Archive for the ‘Clinton e-mails’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Hillary Clinton’s Private Emails About Israel

August 5, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s Private Emails About Israel, Breitbart,  Shmuley Boteach, August 5, 2016

November will see one of the consequential elections of our lifetime. With Israel and the world enduring another cycle of terrorism, and the Jewish State’s very existence threatened by the catastrophic Iran deal, the American election has a direct bearing on Israel’s future.

I’ve written in the past about the State Department’s email dump of Hillary Clinton’s communications from her private server. The former secretary of state received a veritable trove of advice and information about Israel from her closest advisers. Curiously, it was mostly negative and hostile to Israel. It behooves Hillary to explain the emails and why they are mostly of a negative nature.

Here are some examples.

Martin Indyk was advising Clinton during her time as Secretary of State. In 2007, Indyk’s Brookings Institution, a purportedly objective non-partisan government think tank, opened up a branch in Qatar, a country that is virulently anti-Israel and which currently serves as Hamas’ main financial backer. Seven years later it was revealed that Indyk’s relationship with Qatar had progressed to the point that Qatar had given $14.8 million dollars to Indyk’s institute. This phenomenon of foreign governments purchasing political influence via think tanks in Washington has been well attested to in the past.

Keep in mind that in the background of this concealed, blatant conflict of interest, Indyk was one of the top diplomats assigned to formulating policy and negotiating a two-state solution in Israel. The bombshell revelations of the Qatari donations compromised Indyk immensely and Netanyahu’s government responded by saying that Indyk could not be trusted. Nonetheless, during Clinton’s time as Secretary of State, Indyk had her ear when it came to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Indyk’s emails to Clinton show a Qatari-inspired anti-Israel bias. He talks about the need to look, not at Netanyahu’s politics, but his “psychology.” He writes to Clinton’s advisors of Netanyahu: “[A]t heart, he seems to lack a generosity of spirit.”

Indyk attacks Netanyahu over and over as having “inflated demands” and lacking the willingness to risk Israel’s security with a West Bank that would likely become yet another Hamastan. He writes nothing of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s continual incitement and his calls for the murder of Israelis or the need to outlaw terrorist groups.

Indyk also describes how world opinion can be used against Netanyahu, writing, “If Israel doesn’t make a serious move, it will further delegitimize its standing internationally.” He also describes how the US can use the fear of a potential nuclear Iran to force Israel to sign a deal with the Palestinians, because “Bibi needs President Obama in his corner to deal with the threat from Iran.”

Then there is Jake Sullivan, who currently serves as a top foreign policy advisor for Hillary’s campaign and who was Clinton’s deputy chief of staff while she was Secretary of State. Sullivan has also been revealed to harbor anti-Israel views. In one heavily redacted email to Clinton regarding talks with Netanyahu, Sullivan’s subject line reads “dealing with Netanyahu.” There is often a cavalier attitude in how many of Hillary’s subordinates refer to the Prime Minister of Israel. His name rarely comes with any titles reflecting his status as an elected leader. Rather, he’s usually just “Netanyahu.”

Then there is, of course, Sidney Blumenthal, of whom I have written much in the past, especially about his anti-Semitic son Max, who recently celebrated the death of, and defamed, Elie Wiesel, prompting Hillary Clinton to disavow him, something for which she deserves great credit.

Sidney Blumenthal sent Hillary an anti-Semitic article entitled, “The preemptive strike on Jodi Rudoren” that claims the Jewish lobby “sought to influence media coverage in a variety of sometimes heavy-handed ways” and says “the pressure from these groups is relentless.” This column was retweeted by Max Blumenthal. And Hillary found the article important enough to forward it to Sullivan and her deputy assistant Secretary of State Phillipe Reines. She writes to them, “Had you seen this?” Sullivan responds to the anti-Semitic article, “I hadn’t. Interesting.” Reines, on the other hand, seems to have been so disgusted by this intolerant article that he surprisingly shoots back to Hillary, “My people control the banks too.” It appears Reines was letting Hillary know that this article was deeply biased and on a par with other well known libels against the Jewish people.

Jake Sullivan has also shown himself to be a fan of Peter Beinart, whom I have debated several times and someone who justified terrorist attacks against Israelis and demanded that America punish Israel for electing Netanyahu. Beinart, in one of our debates, compared the world’s foremost Jewish philanthropist and the principal sponsor of Birthright, Sheldon Adelson, to the terrorist leaders of Iran.

Beinart’s writings are blatantly anti-Israel and he has become infamous in the Jewish community for his calls for a complete boycott of Judea and Samaria in the hopes of forcing Israel to withdraw and allow terrorist Hamas to fill the vacuum. The fact that Hamas or Islamic State would inevitably overthrow Abbas’s weak government, as happened in Gaza, does not weigh in Beinart’s demands that Israel be punished if it does not accede to his demands.

Unfortunately, it isn’t just Sullivan. It seems that Hillary Clinton herself is a fan of Peter Beinart.

After Sid Blumenthal sent Hillary an anti-Israel column by Beinart, Hillary forwarded it to Sullivan, writing, “Pls read so we can discuss.” In response, Sullivan writes “Fascinating.”

When Blumenthal sent Hillary an article by his son Max filled with his usual anti-Israel drivel, Clinton forwarded the article to Sullivan with the message, “Interesting reading.”

Sullivan responds, “This is really fascinating. Does Beinart get into all of this?” Hillaryresponds, “Yes.”

Sullivan’s response to another Israel-hating Max Blumenthal article is to call it “fascinating” and try and compare the ideas it contains with the writings of Israel critic Peter Beinart. Of course, it was Bill Clinton himself who wrote a wild endorsement of Beinart’s book The Crisis of Zionism, in which Beinart charges Israel with everything from racism to apartheid-like conditions.

I have every desire to treat Hillary Clinton fairly when it comes to Israel and, as I wrote above, she deserves credit for finally disavowing the demented anti-Semitism of Max Blumenthal, even though he is the son of her foremost advisor.

But it’s important to note that when former senior adviser to President Barack Obama Dennis Ross wrote his tell-all book Doomed to Succeed: The U.S.-Israel Relationship from Truman to Obama, he described a faction within the White House that saw Israel as “more of a problem” than a partner. Since Hillary describes herself as someone who was a great friend to Israel in the Obama administration, it is imperative that she publicly clarify her position on Israel vis-a-vis some of her advisors whose opinions on Israel are deeply hostile.

Categories: 2016 elections, Antisemitism in America, Clinton advisers, Clinton and Israel, Clinton e-mails, Department of State, Israel
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Completed No Security Briefings Or Courses At State Dept

August 2, 2016

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Completed No Security Briefings Or Courses At State Dept, Daily Caller, Richard Pollock, August 1, 2016

The admission also could play a role in the State Department’s re-opening of an internal investigation of Clinton and her aides over their handling of classified materials.

The new State Department internal probe was announced after Comey declined to call for an indictment of Clinton over her use of a private email server to conduct official State Department business. The FBI noted that 22 emails found on Clinton’s private server were “Top Secret.”

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

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton completed no security briefings or courses on the proper handling of classified materials and how to conduct secure communications while at the Department of State, according to new Obama administration legal filings before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The surprise admission was released late Friday and could reignite the controversy over Clinton’s “careless” handling of classified materials as asserted by FBI Director James Comey, which has already been a central part of the presidential race.

The revelation also could renew calls for the Department of State to strip her of her security clearance. The co-founder of at least one retired military officers organization has called for a suspension of her clearance.

State Department officials previously reported they could not locate records certifying that Clinton or her top aides took the annually required security courses and briefings.

But on July 29, Obama administration officials went further, saying their failure to locate any documents meant that the “courses were not completed” by the secretary or her aides.

In comparison, State Department officials reported that Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy engaged in 12 separate security classes and briefings during Clinton’s time in office.

“If the search of these databases did not locate any such training records, then the courses were not completed,” concluded Eric Stein, the co-director of the State Department’s Office of Information Programs and Services in the July 29 filing before U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon.

Mark Toner, the State Department’s deputy spokesman, told TheDCNF in a statement that the lack of briefing records doesn’t necessarily mean they were not trained.

He said Clinton received “in person orientation” on handling classified information. “The absence of documentation from training resources they did not use does not indicate that they were not trained.”

But Department of Justice officials were clear in their filing that if Clinton had security briefings or classes, it would show up in their databases.

They reported to the court that the State Department scoured the files and databases held by four different department training divisions: the Student Management Training System; the Cyber Security Administration; the Sensitive Compartmented Information electronic training records; and the certification records at the Foreign Service Institute’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

“State searched the record systems and databases that would contain records showing that the specified individuals completed the mandatory training courses — if they in fact completed them,” stated Benjamin Mizer, the principal deputy assistant Attorney General, and Marcia Berman, the assistant director of the Federal Program Branch at the Justice Department, in their filing before Judge Leon.

The government’s lawyers explained that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security is “the primary training institution for [State]” and would possess training records for Clinton and her aides. The SCI also “has access to SCI electronic training records.”

“If its search of STMS, the Cyber Security Administration database, and SCI electronic training records did not locate training certifications, then such courses were not completed,” both DOJ officials concluded.

Stein said that the same is true concerning the Bureau of Diplomatic Security records.“If DS’s search of the SCI training records did not locate any training records for an individual, then the training was not completed,” he stated in his affidavit before the court.

The government’s unexpected admissions were filed in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

TheDCNF is seeking records that confirmed Clinton and her top aides completed mandatory security briefings on the handling of classified materials and on the proper way to engage in secure communications.

When the State Department released only a few documents to TheDCNF earlier this year, the news organization asked the department to search the private hard drives of the computers operated by Clinton and her aides.

State was not obligated “to conduct an additional search of individual-specific or shared drives for copies of the requested training certifications, because such certifications, if they existed, would be retained in the databases and records systems previously searched,” the Justice Department filed before the court.

“The State Department, under penalty of perjury, effectively just threw a former Secretary of State and her aides under the bus for failing to do what all State Department officials are required to do,” said Bradley Moss, a national security attorney who handled TheDCNF case.

DOJ lawyers also explained that the Cybersecurity Administration database further “contains records of all online training activity specifically related to the Department’s Cyber Security Awareness course.”

“There is no real wiggle room in the affidavit submitted by the State Department. If the training records are not there, then Secretary Clinton and her aides never did the training. Period,” he said.

All government officials within the national security establishment must take annual reviews of the handling of classified materials.

Some of the reviews are conducted in face-to-face briefings and others are in online sessions.

“You have to complete paperwork. You have to have face-to-face briefings,” recalled retired Col. James Williamson, a former Special Operations Forces officer and co-founder of OPSEC, a nonpartisan organization of Special Operations and intelligence officers.

“There’s an electronic record,” Williamson recalled in an interview with TheDCNF. “I would get a nastygram if I didn’t complete my online course. I have to make sure every year my employees would take the online course.”

He called the latest information about Clinton “just mind-boggling.”

State Department records released to TheDCNF show that Cheryl Mills and Jacob Sullivan, two top Clinton aides, took cybersecurity awareness courses once, but not for all four years.

The records show Clinton and aide Huma Abedin never took any cybersecurity awareness training.

Last March retired Lt. General Michael T. Flynn, President Barack Obama’s former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told TheDCNF that the State Department should suspend her security clearance. He said the former secretary of state should be denied “any access to any classified or sensitive information.”

This was echoed by Williamson. Her security clearance “absolutely should be pulled. There is no way this woman should be trusted with classified documents, period,” he told TheDCNF.

Mark Zaid, the lead attorney for TheDCNF, said the latest filing shows the State Department is in “disarray” over its security requirements.

“The recent admission portray a State Department in disarray when it comes to upholding security requirements of senior officials with the greatest access to classified information,” he said.

The admission also could play a role in the State Department’s re-opening of an internal investigation of Clinton and her aides over their handling of classified materials.

The new State Department internal probe was announced after Comey declined to call for an indictment of Clinton over her use of a private email server to conduct official State Department business. The FBI noted that 22 emails found on Clinton’s private server were “Top Secret.”

Toner refused to respond to the effect of the revelations on their internal investigation. “As we have previously stated, in order to protect the integrity of our internal review we are not going to comment on its scope.”

Categories: Clinton e-mails, Clinton unsecured server, Department of State, FBI
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together

August 1, 2016

Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together, Breitbart, Matthew Boyle, August 1, 2016

Khizr Khan, father of fallen US Army Capt. Humayun S. M. Khan waves as he stands near the podium before speaking during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Thursday, July 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)

Khizr Khan, father of fallen US Army Capt. Humayun S. M. Khan waves as he stands near the podium before speaking during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Thursday, July 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)

Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald J. Trump, has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States—and has deep ties to the “Clinton Cash” narrative through the Clinton Foundation.

Khan and his wife Ghazala Khan both appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention to attack, on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s behalf, Donald Trump—the Republican nominee for president. Their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, was killed in Iraq in 2004. Khizr Khan, in his speech to the DNC, lambasted Donald Trump for wanting to temporarily halt Islamic migration to America from countries with a proven history of exporting terrorists.

Since then, Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos—who served as a senior adviser to the president in Bill Clinton’s White House and is a Clinton Foundation donor as well as a host on the ABC network—pushed Trump on the matter in an interview. Trump’s comments in that interview have sparked the same mini-rebellion inside his party, in the media and across the aisle that has happened many times before. The usual suspects inside the GOP, from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to House Speaker Paul Ryan to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, have condemned Trump in one way or another. The media condemnation has been swift and Democrats, as well their friends throughout media, are driving the train as fast as they can.

But until now, it looked like the Khans were just Gold Star parents who the big bad Donald Trump attacked. It turns out, however, in addition to being Gold Star parents, the Khans are financially and legally tied deeply to the industry of Muslim migration–and to the government of Saudi Arabia and to the Clintons themselves.

Khan, according to Intelius as also reported by Walid Shoebat, used to work at the law firm Hogan Lovells, LLP, a major D.C. law firm that has been on retainer as the law firm representing the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States for years. Citing federal government disclosure forms, the Washington Free Beacon reported the connection between Saudi Arabia and Hogan Lovells a couple weeks ago.

“Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show,” Joe Schoffstall of the Free Beacon reported.

The federal form filed with the Department of Justice is a requirement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which makes lobbyists and lawyers working on behalf of foreign governments and other agents from abroad with interests in the United States register with the federal government.

The government of Saudi Arabia, of course, has donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.

“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given between $10 and $25 million to the foundation while Friends of Saudi Arabia has contributed between $1 and $5 million,” Schoffstall wrote.

Trump, of course, has called on Hillary Clinton to have the Clinton Foundation return the money.

“Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays,” Trump wrote in a Facebook post back in June, according to Politico. “Hillary must return all money from such countries!”

“Crooked Hillary says we must call on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate,” Trump posted in a separate Facebook posting at the time. “I am calling on her to immediately return the $25 million plus she got from them for the Clinton Foundation!”

Of course, to this day, Hillary Clinton and her Clinton Foundation has kept the money from the Saudi Arabian government.

Schoffstall’s piece in the Washington Free Beacon also notes how Hogan Lovells lobbyist Robert Kyle, per Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, has bundled more than $50,000 in donations for Clinton’s campaign this year.

Khan’s connections with the Hogan Lovells firm run deep, according to a report from Law.com written by Katelyn Polantz.

“Many lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber,” Polantz wrote. “Then-Hogan & Hartson attorneys mourned the death because the soldier’s father, Khizr Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues.”

Polantz wrote that Khan worked at the mega-D.C. law firm for years.

“Khan spent seven years, from 2000 to 2007, in the Washington, D.C., office of then-Hogan & Hartson,” Polantz wrote. “He served as the firm’s manager of litigation technology. Although he did not practice law while at Hogan, Khan was well versed in understanding the American courts system. On Thursday night, he described his late son dreaming of becoming a military lawyer.”

But representing the Clinton Foundation backing Saudi Arabian government and having one of its lobbyists bundle $50,000-plus for Clinton’s campaign are hardly the only places where the Khan-connected Hogan Lovells D.C. mega-firm brush elbows with Clinton Cash. 

The firm also handles Hillary Clinton’s taxes and is deeply connected with the email scandal whereby when she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a home-brew email server system that jeopardized classified information handling and was “extremely careless” according to FBI director James Comey.

“A lawyer at Hogan & Hartson [Howard Topaz] has been Bill and Hillary Clinton’s go-to guy for tax advice since 2004, according to documents released Friday by Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” The American Lawyer’s Nate Raymond wrote in 2008, as Hillary Clinton ran for president that year. “The Clintons’ tax returns for 2000-07 show combined earnings of $109 million, on which they paid $33 million in taxes. New York-based tax partner Howard Topaz has a broad tax practice, and also regularly advises corporations on M&A and executive compensation.”

Breitbart News’ Patrick Howley, in a deep investigative piece on Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, late last year uncovered how Topaz’s firm—which employed Khan while Topaz did Hillary Clinton’s taxes—is also connected to the email scandal.

“Topaz was a partner at Hogan & Hartson, which later merged to become known as Hogan Lovells, where Topaz continues to practice. The firm’s lawyers were major donors to Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign,” Howley wrote.

For her private email system, Clinton used a spam filtering program MX Logic.

“Hogan & Hartson handled the patent for MX Logic’s email-filtering program, which McAfee bought the small company for $140 million in 2009 in order to acquire,” Howley wrote. “The MX Logic company’s application for a trademark for its SPAMTRAQ program was filed in 2004 on Hogan & Hartson stationery and signed by a Hogan & Hartson attorney. Hogan & Hartson has been responsible for MX Logic annual reports. The email company’s Clinton links present more evidence that Clinton’s political and legal establishment was monitoring her private email use.”

If that all isn’t enough, that same Hogan & Hartson law firm—now Hogan Lovells—employed Loretta Lynch, the current Attorney General of the United States. Lynch infamously just a few weeks ago met with Bill Clinton, Hillary’s husband and the former president, on her private jet in Phoenix just before clearing Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing when it came to her illicit private email server system.

Khan’s own website for his own personal law firm KM Khan Law Office shows he represents clients in the business of buying visas to enter the United States. One of his specific areas of practice, according to the website, is “E2 Treaty Investors, EB5 Investments & Related Immigration Services.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee, has detailed how the EB5 immigration program is “riddled with flaws and corruption.”

“Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill—on this island surrounded by reality—that we can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts,” Grassley said in a statement earlier this year. “The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts, members of congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me to mention a few of the flaws.”

From there, Sen. Grassley listed out several of the “flaws” with the EB5 immigration program that Khan works in:

– Investments can be spent before business plans are approved. 

– Regional Center operators can charge exorbitant fees of foreign nationals in addition to their required investments.  

– Jobs created are not “direct” or verifiable jobs but rather are “indirect” and based on estimates and economic modeling.

– Jobs created by U.S. investors are counted by the foreign national when obtaining a green card, even if EB-5 money is only a fraction of the total invested.

– Investment funds are not adequately vetted. 

– Gifts and loans are acceptable sources of funds from foreign nationals.

– The investment level has been stagnant for nearly 25 years.

– There’s no prohibition against foreign governments owning or operating regional centers or projects.

– Regional centers can be rented or sold without government oversight or approval.

– Regional centers don’t have to certify that they comply with securities laws.  

– There’s no oversight of promoters who work overseas for the regional centers.

– There’s no set of sanctions for violations, no recourse for bad actors.

– There are no required background checks on anyone associated with a regional center.

– Regional centers draw Targeted Employment Area boundaries around poor areas in order to come in at a lower investment level, yet the jobs created are not actually created in those areas.

– Every Targeted Employment Area designation is rubberstamped by the agency.

– Adjudicators are pressured to get to a yes, especially for those politically connected. 

– Visas are not properly scrutinized. 

– Visas are pushed through despite security warnings.

– Files and applications lack basic and necessary information to monitor compliance.

– The agency does not do site visits for each and every project.

– There’s no transparency on how funds are spent, who is paid, and what investors are told about the projects they invest in.

That’s not to mention the fact that, according to Sen. Grassley, there have been serious national security violations in connection with the EB5 program that Khan works in and around already. In fact, the program—according to Grassley—was used by Middle Eastern operatives from Iran to attempt to illicitly enter the United States.

“There are also classified reports that detail the national security, fraud and abuse. Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story,” Grassley said in the early February 2016 statement. “The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security wrote an internal memo that raises significant concerns about the program. One section of the memo outlines concerns that it could be used by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States. The memo identifies seven main areas of program vulnerability, including the export of sensitive technology, economic espionage, use by foreign government agents and terrorists, investment fraud, illicit finance and money laundering.”

Maybe all of this is why–as Breitbart News has previously noted–the Democratic National Convention made absolutely no mention of the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Global Initiative. Hillary Clinton’s coronation ceremony spent exactly zero minutes of the four nights of official DNC programming talking about anything to do with perhaps one of the biggest parts of her biography. 

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton character, Clinton cover ups, Clinton e-mails, Clinton Foundation, Corruption, Democrat National Convention, Democrat Party, Department of State, Donald Trump, Foreign policy, Hillary and media, Hillary Clinton and immigration, Hillary Clinton and Islam, Islamic immigration, Islamic terrorism, Khan-Gate, Saudi Arabia
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Who Is Putin’s Real Ally?

July 28, 2016

Who Is Putin’s Real Ally? PJ Media, Roger L Simon, July 27, 2016

put hill

There’s money in them thar reset buttons!

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

Oh, the vapors, the vapors!  Donald Trump has done it again. He has a gone a bridge too far for the 150th time, but on this occasion taken us all the way across the Bering Straits to the very edge of the Gulag Archipelago. He has urged Vladimir Putin to reveal the contents of Hillary Clinton’s gazillion missing emails the FBI somehow couldn’t find.

Traitor!  Traitor!  yell the well-intentioned, like former SecDef Leon Panetta. This selfish yellow-haired plutocrat must be disqualified from the presidency!

Never mind that Putin would need no encouragement whatsoever from any outsider to hack the wide-open server of the former secretary of state, nor would the intelligence services of at least a dozen other first-world countries (they all do it—we were listening to Merkel’s cell phone ourselves, it will be recalled), not to mention the who-knows-how-many non-state actors and twelve-year-old high-tech whippersnappers with the skill to do this.

Never mind that Trump was undoubtedly far less interested in making friends with Putin than in calling attention to the obvious relationship between Hillary’s home-brew server and the similarly wide-open server of the DNC that Mrs. Clinton claimed to know nothing about. Her media lackeys on 60 Minutes made sure no one paid attention (hello, Scott Pelley!).

Meanwhile, discussion is curiously mute on a far more substantive alliance with Putin by, yes, the Clintons themselves that could actually change the balance of power in the world in a way far more dangerous than Trump mouthing off about Vladimir.  It probably already has.

But don’t believe me. I’m biased. Believe that center of the “great right-wing conspiracy,” The New York Times, which ran the article “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal” on April 23, 2015.

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Wait a minute.  According to the sainted Times, one-fifth of U.S. uranium production now belongs to the Russians thanks to Ma and Pa Clinton?! If you wanted to talk treason, wouldn’t that be the textbook definition?  Do the folks at the Democratic National Convention know about this?

If I had to, I would guess at best three-to-five percent do and they’re certainly not telling the others. Neither are the media, so hell-bent are they on defeating Donald Trump.  I mean he’s uncouth and makes fun of people. That’s worse than a few measly atom bombs, isn’t it?…  Okay, perhaps more than a few…. Well, isn’t it?

Nasty business, huh? You could put it another way: There’s money in them thar reset buttons!

Yes, we live in an era of true evil when disinformation and distraction is king.

Nevertheless, some of the truth is out there. Two movies have opened and are doing quite well—Clinton Cash and Dinesh D’Souza’s Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.  I have seen Dinesh’s movie and can recommend it.  I plan on seeing Clinton Cash soon.  See them both and try to bring your liberal and independent friends.  They’re the ones who should be there.  Just bring some ibuprofen for them.

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton e-mails, Clinton Foundation, Crooked Hillary, Democrat Party, Donald Trump, Foreign policy, Hillary Clinton and Russia, Russia and Uranium
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 5 Comments

Krauthammer: Trump’s Russia reference set a trap for Clinton

July 28, 2016

Krauthammer: Trump’s Russia reference set a trap for Clinton, Fox News via YouTube, July 27, 2016

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton e-mails, Democrat Party, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Russia
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hillary Clinton beats the rap while condemning others to face it

July 14, 2016

Hillary Clinton beats the rap while condemning others to face it, Washington Times, Monica Crowley, July 13, 2016

(Please see also, Is Hillary Guilty? — DM)

She obviously knew that her actions jeopardized national security and ongoing operations. And she knew these things because she terminated an ambassador for committing similar but lesser violations. His firing demonstrates more than gross negligence on her part. It shows clear intent and awareness of her own guilt.

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

As he methodically laid out the case against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private, unsecure server and email accounts to carry out all of her official government business as secretary of state before declining to recommend criminal charges, FBI Director James B. Comey left out one major piece of evidence. It’s the one piece of the puzzle that truly nails her, since it demonstrates consciousness of guilt.

She fired an ambassador serving under her for doing eerily similar, but far less damaging, things.

There has been a lot of chatter about the “lack of criminal intent” since Mr. Comey’s announcement. Consider that “gross negligence” and not “intent” was the standard, and that she asked top staff to remove classified markings from documents sent to her, and that despite her original pronouncement that “there is no classified material,” the FBI found more than 100 classified documents, including several designated Top Secret/SAP. And consider that she instructed her aides to “design the system we want,” one that would prevent “the personal” from being “accessible.”

She knew what she was doing. But perhaps the ultimate demonstration of intent was her June 2012 decision to force the resignation of Scott Gration, U.S. Ambassador to Kenya, for, in part, setting up and using an unapproved private email system in 2011.

The matter got scant attention, even after the department’s inspector general’s report was issued shortly after his resignation and after news of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a far more sophisticated private server arrangement broke last year.

“Very soon after the Ambassador’s arrival in May 2011,” the report stated, “he broadcast his lack of confidence in the information management staff. Because the information management office could not change the Department’s policy for handling Sensitive But Unclassified material, he assumed charge of the mission’s information management operations. He ordered a commercial internet connection installed in his embassy office bathroom so he could work there on a laptop not connected to the Department email system. He drafted and distributed a mission policy authorizing himself and other mission personnel to use commercial email for daily communication of official government business. During the inspection, the Ambassador continued to use commercial email for official government business.”

It specifically called him out for willfully violating departmental information security policies, demonstrating his “reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions.”

When Mrs. Clinton’s far more dangerous use of a private, unsecure server came to light, her defenders rushed to fuzz up the issue by pointing to other issues for his dismissal. (At least he just got fired. His fate under this particular boss could have been worse. See: Ambassador Stevens, Christopher.)

But the inspector general’s report made clear that his use of an unauthorized private email system was the primary reason for his firing, stating outright that his unwillingness to obey governmental security policies was his “greatest weakness.”

Following the report’s disclosure, Mr. Gration took criticism from all sides, with leftist publications leading the charge. As the Federalist website detailed last March, The Washington Post recounted Mr. Gration’s various security violations as U.S. ambassador, noting that he had “repeatedly violated diplomatic security protocols at the embassy by using unsecured internet connections.”

A 2012 story in The New Republic noted that Mr. Gration’s email scheme “put classified information about the U.S.’s operations in East Africa at a higher risk for exposure.”

The New York Times wrote that Mr. Gration “preferred to use Gmail for official business and set up private offices in his residence — and an embassy bathroom — to work outside the purview of the embassy staff.”

Mr. Gration’s case takes on urgent importance in light of Mrs. Clinton’s excuses for having done worse: that she made a mistake, that the rules weren’t clear, that the guidelines had changed after she left State, that everyone knew she was using private email accounts.

All lies. And all now excused by the FBI.

Mr. Gration’s case demonstrates that she clearly knew what the rules were — and deliberately chose to violate them.

But Mr. Comey rejected that. She put classified information on a server that she knew was not secure. She caused it to be put there. By way of deferring to her, Mr. Comey chose to invoke the euphemism “extremely careless” rather than legal standard of “gross negligence”.

She obviously knew that her actions jeopardized national security and ongoing operations. And she knew these things because she terminated an ambassador for committing similar but lesser violations. His firing demonstrates more than gross negligence on her part. It shows clear intent and awareness of her own guilt.

Mr. Comey’s decision proves that what was good for the goose is not good for the gander — particularly if the goose’s last name is Clinton.

Categories: Clinton e-mails, Clinton unsecured server, FBI, Hillary Clinton
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Is Hillary Guilty?

July 14, 2016

Is Hillary Guilty? Bill Whittle Channel via YouTube, July 13, 2016

Categories: Clinton cover ups, Clinton e-mails, Contempt for America, Crooked Barack, Crooked Hillary, Democracy, Department of Defense, Department of Justice, FBI, Lawlessness, National secuity, Obama's America
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Humor | Stephen Colbert Takes The Gloves Off: Hillary’s Email Scandal

July 13, 2016

Stephen Colbert Takes The Gloves Off: Hillary’s Email Scandal,Washington Free Beacon via YouTube, July 13, 2016

Categories: Clinton e-mails, Hillary Clinton, Humor
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Michael Cutler on The Hillary-FBI Fix — The Glazov Gang.

July 9, 2016

Michael Cutler on The Hillary-FBI Fix — The Glazov Gang. ViaYouTube, July 8, 2016

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Benghazi, Clinton character, Clinton e-mails, Clinton lies, Clinton obstructions of justice, Clinton perjury, Contempt for America, Department of Justice, FBI, Obama - rogue president, Obama's America, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Comey’s Peculiar Explanations

July 8, 2016

Comey’s Peculiar Explanations, Front Page Magazine, Joseph Klein, July 8, 2016

Comey

FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday before the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s and her aides’ handling of e-mails containing classified information on her private e-mail system while she was Secretary of State. In more than four and a half hours of testimony, he sought to explain his recommendation, which he made public in his July 5th press statement, that there was not sufficient evidence for a reasonable prosecutor to bring a criminal case against Hillary Clinton. He said the FBI had not developed clear evidence that Clinton intentionally violated the law. Attorney General Loretta Lynch closed the case on July 6th based on the FBI’s recommendation.

When asked whether the FBI was looking into the Clinton Foundation, however, Director Comey notably declined to answer.

Director Comey admitted that he did not participate himself in the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton last Saturday, nor did he talk to all of the agents who were present at the interview. There evidently is no recording or full transcript of the interview, but there is an analysis which may or may not be provided to Congress. He also admitted that he did not compare Hillary’s FBI interview with her prior sworn testimony to Congress before he made his decision on what to recommend. Director Comey said a new referral from Congress for an investigation of possible perjury before Congress would be required. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) responded that such a referral would be forthcoming shortly. The referral could include Clinton’s testimony that her attorneys had actually read the e-mails that they then deleted and that “There was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received.”

In defending his recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton or her aides regarding their handling of e-mails containing classified information on insecure e-mail facilities, the FBI director declared that there was not sufficient proof of willful intent, which he said is regularly imputed as a requirement to convict in all applicable criminal statutes. He said that proof of Hillary Clinton’s knowledge that what she did was unlawful would be required to justify a referral for criminal prosecution, which he claimed was lacking. In response to questions, the director tried to distinguish the Hillary Clinton case from the prosecution of General David Petraeus, which he claimed was based on evidence of Petraeus’s knowing and willful wrong-doing.

Although denying that he was effectively re-writing the language of any relevant statute to reach his conclusion, Director Comey asserted that it was appropriate to ignore the express “gross negligence” element in one such statute dealing with the gathering of defense-related information (18 U.S. Code §793(F)). He based his decision to ignore the “gross negligence” statutory element, despite his own statement that Hillary Clinton had been “extremely careless” in the “handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” on his understanding of past precedent. He explained that federal prosecutors have brought only one case based on gross negligence in the last 99 years because, in part, of constitutional concerns with convictions in cases where there is no showing of criminal intent.  He also concluded that it would be unfair to embark on what he called “celebrity hunting” by singling out Hillary Clinton for prosecution for “gross negligence” when only one such case has been brought in 99 years. Similarly, the director disputed that the requisite criminal intent was provable under a separate criminal statute involving the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material in an unauthorized location (18 U.S. Code § 1924), even though that is precisely what Hillary Clinton did.

Director Comey walked a tightrope during the Congressional hearing. He tried to reconcile the findings he set forth in his July 5th press statement and his Congressional testimony, which were at significant variance with assertions Hillary Clinton has made publicly over the last year and in her Congressional testimony under oath. He failed to square the circle.

Even assuming that Director Comey was correctly applying what he described as a criminal intent standard, he failed to take into account the relevant circumstantial evidence of such intent.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) had an exchange with Director Comey that set out the case for concluding that Hillary Clinton had criminal intent based on such circumstantial evidence. It is worth quoting from at length:

“GOWDY: …I’m going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements — they are used for what?

COMEY: Well, either for a substantive prosecution, or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

GOWDY: Exactly. Intent, and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?

COMEY: Right.

GOWDY: Consciousness of guilt, and intent. In your old job, you would prove intent, as you just referenced, by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record. And you would be arguing, in addition to concealment, the destruction that you and I just talked about, or certainly the failure to preserve. You would argue all of that under the heading of intent.

You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme: when it started, when it ended, and the number of e-mails, whether they were originally classified or up-classified. You would argue all of that under the heading of intent…

She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, she kept these private e-mails for almost two years, and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private e-mail account.

So you have a rogue e-mail system set up before she took the oath of office; thousands of what we now know to be classified e-mails, some of which were classified at the time; one of her more frequent e-mailed comrades was, in fact, hacked, and you don’t know whether or not she was; and this scheme took place over long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records — and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent?

You say she was “extremely careless,” but not intentionally so. Now, you and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce, “On this day, I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this day.” It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence — or, if you’re Congress, and you realize how difficult it is to prove specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for “gross negligence.”

Congressman Gowdy asked Director Comey point-blank if Clinton’s testimony that she did not e-mail “any classified material to anyone on my e-mail” was true. Comey said it was not true. Was Clinton telling the truth when she said that she used only one device while Secretary of State? Comey said she used multiple devices. Did she return all work-related e-mails to the State Department as she had claimed? No was the reply. “We found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned,” Comey said.

Yet Director Comey skated by the voluminous amount of circumstantial evidence linking Hillary  Clinton’s many lies demonstrating guilty knowledge to proof of her criminal intent. Contrary to common sense, Director Comey said he did not think that Clinton meant to erase any e-mails despite the volume of erased e-mails that were work-related and some of which contained information that was deemed classified at the time they were sent or received. He rationalized Clinton’s handling of classified information on her private unsecured server on the grounds that she appeared to be “unsophisticated” in such matters. He tried to explain away Clinton’s direction to have a classified marking removed from a document and sent to her unsecured system as a so-called “non-paper.”

In short, Director Comey did not budge from his recommendation, accepted by Attorney General Lynch, that there be no criminal prosecution of Hillary Clinton or her aides as a consequence of their handling of classified information in e-mails sent or received over insecure facilities. He insisted that the FBI investigation and his recommendation, to which he said there was no dissent within the FBI team that conducted the investigation, were honest, apolitical and even-handed. Whatever his reasons for reaching the legal conclusion that he did, Director Comey has at least provided enough factual findings for the court of public opinion to judge Hillary Clinton’s “extreme carelessness” and pattern of lies to cover up her wrong-doing.

The only real news to come out of the Congressional hearing was that there will be a new referral to the FBI to investigate Hillary Clinton for possible perjury and that she may not be out of the woods yet with regard to the Clinton Foundation.

Categories: Clinton e-mails, Clinton Foundation, Department of Justice, FBI, Hillary Clinton Perjury, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »