy to let the press campaign for her. Michael Ramirez comments; click to enlarge:

clintonmedia

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton campaign, Clintons and sex, Donald Trump and sex, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

UK: Judge allows two Muslim teachers who fed students “diet of Islam” at state school back in classrooms

October 14, 2016

UK: Judge allows two Muslim teachers who fed students “diet of Islam” at state school back in classrooms, Jihad Watch, , October 14, 2016

Please see also On the Road to a Sharia State – Investigating the UK’s Sharia Courts. The decision referenced in the current article was rendered, not by a Sharia court, but by one of Her Majesty’s courts. –DM)

The judge, in making this decision, are signaling that they accept the teaching of Islam as truth in state schools. They are paving the way for the total capitulation of free Britain, and its complete Islamization.

Britain is finished.

inamulhaq-anwar

“Two teachers in ‘Trojan horse’ school who fed pupils a ‘diet of Islam’, segregated assemblies and ignored sex education are allowed BACK into classrooms by a High Court judge,” by Jenny Awford, MailOnline, October 13, 2016:

Two teachers who were struck off for feeding pupils a ‘diet of Islam’ at a school linked to the ‘Trojan horse’ scandal are being allowed back into the classroom.

Inam Anwar and Akeel Ahmed, who taught at Park View in Birmingham and were part of WhatsApp group ‘Park View Brotherhood’, were banned in February.

But a High Court judge found the teachers were treated ‘unfairly’ and he overturned the ban today.

They claimed they were targeted after the ‘Trojan Horse’ letter was published in 2013 – which detailed a plot to introduce hardline Muslim teaching into schools.

Both men were struck off this year after a National College of Teaching and Leadership (NCTL) panel found they exercised ‘undue religious influence’ on pupils.

The panel heard the pupils at the 600-strong secondary school were never taught about safe sex, relationships or contraception.

Anwar, the head of modern languages, and Ahmed, in charge of religious studies, were accused of changing the curriculum so sex education was not taught.

NCTL officials also said Ahmed organised religious assemblies where boys were segregated from girls.

He was also said to have encouraged prayer during the school day through posters and a call to prayer on the school’s loudspeaker system.

Both men were also accused of taking part in a WhatsApp chat that discussed the murder of soldier Lee Rigby and the Boston Marathon bombings.

They were cleared of distributing or using leaflets, promoting the view that a married man has an ‘entitlement’ to have sex with his wife.

The NCTL said their misconduct was serious and Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, agreed that they should be banned from teaching in England indefinitely.

But Mr Justice Phillips today ruled at London’s High Court that the men’s treatment had been ‘unjust’.

He accepted that important evidence had not been disclosed to the pair and there had been ‘serious procedural impropriety’ in the NCTL’s fact-finding process.

Upholding the pair’s judicial review challenge, he ruled their treatment had been ‘unfair’ and they were reinstated back into the profession….

Categories: Britain, Islam and females, Islamic indoctrination of children, Islamic integration, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in Britain
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

UK Catholic school gets message: “By Allah we will kill every single infidel student at this school”

October 14, 2016

UK Catholic school gets message: “By Allah we will kill every single infidel student at this school” Jihad Watch, , October 14, 2016

(Perhaps they were just reacting to a Clinton aide’s “truth talk” about the Roman Catholic Church. Please see also, Carlson: Imagine If Anyone Said About Muslims What Clinton Aides Said About Catholics. — DM)

“As soon as I got off the phone with her I contacted the school, who said that police were there and that it was ‘nothing to worry about.’”

Of course. Why would it be anything to worry about? Who ever heard of Muslims killing Infidels? Pope Francis should simply contact those who issued this threat and initiate some “dialogue” with them, and all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well. After all, it’s a religion of peace — these poor dears who issued this threat no doubt just need jobs.

catholichighschool

“TERROR WARNING: Horror as British school threatened with massacre of all non-Muslim pupils,” by Zoe Efstathiou, Express, October 11, 2016:

A BRITISH school is facing a terrorist threat after a message was posted online promising to massacre non-Muslim pupils in the name of Allah.

The chilling post, which targeted McAuley Catholic High School, Doncaster, appeared on Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat.

The message read: “We have our sights set on you, and by Allah we will kill every single infidel student at this school #McAuleySchoolMassacre”.

Counter terrorism authorities are now investigating the terrifying threat.

Parents have been informed and pupils at the school have been urged not to respond to the message.

The school, which will remain open, has released a statement which read: “The matter that has been reported is currently being investigated by the police.

“At this time pupils and parents are advised to not reply to any unsolicited emails or social media and to report anything of concern to the school/police.”

Police have been drafted in to patrol the school and a specialist officer will be present to give advice to parents, teachers and pupils.

Horrified parent Shanie Varley took her 15-year-old daughter out of school because of the threat.

She said: “The post had been seen and then sent on through Snapchat and then Facebook so all the kids knew but the parents weren’t told.

“As soon as I got off the phone with her I contacted the school, who said that police were there and that it was ‘nothing to worry about’….

Categories: Britain, Islam and Christianity
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Gropers and Rapists for Hillary

October 14, 2016

Gropers and Rapists for Hillary, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, October 14, 2016

ap_bob_filner_mi_130809_16x9_992

When Senator Bob Packwood, a pro-abortion Republican who won the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood, got in trouble for groping women, Hillary complained about his accusers. “HC tired of all those whiney women, and she needs him on health care,” a friend of Hillary’s wrote.

*******************************

“I am asking you to join me in supporting Bob Filner for Mayor,” the sleazy voice of Bill Clinton on the answering machine greeted San Diego residents. “As President, I worked with Bob.” During her first run for the White House, Hillary Clinton said that she looked forward to working with Filner.

Filner had impeccable credentials. His father was a Communist and he had been a Freedom Rider and a member of the Progressive Caucus. His ties to the Clintons went back a long way and he had passionately spoken out in defense of President Clinton during the impeachment debate.

He even had all the right left-wing “street” connections from J Street to Occupy Wall Street.

Planned Parenthood accused his Republican opponent of being part of the “War on Women” and claimed that, “For twenty years, Bob Filner has defended women… our right to choice, our right to healthcare, our right to equal pay.”

Bob Filner, like Bill Clinton, was also a serial sexual predator. His victims included a 67-year old grandmother and sexual assault victims who had come to him seeking help. He locked his executive assistant in the kitchen and demanded that they “make love.” His favorite move involved putting the women he targeted in a headlock.

Bill Clinton’s nickname was “Slick Willie.” Bob Filner’s was “Filthy Filner.” It wasn’t hard to see why Bill had backed Bob. Bill’s own idea of romance looked a lot like Bob’s. The stories told by Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones, Bill’s accusers, bear a striking similarity to those of Bob’s accusers.

While Bill’s history of sexual assault is widely known, the Clintons have always been comfortable with sexual predators. Hillary Clinton described Senator Ted Kennedy, who had murdered one woman and assaulted many more, as a “champion for women.” One woman recalls being “championed” by Ted Kennedy as he threw her onto a table, breaking glass and crystal, before molesting her. The other member of that party, Senator Chris Dodd, recently endorsed Hillary Clinton. Hillary’s website boasts that she “collaborated closely with Senator Chris Dodd.” Probably not as closely as his victims.

Hillary’s champions for women are more likely to be champions of abusing women.

But Hillary has always been cold-blooded when it comes to her political allies abusing women. When Senator Bob Packwood, a pro-abortion Republican who won the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood, got in trouble for groping women, Hillary complained about his accusers. “HC tired of all those whiney women, and she needs him on health care,” a friend of Hillary’s wrote.

A few years ago, Joe Biden praised Packwood at the DNC’s Women’s Leadership Forum as the good kind of Republican. Considering Biden’s creepy history of touching women, that’s not surprising. But, as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote of Packwood’s left-wing allies, “The feminists tried to protect him at first… even though he had the hilarious gall to jump on an abortion lobbyist.”

Just as they had tried to protect Bill Clinton, Bob Filner, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and so many others. Joe Biden’s own creepy habits have been fondly joked about in the media. Just Joe being Joe.

But Hillary Clinton has played ball for worse predators than these. Her most disturbing cover-up didn’t involve email, but pedophilia by a powerful donor.

Howard Gutman was highly active in Democratic politics and a longtime Clinton donor. That helped get him a slot as the Ambassador to Belgium. There a Diplomatic Security agent wrote that he had solicited “sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children.”

The case was shut down by Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, a Clinton associate. Kennedy and Cheryl Mills, Hillary’s whitewashing specialist, met with him. A State Department investigation later found that Hillary aides had conspired to shut down the investigation before witnesses were even interviewed.  There were whispers of “undue influence.”

A few days before Hillary quit, the report was edited to remove references to pedophilia.

Howard Gutman wasn’t the worst individual Clinton donor. That honor went to Jeffrey Epstein and his “Lolita Express” which ferried visitors to “Orgy Island.” Epstein claimed to have  co-founded the Clinton Foundation.

When he wasn’t helping the Clintons, he was accused of “buying” underage girls. Some of the girls were as young as 12-years old. Investigators found evidence that, “Epstein’s staff was frequently working to schedule multiple young girls between the ages of 12 and 16 years old literally every day, often two or three times per day.”

Bill Clinton flew 26 times on the Lolita Express. For 6 of those times, he left the Secret Service behind.

But the most monstrous abusers of women, who also happen to be pals of the Clintons, are in the Middle East. The Middle Eastern Muslim countries with the worst records on human trafficking also kicked in nearly $100 million to the Clinton Foundation. And it’s not just American women being lured to Riyadh or Dubai with promises of modeling contracts. Saudi princes and their entourages have assaulted women from Manhattan to Beverly Hills.

Instead of standing up for abused women in Saudi Arabia, Hillary Clinton stood with their abusers.

Hillary Clinton spoke at Dar El-Hekma College and was introduced by Saleha Abedin, its founder. Clinton praised Abedin, the mother of Huma Abedin, her chief-of-staff, and the author of a book justifying female genital mutilation and claiming that women have no right to refuse their husbands.

King Abdullah had 30 wives and held 4 of his own daughters hostage. Under his regime, rape victims were more likely to be punished than rapists. After the Saudi tyrant’s death, the Clinton Foundation put out a press release from Bill and Hillary praising his progressive attitude toward women. This was the ruler of a country where women were not allowed to drive or leave the house without a male guardian. Hillary’s own State Department had rated Saudi Arabia as a Tier 3 country, the worst possible level, on its trafficking report. The Kingdom was deemed one of the largest human traffickers in the world.

What did Hillary Clinton do about this? She went on taking more Saudi money.

Some of the country’s worst abusers of women and the world’s worst abusers of women found that the Clintons would be their friends as long as they could help them get what they wanted. That is as true of donors and politicians as it is of Middle Eastern monsters.

The media has largely turned a blind eye to the constellation of abusers and predators who have been associated with the Clintons. Instead Hillary Clinton, who targeted the women abused by her husband, has been praised as a defender of women’s rights based on the words she read from a teleprompter.

The Clintons talk a lot. They contradict themselves every other week. But it’s what they do that counts. It’s their actions and their alliances that show who and what they truly are.

When it came to the War on Women, the Clintons fought on the side of the abusers.

Categories: Hillary Clinton - "Feminist"

Comments: Be the first to comment

On the Road to a Sharia State – Investigating the UK’s Sharia Courts

October 14, 2016

On the Road to a Sharia State – Investigating the UK’s Sharia Courts, Creeping Sharia, October 14, 2016

uksharia

Source: Machteld Zee: “Islamization is Planned” – Vlad Tepes

Machteld Zee Ph.D. is a Dutch scholar who investigated sharia courts in the UK for her Ph.D. thesis. This interview was published in the Algemeen Dagblad, a nationwide Dutch newspaper, on October 4, 2016.

The interview is relevant for several reasons:

  • Very few non-Muslims ever have gained access to the world of sharia courts in the UK. She has.
  • The University of Leiden is fairly highbrow in the Netherlands, because it is not only one of the oldest universities. but also because the heir to the Dutch throne traditionally studies at this university (for example, our former Queens Juliana and Beatrix did, just like our current head of state King Willem-Alexander). The reputation of this university gives authority to her voice.
  • She has become a target of attacks by leftist apologists for radical Islam since she published her thesis. She could do with some positive publicity. Similarly, Islam-sceptics could benefit from her work.

The translated interview:

“Islamization is Planned”

Investigating Sharia

The Islamization of Europe follows a strategy, according to Machteld Zee in her bookHoly Identities, which was published today. ‘Once you have knowledge of it, you understand what is going on.’

‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law that contradicts our secular laws.’

Investigating sharia courts

Machteld Zee (32), a Dutch political scientist from the University of Leiden, studied sharia courts in the UK and wrote her Ph.D. thesis on it in 2015.

She was one of the few outsiders who gained access to the sessions of these Islamic courts. 95% of the cases before these courts are divorce cases. Her investigations resulted in a pamphlet, Holy Identities.

‘If you compare the Netherlands in the 1980s with today,’ says the political scientist and law school graduate Machteld Zee, ‘you will see an increased influence of Islam everywhere. Saudi Arabia and other countries flooded the world with thousands of imams, Islamic text books, mosques and tons of money.’

Machteld Zee needed barely 150 pages to describe the background of Islamic fundamentalism, which is gaining ground in Western countries. Her book Holy Identities: On the Road to a Sharia State is an analysis of the problems of the multicultural society.

You say that conservative Muslims want to convince their fellow Muslims to embrace sharia, the religious law of Islam. These fundamentalists are being helped by ‘useful non-believers’, non-Islamic intellectuals, politicians and opinion leaders who don’t want to offend Muslims.

‘Yes, leading multiculturalists actually believe that Muslims should be shielded from criticism because it would inflict psychological damage on them. Although many Muslims consider this an idiotic point of view, others use it to call those who criticize Islam ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’.

You described yourself as left-leaning liberal when you started your investigation on sharia courts in the UK. Now you warn against a lack of knowledge of and a lack of resistance against the advancing radical Islam.

‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law — far more systematic then I had expected — that contradicts our secular laws. Many Muslim women are locked into a religious marriage because their community thinks a divorce according secular law is insufficient. In these communities — Muslim communities — sharia law trumps secular law when it comes to marriage. Women have to ask a sharia judge or an imam to dissolve their marriage, for example when the husband physically abuses her. Even Dutch Muslim women travel to the UK to appear before sharia courts. It is a parallel society. I object to it because these practices go against women’s rights.’

You have analyzed the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a political and religious movement that aims for world domination, and is supported by lots of money from fundamentalist circles. The sharia courts are part of this project, you wrote.

‘That is why it is so important that we know what is going on. Authors that I studied for my investigation were generally benevolent towards sharia courts. It turned out, however, that none of them ever attended a session of such a court. They don’t know what is going on in these courts. Now they ask me to tell all about it. Women are advised by these courts to accept polygamy and to not file criminal complaints in case of domestic violence. Physically abusive fathers are given custody of their children. I have the impression that the tide of the public debate is turning now that these facts are becoming public. I hardly hear anyone pleading in favour of sharia courts anymore.’

In your book you call out the politically correct elites, who tries to cover up abuse within Islam and tries to downplay the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

‘In the first place, I think I am reporting facts. Where I notice that influential Western intellectuals tend to discourage critics of Islam and help fundamentalists to isolate and ‘Islamize’ Muslim communities, that is a matter of fact. My book is a compact discourse that aims to bring its readers up to date on fundamentalist Islam.’

How do you see the future?

‘We will have to act more defensively and resist Islamization. We should not yield to demands that images of scantily dressed women in public have to be covered up, for example. Just say no. Citizens should not leave everything to the government. They can defend our beliefs and values themselves, too. Why does a college in The Hague decides to abandon the Christmas tree pre-emptively? Why is alcohol banned in places where Muslims show up? There is no need for that. We are doing it to ourselves.’

Do you fear criticism? Undoubtedly, you will be labeled as a right-winger.

‘I don’t experience that when I speak in public. Even a ‘leftist’ audience responds positively to my story. Right-wing? Come on, equal rights for women and resistance against representatives of a religion who make threats of violence — let’s call that common sense.’

Categories: Britain, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic law, Islamists in Britain, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Judicial Watch Releases New Hillary Clinton Email Answers Given under Oath

October 14, 2016

Judicial Watch Releases New Hillary Clinton Email Answers Given under Oath, Judicial Watch, October 13, 2016

(Back when I was practicing law, I tried very hard to get live testimony from those involved in the case rather than written responses to depositions prepared by their attorneys. The evasive deposition responses by Clinton’s attorneys show why. — DM)

“We’re pleased that we now have a little bit more information about Hillary Clinton’s email practices,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Our lawyers will be reviewing the responses closely. Mrs. Clinton’s refusal to answer many of the questions in a clear and straightforward manner further reflects disdain for the rule of law.

************************

Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released received responses under oath from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concerning her email practices.  Judicial Watch submitted twenty-five questions on August 30 to Clinton as ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

The new Clinton responses  in the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit before Judge Sullivan was first filed in September 2013 seeking records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of staff to Clinton.  The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

Judicial Watch has already taken the deposition testimony of seven Clinton aides and State Department officials.

Below is text from the document filed with the court today:

NON-PARTY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON’S RESPONSE

TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to the Court’s August 19, 2016 order and Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Non-Party Hillary Rodham Clinton hereby responds to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories dated August 30, 2016. The General Objections and the Objections to the Definitions set forth below are incorporated into each of the specific responses that follow. Any specific objections are in addition to the General Objections and Objections to the Definitions, and failure to reiterate a General Objection or Objection to the Definitions does not constitute a waiver of that or any other objection. 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

  1. Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories on the ground that any discovery of Secretary Clinton is unwarranted in this case, for the reasons set forth in Secretary Clinton’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Depose Hillary Rodham Clinton, Clarence Finney, and John Bentel (Dkt. #102) and Surreply in Further Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Depose Hillary Rodham Clinton, Clarence Finney, and John Bentel (Dkt. #109), and as stated by Secretary Clinton’s counsel during the Court hearing on July 18, 2016. Secretary Clinton will answer the Interrogatories notwithstanding this objection, subject to the other objections stated herein.
  1. Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information outside the scope of permitted discovery in this case. The Court permitted discovery of Secretary Clinton on the topics of “the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State Department business,” as well as “the State Department’s approach and practice for processing FOIA requests that potentially implicated former Secretary Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s e-mails and State’s processing of the FOIA request that is the subject of this action.” Dkt. #124, at 14, 19 (internal quotation marks omitted). Secretary Clinton will answer the Interrogatories insofar as they seek non-privileged information related to those topics.
  1. Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information relating to events that occurred, or actions taken by Secretary Clinton, after her tenure as Secretary of State. Such post-tenure actions or events are not within the scope of the permitted topics of discovery set forth in General Objection No. 2.
  1. Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information about Secretary Clinton’s use of her clintonemail.com account to send and receive e-mails that were personal in nature, as such use is not within the scope of the permitted topics set forth in General Objection No. 2. Secretary Clinton will construe the Interrogatories to ask only about her use of her clintonemail.com account to send and receive e-mails related to State Department business.
  1. Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information about management, retention, and/or preservation of federal records. This action arises under FOIA, which does not govern management, retention, or preservation of federal records. See Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 152 (1980). Accordingly, management, retention, and/or preservation of federal records are not within the scope of the permitted topics of discovery set forth in General Objection No. 2.
  1. Secretary Clinton objects to Instruction No. 1 insofar as it purports to require Secretary Clinton to provide information that is not within her personal knowledge. The purpose of the limited discovery permitted by the Court is to obtain Secretary Clinton’s “personal knowledge of her purpose in using the [clintonemail.com] system.” Dkt. #124, at 16; see also id. at (directing Plaintiff “to propound questions that are relevant to Secretary Clinton’s unique first-hand knowledge”). Secretary Clinton is answering these Interrogatories based on her direct personal knowledge. She is not undertaking to provide information known only to other persons, including but not limited to her attorneys, representatives, persons acting under, by, or through her, or subject to her control or supervision, or other persons acting on her behalf.
  1. Secretary Clinton objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they call for the production of information that is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, protection, or immunity. Secretary Clinton will respond only to the extent privileged or otherwise protected information is not required and to the extent that the Interrogatory is not otherwise objectionable.
  1. Secretary Clinton objects to Instruction No. 5 insofar as it purports to require Secretary Clinton to identify the factual and legal basis for a claim of privilege. Secretary Clinton is not providing herewith a privilege log. 

OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS

  1. Secretary Clinton objects to the definition of “Clintonemail.com email system” insofar as it refers to e-mail system(s), server(s), provider(s), and infrastructure used to host her clintonemail.com e-mail account after her tenure as Secretary of State. Information concerning the e-mail system(s), server(s), provider(s), and infrastructure used to host her clintonemail.com account after her tenure as Secretary of State is not relevant to the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com account during her tenure as Secretary of State, and therefore is outside the scope of the permitted discovery. In answering these Interrogatories, Secretary Clinton will construe the term “Clintonemail.com email system” to refer to the e-mail system(s), server(s), provider(s), and infrastructure used to host her clintonemail.com e-mail account during her tenure as Secretary of State.
  1. Secretary Clinton objects to the definition of “Clintonemail.com account” insofar as it refers to e-mail addresses used by other individuals ending in the domain name “clintonemail.com.” In answering these Interrogatories, Secretary Clinton will construe the term “Clintonemail.com account” to refer to hdr22@clintonemail.com, which was the clintonemail.com account used by Secretary Clinton during her tenure. 

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

  1. Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 1 as outside the scope of permitted discovery. The clintonemail.com system, as that term is defined in the Instructions and subject to Secretary Clinton’s objection to that definition, consisted of equipment set up to host e-mail for President Clinton’s staff. Information regarding the creation of that system, including the reasons for its creation, is irrelevant to this lawsuit and outside the scope of permitted discovery. The Court permitted discovery in this case on the question of “the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State Department business.” Dkt. #124, at 17 (emphasis added). That question is the subject of Interrogatory No. 2, which is answered below. 

  1. Describe the creation of your clintonemail.com email account, including who decided to create it, when it was created, why it was created, and, if you did not set up the account yourself, who set it up for you.

Response: In the Senate, when Secretary Clinton began using e-mail, she used a personal e-mail account for both work-related and personal e-mail. Secretary Clinton decided to transition from the account she used in her tenure at the Senate to the clintonemail.com account. She recalls that it was created in early 2009. Secretary Clinton did not set up the account. Although Secretary Clinton does not have specific knowledge of the details of the account’s creation, her best understanding is that one of President Clinton’s aides, Justin Cooper, set up the account. She decided to use a clintonemail.com account for the purpose of convenience. 

  1. When did you decide to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and whom did you consult in making this decision?

Response: Secretary Clinton recalls deciding to use a clintonemail.com e-mail account to conduct official State Department business in early 2009. She does not recall any specific consultations regarding the decision to use the clintonemail.com account for official State Department business. 

  1. Identify all communications in which you participated concerning or relating to your decision to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and, for each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 4 insofar as it purports to request information about communications after her tenure as Secretary of State, which communications would be irrelevant to the purpose for the creation and operation of her clintonemail.com account while she was Secretary of State. Subject to the foregoing objection, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall participating in any communications before or during her tenure as Secretary of State concerning or relating to her decision to use a clintonemail.com account to conduct official State Department business. 

  1. In a 60 Minutes interview aired on July 24, 2016, you stated that it was “recommended” you use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business. What recommendations were you given about using or not using a personal email account to conduct official State Department business, who made any such recommendations, and when were any such recommendations made?

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 5 insofar as it misstates her comments in the 60 Minutes interview that aired on July 24, 2016. In that interview, she stated that “it was recommended that [using personal e-mail] would be convenient.” Subject to that objection, Secretary Clinton states that former Secretary of State Colin Powell advised her in 2009 about his use of a personal e-mail account to conduct official State Department business. 

  1. Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned, was it ever suggested, or did you ever participate in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws. For each instance in which you were so advised, cautioned or warned, in which such a suggestion was made, or in which such a discussion took place, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the advice, caution, warning, suggestion, or discussion.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the ground that it requests information that is not within the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 6 to the extent it requests information about communications made to other persons that were not conveyed to Secretary Clinton. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall being advised, cautioned, or warned, she does not recall that it was ever suggested to her, and she does not recall participating in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that her use of a clintonemail.com e-mail account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws. 

  1. Your campaign website states, “When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience.” What factors other than convenience did you consider in deciding to use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer whether you considered federal records management and preservation requirements and how email you used to conduct official State Department business would be searched in response to FOIA requests.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the ground that it requests information that is not within the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Subject to and without waiving that objection, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall considering factors other than convenience in deciding to use a personal e-mail account to conduct official State Department business. 

  1. After President Obama nominated you to be Secretary of State and during your tenure as secretary, did you expect the State Department to receive FOIA requests for or concerning your email?

Response: Secretary Clinton does not recall whether she had a specific expectation that the State Department would receive FOIA requests for or concerning her e-mail. She understood that, because her practice was to e-mail State Department staff on their state.gov accounts, her email was being captured in the State Department’s recordkeeping systems. 

  1. During your tenure as Secretary of State, did you understand that email you sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business was subject to FOIA?

Response: Secretary Clinton understood that e-mail she sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business was subject to FOIA. She further understood that, because her practice was to e-mail State Department staff on their state.gov accounts, her e-mail was being captured in the State Department’s recordkeeping systems. 

  1. During your tenure as Secretary of State, how did you manage and preserve emails in your clintonemail.com email account sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business, and what, if anything, did you do to make those emails available to the Department for conducting searches in response to FOIA requests? 

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the ground that it requests information that is not within the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the ground that the word “manage” is vague. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that her practice was to e-mail State Department staff on their state.gov e-mail accounts, and Secretary Clinton understood that those e-mails were preserved in the Department’s recordkeeping systems and available to the Department in conducting searches in response to FOIA requests. 

  1. During your tenure as Secretary of State, what, if any, effort did you make to inform the State Department’s records management personnel (e.g., Clarence Finney or the Executive Secretariat’s Office of Correspondence and Records) about your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business?

Response: Secretary Clinton does not recall specifically informing the State Department’s records management personnel about her use of her clintonemail.com e-mail account to conduct official State Department business; she did openly communicate via her clintonemail.com account with many people in the State Department. Secretary Clinton does not recall interacting with Clarence Finney or employees of the Executive Secretariat’s Office of Correspondence and Records. 

  1. During your tenure as Secretary of State, did State Department personnel ever request access to your clintonemail.com email account to search for email responsive to a FOIA request? If so, identify the date access to your account was requested, the person or persons requesting access, and whether access was granted or denied.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 12 insofar as it requests information about requests for access to her clintonemail.com account that may have been directed to other persons that were not conveyed to her. Subject to the foregoing objection, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall State Department personnel asking her for access to her clintonemail.com e-mail account to search for e-mail responsive to a FOIA request during her tenure as Secretary of State. 

  1. At the time you decided to use your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business, or at any time thereafter during your tenure as Secretary of State, did you consider how emails you sent to or received from persons who did not have State Department email accounts (i.e., “state.gov” accounts) would bemaintained and preserved by the Department or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests? If so, what was your understanding about how such emails would bemaintained, preserved, or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests?

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 13 on the ground that it requests information that is not within the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Secretary Clinton states that it was her practice in conducting State Department business to e-mail State Department staff on their state.gov accounts, and she did not consider how e-mails she sent to or received from persons who did not have State Department e-mail accounts would be searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests. 

  1. On March 6, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to your Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, that he “cannot stress too strongly, however, that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars.” A March 11, 2009 email states that, in a management meeting with the assistant secretaries, you approached Assistant Secretary Boswell and mentioned that you had read the “IM” and that you “get it.” Did you review the March 6, 2009 Information Memo, and, if so, why did you continue using an unclassified BlackBerry to access your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Copies of the March 6, 2009 Information Memo and March 11, 2009 email are attached as Exhibit A for your review.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 14 as seeking information outside the scope of the permitted discovery in this case. The Court’s May 4, 2016 Order provides that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery on the subject of “cybersecurity issues.” Dkt. #73, at 13. 

  1. In a November 13, 2010 email exchange with Huma Abedin about problems with your clintonemail.com email account, you wrote to Ms. Abedin, in response to her suggestion that you use a State Department email account or release your email address to the Department, “Let’s get a separate address or device.” Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after agreeing on November 13, 2010 to “get a separate address or device?” Include in your answer whether by “address” you meant an official State Department email account (i.e., a “state.gov” account) and by “device” you meant a State Department-issued BlackBerry. A copy of the November 13, 2010 email exchange with Ms. Abedin is attached as Exhibit B for your review.

Response: Secretary Clinton recalls that her November 13, 2010 e-mail exchange with Huma Abedin attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories was triggered by a problem with the State Department’s telephone system. When Secretary Clinton wrote, “This is not a good system,” she was referring to the way in which the State Department would notify her of telephone calls. Secretary Clinton does not recall what precisely she meant by the words “address” or “device.” To the best of her recollection, she meant that she was willing to use a State Department e-mail account or device if it would resolve the problems with receiving telephone calls, so long as her personal e-mails with family and friends would not be accessible to the State Department. Following this e-mail exchange, the State Department changed the way in which it notified Secretary Clinton of telephone calls, resolving the problem that triggered this e-mail. 

  1. Email exchanges among your top aides and assistants in August 30, 2011discuss providing you with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or State Department email address. In the course of these discussions, State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull wrote, “[W]e are working to provide the Secretary per her request a Department issued BlackBerry to replace her personal unit which is malfunctioning (possibly because of her personal email server is down). We will prepare two versions for her to use – one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests).” Similarly, John Bentel, the Director of Information and Records Management in the Executive Secretariat, wrote, “You should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and [be] subject to FOIA searches.” Did you request a State-Department issued Blackberry or a State Department email account in or around August 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your personal device and clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business instead of replacing your device and account with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email account? Include in your answer whether the fact that a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email address would be subject to FOIA affected your decision. Copies of the email exchanges are attached as Exhibit C for your review.

Response: Secretary Clinton does not recall requesting a State Department-issued Blackberry or a State Department e-mail account in or around August 2011. 

  1. In February 2011, Assistant Secretary Boswell sent you an Information Memo noting “a dramatic increase since January 2011 in attempts . . . to compromise the private home email accounts of senior Department officials.” Assistant Secretary Boswell “urge[d] Department users to minimize the use of personal web-email for business.” Did you review Assistant Secretary Boswell’s Information Memo in or after February 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer any steps you took to minimize use of your clintonemail.com email account after reviewing the memo. A copy of Assistant Secretary Boswell’s February 2011 Information Memo is attached as Exhibit D for your review.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 19 as outside the scope of permitted discovery, as the Court’s May 4, 2016 Order provides that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery on the subject of “cybersecurity issues.” Dkt. #73, at 13. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall reviewing Assistant Secretary Bowell’s Information Memo attached as Exhibit D to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories during her tenure as Secretary of State. 

  1. On June 28, 2011, you sent a message to all State Department personnel about securing personal email accounts. In the message, you noted “recent targeting of personal email accounts by online adversaries” and directed all personnel to “[a]void conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.” Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after June 28, 2011, when you were advising all State Department Personnel to avoid doing so? A copy of the June 28, 2011 message is attached as Exhibit E for your review.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 18 as outside the scope of permitted discovery, as the Court’s May 4, 2016 Order provides that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery on the subject of “cybersecurity issues.” Dkt. #73, at 13. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 18 on the ground that it mischaracterizes Secretary Clinton as the sender and author of the June 28, 2011 cable attached to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories as Exhibit E. During Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, all cables originating from Main State ended with the name “CLINTON.” The presence of Secretary Clinton’s name at the end of the cable was a formality, and it did not mean that she sent, authored, or reviewed the cable. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall seeing the June 28, 2011 cable attached as Exhibit E to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories during her tenure as Secretary of State. 

  1. Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned about hacking or attempted hacking of your clintonemail.com email account or the server that hosted your clintonemail.com account and, if so, what did you do in response to the advice, caution, or warning?

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 19 as outside the scope of permitted discovery, as the Court’s May 4, 2016 Order provides that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery on the subject of “cybersecurity issues.” Dkt. #73, at 13. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 19 insofar as it requests information about whether Secretary Clinton was advised, cautioned, or warned about hacking or attempted hacking of her clintonemail.com e-mail account after her tenure as Secretary of State, which is irrelevant to the purpose for her creation and operation of the clintonemail.com account while Secretary of State and therefore outside the scope of permitted discovery. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall being advised, cautioned, or warned during her tenure as Secretary of State about hacking or attempted hacking of her clintonemail.com e-mail account or the server that hosted her clintonemail.com account. 

  1. When you were preparing to leave office, did you consider allowing the State Department access to your clintonemail.com email account to manage and preserve the official emails in your account and to search those emails in response to FOIA requests? If you considered allowing access to your email account, why did you decide against it? If you did not consider allowing access to your email account, why not?

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 20 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 20 on the ground that the word “manage” is vague. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall considering whether to allow the State Department access to her clintonemail.com e-mail account when she was preparing to leave office. She believed that her e-mails with persons with state.gov e-mail accounts were already captured in the State Department’s recordkeeping systems. Secretary Clinton does not recall anyone from the State Department asking her for access to her clintonemail.com e-mail account or asking her to print her work-related e-mails when she was preparing to leave office.

  1. After you left office, did you believe you could alter, destroy, disclose, or use email you sent or received concerning official State Department business as you saw fit? If not, why not?

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 21 as outside the scope of permitted discovery in this case for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 3. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 21 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall considering after she left office whether she could alter, destroy, disclose, or use emails concerning official State Department business. Secretary Clinton further refers Plaintiff to her Response to Interrogatory No. 22. 

  1. In late 2014, the State Department asked that you make available to the Department copies of any federal records of which you were aware, “such as an email sent or received on a personal email account while serving as Secretary of State.” After you left office but before your attorneys reviewed the email in your clintonemail.com email account in response to the State Department’s request, did you alter, destroy, disclose, or use any of the email in the account or authorize or instruct that any email in the account be altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? If so, describe any email that was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used, when the alteration, destruction, disclosure, or use took place, and the circumstances under which the email was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? A copy of a November 12, 2014 letter from Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy regarding the State Department’s request is attached as Exhibit F for your review.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 22 as outside the scope of permitted discovery in this case for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 3. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 22 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 22 insofar as it requests information about all e-mail in her clintonemail.com account, including personal e-mail. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall altering, destroying, disclosing, or using any e-mails related to official State Department business from her tenure as Secretary of State in her clintonemail.com account or instructing anyone else to do so after she left office and before her attorneys reviewed the e-mails in her clintonemail.com email account in response to the State Department’s request. 

  1. After your lawyers completed their review of the emails in your clintonemail.com email account in late 2014, were the electronic versions of your emails preserved, deleted, or destroyed? If they were deleted or destroyed, what tool or software was used to delete or destroy them, who deleted or destroyed them, and was the deletion or destruction done at your direction?

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 23 as outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 3. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 23 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 23 insofar as it requests information about all e-mail in her clintonemail.com account, including personal e-mail. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that it was her expectation that all of her work-related and potentially work-related e-mail then in her custody would be provided to the State Department in response to its request. Secretary Clinton believes that her attorneys retained copies of the e-mails provided to the State Department in December 2014, but she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process. Secretary Clinton decided that, once her work-related and potentially work-related e-mails were provided to the State Department, she had no reason to keep her personal e-mails, which did not relate to official State Department business. She believes that her personal e-mails were not kept, and she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process. 

  1. During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 24 on the ground that it calls for information protected by the attorney-client privilege. 

  1. Identify all communications between you and Brian Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any emails in your clintonemail.com email account, including any instruction or direction to Mr. Pagliano about the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of emails in your account when transferring the clintonemail.com email system to any alternate or replacement server. For each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 25 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reasons set forth in General Objection No. 5. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 25 on the ground that the word “management” is vague. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 25 insofar as it requests information related to alternate or replacement servers used after Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall having communications with Bryan Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any e-mails in her clintonemail.com email account.

Judicial Watch has taken the sworn testimony of Clinton’s top aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, as well as top State Department official Patrick Kennedy, and former State IT employee Bryan Pagliano regarding the creation and operation of Clinton’s non-government email system. Judicial Watch plans to depose John Bentel, the State Department’s former Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-IRM”), the office that handles information technology for the Office of the Secretary, on October 24, 2016.

“We’re pleased that we now have a little bit more information about Hillary Clinton’s email practices,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Our lawyers will be reviewing the responses closely. Mrs. Clinton’s refusal to answer many of the questions in a clear and straightforward manner further reflects disdain for the rule of law.

For further information on this case, click here.

Categories: Clinton cover ups, Clinton e-mails, Clinton obstructions of justice, Clinton unsecured server
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran’s 34th fleet faces US flotilla opposite Yemen

October 14, 2016

Source: Iran’s 34th fleet faces US flotilla opposite Yemen

Iran’s Navy commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari announced Thursday, Oct. 13, that the Iranian 34th Fleet had deployed warships to the Bab al-Mandeb strait opposite the shores of Yemen. He made no mention of the US Tomahawk attack two days ago that destroyed three Iranian radar stations set up on Yemen’s Red Sea shore in rebel Houthi territory. This was US retaliation for Iranian missile attacks on American warships.

All the Iranian admiral said was: “The fleet will provide security to seaways for Iranian vessels and protect Iran’s interests on the high seas.”

debkafile’s military sources disclose the new Iranian fleet deployment consists of the Bushehr logistical command helicopter carrier, the largest warship in its navy, and the Alboz guided missile destroyer.

Their capabilities are far from matching the US flotilla brought in to secure strategic Red Sea waters after Iranian missile attacks from the Yemeni coast. The Americans posted two guided missile destroyers the USS Mason and the USS Nitze, and the USS Ponce floating forward stage base. However, Tehran’s unwillingness to terminate Iran’s first sea clash with the US in the waters off Yemen without a response is a clear sign that rather than backing down, the Iranians are gearing up for more rounds of engagement.
Read earlier debkafile reports tracing how this confrontation built up in just a few days…

Tomahawk cruise missiles launched by US Navy destroyer USS Nitze early Thursday, Oct. 13, destroyed three Iranian-Yemeni coastal radar stations, after C-802 anti-ship missiles supplied by Iran to Yemeni Houthi rebels were fired at US naval vessels off the Yemeni coast. The stations were built and  operated  by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) for their Yemeni proxies to back up a threat to blockade the Red Sea.
From Oct. 9, the new missiles four times targeted the US flotilla shortly after it arrived to patrol the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. Neither the US nor Iran has acknowledged their mounting confrontation over control of these strategic waters, which Tehran is waging through its Yemeni proxy.

debkafile was first to disclose this confrontation in a special report Wednesday. (see below)

Iran’s Guards are repeating the mode of operation they employed a decade ago at another Middle East flashpoint. On July 14, 2006, Hizballah used an earlier version of the C-802 to attack and cripple the Israeli Hanit missile ship on the day this Iranian Lebanese proxy launched the Second Lebanese War against Israel. Rev Guards seized control of Lebanese shore radar station to guide their aim.
A highly advanced radar installation is required for the use of the C-802. Two radar stations set up outside Yemen’s two principal Red Sea ports, Mokha and Hudaydah earlier this month were operated by Rev. Guards missile and radar teams until they were destroyed Thursday, debkafile’s military sources report. The third station was added for triangulation. The destruction of all three by a US Tomahawk has knocked out the Houthis’ ability to use C-802 missiles and Iran’s threat to blockade the Red Sea.

To drive this lesson home, the US Pentagon issued the following statement:

“Destroying these radar sites will degrade their ability to track and target ships in the future. These radars were active during previous attacks and attempted attacks on ships in the Red Sea, including last week’s attack on the USA-flagged vessel “Swift-2”, and during attempted attacks on USS Mason and other ships as recently as yesterday.

The official was referring to the United Arab Emirates US-flagged transport ship that was badly damaged last week in the Bab al-Mandeb strait by a Houthi missile..

debkafile reported earlier:

Contrary to Tehran’s assurance to Washington in August that Iranian arms supplies to Yemeni Houthi rebels had been suspended, the rebels took delivery last week of the largest consignment of Iranian weapons to date.

According to debkafile’s military sources, the shipment included highly sophisticated Scud D surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 800km; and C-802 anti-ship missiles (an upgraded version of the Chinese YJ-8 NATO-named CSS-N-8 and renamed by Iran Saccade).

They came with Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers and radar systems to fine-tune the targeting of these missiles by Iran’s Yemeni proxies.

The Scuds were given to the Houthi forces fighting in northern Yemen on the Saudi border, while the C-802s were delivered to the Houthis’ Ansar Allah faction, which is under direct Iranian Rev Guards command.

The missiles were posted at special launch bases constructed by Iran outside Yemen’s two principal Red Sea ports of Mokha and Hudaydah.

Since no more than 62km of Red Sea water divides the Saudi and African coasts, the Iranian missiles are well able to block shipping and tanker traffic plying to and from the Gulf of Suez and the Persian Gulf. Therefore, the threat of blockade hangs imminently over one-third of Saudi and Gulf Emirate oil exports.

The same threat hangs over Israeli civilian and naval shipping from its southern port of Eilat through the Gulf of Aden and out to the Indian Ocean.

One of the most troubling aspects of this pivotal new menace to an international waterway was that US, Saudi, Egyptian and Israeli intelligence agencies missed the huge consignment of Iranian missiles as it headed towards Yemen. Neither did they pick up on the construction by Iranian military engineers of three ballistic missile bases – one facing Saudi Arabia and two Red Sea traffic.

Tehran’s Yemeni proxies moreover landed large-scale military strength on Perim island in the mouth of the Bab al-Mandeb strait, the chokepoint for ingress and egress from the Red Sea.

Since the strait is just 20km wide, control of this island empowers this force to regulate shipping movements through this strategic strait.
Tehran wasted no time after all its assets were in place to begin using them:

1. On Oct. 1, Iran’s Houthi surrogates launched C-8-1 missiles against a United Arab Emirates transport HSV-2 Swift logistics catamaran as it was about to pass through the strait. The ship, on lease from the US Navy, was badly damaged. No information was released about casualties.

debkafile’s military and intelligence sources discerned that the aim of this attack was to choke off the movements of UAE warships from the southern Yemeni port of Aden, where large Emirate and Saudi forces are concentrated, to the Eritrean port of Assab, where the UAE has established a large naval base.

This attack did finally evoke a US response. The guided missile destroyers, USS Mason and USS Nitze, were dispatched to the Red Sea, along with the USS Ponce afloat forward staging base, to patrol the strait opposite the Yemeni coast

2. This did not deter Tehran or its Yemeni pawns: On Oct. 9, they fired an additional barrage of C-802 at the American flotilla, which according to a US spokesman, missed aim.

The Mason hit back with two Standard Missile-2s and a single Enhanced Sea Sparrow Missile.

There has been no official word about whether these weapons destroyed a Yemeni launching site. But the event itself was a landmark as the first direct Iranian-Houthi attack of its kind on an American naval vessel.
3. That same day, the Houthis fired Scud-D missiles at the Saudi town of Ta’if, 700 km from the Yemeni border and only 70km from the Muslim shrine city Mecca. This was meant as a direct assault on the Saudi royal house and its claim to legitimacy, by virtue of its role as Guardian of the Holy Places of Islam.
In America’s heated presidential campaign, the Democratic contender Hillary Clinton boasts repeatedly that as Secretary of State she helped “put the lid on Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot.”

That is factually true. America did not fire a single shot. Iran did the shooting and still does, constantly upgrading its arsenal with sophisticated ballistic missiles.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »