America Demands the Truth

11-hillary-clinton-press-conference.w529.h352.2xBy Justin O. Smith:

Orchestrating lawless secrecy, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, prevaricator extraordinaire, broke U.S. law and compromised national security by diverting State Department records to Bill Clinton’s private and unsecured email server and by also exposing classified secrets to enemies of the United States. She didn’t want anyone in the government or the public to see her records, which she knew would contain damning evidence that would derail any successful run for the U.S. Presidency.

Although the Federal Records Act of 1950 makes it clear that all records received and generated by any employee of the federal government belong to the government, Hillary Clinton and her aides decided not to preserve her emails on State Department servers, during her four years as Secretary of State. They also performed their own review of these emails, in order to determine which ones to return and which ones to destroy, turning the law on its head and illegally destroying 33,000 emails.

“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” observed Jason Baron, a former National Archives director of litigation (2000 – 2013).

On March 3rd, Judge Andrew Napolitano asserted that Clinton committed a felony by using her personal email address, which essentially concealed the government documents she generated from the U.S. government. This is an offense punishable by three years in prison and permanent disqualification from holding office. And holding classified secrets in a non-secure facility outside the government’s control is punishable by a large fine and a year in jail.

Since the story broke (NYT) on March 2nd, Clinton has argued that she turned over all the proper documents, but she just did it two years after leaving office; however, the State Dept Records Management Handbook explains that officials who fail to turn over documents can face “fines, imprisonment or both for the willful and unlawful removal or destruction of records as stated in the U.S. Criminal Code.”

DOJ attorney Shannen Coffin told viewers on the Kelly File, “State Department regulations also say that departing officials have to make sure that all their official records are in the files of the Dept of State upon departure. That couldn’t be any clearer.”

Will the Obama administration’s Dept of Justice prosecute Clinton for keeping four years of classified records on her non-secure server after she left office, just as Eric Holder prosecuted Gen. David Patraeus, who kept 15 months of classified records in his home in a desk after he left office?

Michael Steel, spokesman for Speaker Boehner, noted that Hillary Clinton didn’t hand over 55,000 emails “out of the goodness of her heart” last year. Steel recently stated, “She was forced to by smart, determined and effective oversight … The American people deserve the truth.”

The existence of Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by the House Select Committee on Benghazi, as it investigated the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and sought correspondence between Clinton and her aides about the attack. Clinton’s correspondence could provide pivotal clues concerning the terrorist attacks and the following days, whether Clinton wants it to or not.

A review of approximately 300 emails in February made Rep. Trey Gowdy realize that the State Dept records were seriously incomplete. He explained to Chris Wallace (Fox News) that “huge gaps” existed in Clinton’s email records, and this was debilitating the House Select Committee’s efforts to get to the bottom of the attacks on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi.

texts-from-hillary-640x480These huge gaps became apparent in light of the photograph of Clinton on a C-17, with blackberry in hand, and on her way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy. There are not any emails for several weeks on either side of that trip, including the trip itself, according to Rep. Gowdy.

Can anyone actually believe that such a trip wouldn’t have generated a single document?

Clinton_AbedinIt is also of the utmost importance to find any existing emails between Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin, her top aide and confidant, since it has long been known that Abedin’s family is closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. Huma’s mother, Dr Saleha Abedin, still edits the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which was founded by an associate of Osama bin Laden’s, Abdullah Omar Naseef, who was the secretary of the Muslim World League, a front for financing terrorism. Huma worked for JMMA from 1996 to 2008.

How did Huma Abedin receive a security clearance to work at the State Dept, which allowed her access to top-secret documents?

The Abedins were deeply involved in plans to use the Muslim Minority Affairs to create a fiery cauldron of Islamic revolution, and it was while Huma Abedin was advising Hillary that the State Dept dropped its “terrorist” designator for the Muslim Brotherhood and its policy of refusing to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood. One must wonder how many top-secret files Huma Abedin transferred to various Islamic nations, not necessarily our friends, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Clinton’s top two aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, used personal emails while working for Clinton at the State Dept. Were they all transmitting sensitive, classified State Dept information and information about Benghazi on their personal emails?

The foreign policy implications surrounding former Sec. of State Clinton’s emails are significant, especially once one reviews El-Mogaz News reports (Aug 2014) that Nagla Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian President Morsi, was “threatening to expose the special relationship between her husband and Hillary Clinton,” through letters in her possession. One email sent to Clinton, by former Clinton White House staffer Sidney Blumenthal, quotes an intelligence source asserting that the attack on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi was funded by “wealthy Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia.”

On March 20th, Chairman Trey Gowdy gave Hillary Clinton until April 3rd to respond to the following formal request in a letter to her lawyer, David Kendall, or face a subpoena: “I am asking Secretary Clinton to relinquish her server to a neutral, detached and independent third-party, such as the Inspector General for the State Department, for review and independent accounting of any records contained on the server … .”

America demands answers for the families of the four brave Americans who perished horribly in the attacks in Benghazi. They deserve the truth surrounding the decision to leave them to die, and the answers must be mercilessly retrieved from Clinton’s emails by Congress, the independent third-party and a Special Prosecutor. Other truths are certain to come to light concerning the Obama administration’s numerous Middle East policy failures. But the terrible images of our fallen Americans, unnecessary deaths, remain fresh, and Obama and Clinton must be held accountable for this one betrayal and act of treason, if nothing else: America demands the truth.

Benghazi panel head Gowdy asks Clinton to ‘relinquish’ personal server

hillary-clinton-blasts-republicans-over-iran-nuclear-letter-2015-3Fox News, March 20, 2015:

The chairman of the congressional committee probing the Benghazi terror attacks has formally asked that Hillary Clinton turn over her personal server — warning that the House could take steps to pressure her if she refuses.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., sent a letter, released Friday, to Clinton’s attorney requesting that the former secretary of state “relinquish” the server to a “neutral, detached and independent third-party” for review.

The server has become a point of controversy after she admitted to exclusively using a private email account and a personal server while secretary — yet insisted her server would remain private, though some lawmakers want access to it to ensure she’s turned over all official emails during her tenure.

Gowdy’s letter suggested that Clinton could turn the server over to the State Department inspector general for review. He said it’s important for a third party to look over the contents to ensure any public documents are released.

“Her arrangement places her as the sole arbiter of what she considers private and what is beyond the view of the public,” Gowdy said in the letter addressed to her Washington attorney Friday.

One source told Fox News that Gowdy’s committee does not have the statutory authority to subpoena the server itself — only witnesses and documents. However, the full House does, should it escalate to that point.

At the end of his letter, Gowdy asked for a response by April 3. He pointedly warned that if Clinton won’t comply, he will tell House Speaker John Boehner so he can use the “full powers” of the House to take the “necessary steps.”

Gowdy has expressed concern that because Clinton was using a personal email to conduct business as America’s top diplomat from 2009 to 2013, lawmakers cannot be confident that the official Benghazi investigation has received all pertinent communications involving Clinton and other government officials at the time.

Her office has turned over more than 30,000 “work-related” emails and, responding to the media uproar caused by the revelations this month, asked the State Department to make them public. Her office acknowledged that she established a private server, and that she deleted what she described as personal emails from the account.

She said that in hindsight, it would have been better to use the government account. But she assured that all the official emails were saved and turned over to the State Department for their official archives.

Gowdy voiced doubts in a written statement Friday, separate from the letter.

“An independent analysis of the private server Secretary Clinton used for the official conduct of U.S. government business is the best way to remove politics and personal consideration from the equation,” he said in the statement.

“Having a neutral, third-party arbiter such as the State Department IG do a forensic analysis and document review is an eminently fair and reasonable means to determine what should be made public. ”

Fox News’ James Rosen contributed to this report.

***

Search warrant needed to get a hold of Hillary Clinton’s server?

There are many reasons Hillary doesn’t want us to see her email. Read this eye popping account of her corrupt money raising schemes: (h/t Wayne Simmons)

Also see:

New Security Concerns from Hillary Clinton’s Email and Cell Phone

texts-from-hillary-640x480CSP, by Fred Fleitz, March 19, 2015:

Ambassador John Bolton just issued this statement about the Hillary Clinton email scandal:

“Revelations about former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email account have also raised another issue. Her use of an insecure cellphone could also compromise national security by its vulnerability to capture by unfriendly sources.”

“We know that many hostile intelligence services have the capability to turn cellphones — even if they are turned off — into microphones that can be used to eavesdrop on conversations and meetings. If Secretary Clinton did not use a State Department-provided cellphone for official business she would not have had the benefit of monitoring by State security experts to ensure that her cellphone was not being exploited for this purpose.  There is an urgent need to understand and evaluate this threat through an independent review and a forensic assessment of Clinton’s cellphone and server either by Congress, the State Department Inspector General, or the National Security Agency.”

Hillary Clinton decided to use a private email server and private cell phone for official business while she was Secretary of State to avoid having over to turn over records of these communications to judicial and congressional inquiries.  This decision was a blatant violation of State Department rules and probably the law.  Concerns also have been raised that Clinton’s use of a private email server could have allowed U.S. adversaries to hack her email.

Adding to this scandal was Clinton’s statements that she will not turn over her email server to the Benghazi Commission and her staff unilaterally deleted 30,000 emails that they deemed personal.

Clinton_AbedinA separate scandal is brewing concerning Huma Abedin, Clinton’s top aide while she was Secretary of State.  Andrew McCarthy and Frank Gaffney have written about Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  We now know Abedin had an email account on Clinton’s private server and simultaneously worked at State as Clinton’s aide and in positions with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a consulting firm whose president is Doug Band, a former top aide to Bill Clinton.  Reports of million-dollar contributions from foreign countries to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was Secretary of State – including from Qatar, Oman and Kuwait – coupled with Abedin’s Clinton email account, her Muslim Brotherhood ties and her consulting work for the Clinton Foundation, could be the makings of an extraordinary conflict of interest scandal.

In addition to these concerns, John Bolton believes Clinton’s use of a private cell phone created a serious security vulnerability that may have allowed hostile powers to eavesdrop on her official conversations.

Hillary Clinton did not comply with State Department guidelines on official email and cell phones because she thought the rules didn’t apply to her.  It is becoming apparent that Clinton’s arrogance may also have endangered U.S. national security.

Bill Whittle: The Criminal Arrogance of Hillary Clinton

hc2

Truth Revolt:

30,000 deleted emails… Bill Whittle looks at the lawlessness, the arrogance, and the unmasked contempt that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have for the American people.

TRANSCRIPT:

Hi everybody. I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.

The American experiment was many things, but first and foremost it was an attempt, for the first time in human history, to create a society based upon the rule of law. The Declaration of Independence lists, in exhaustive and minute detail, nearly thirty enumerated cases of lawlessness on the part of King George III. This nation showed the world that common people could not only rule themselves; they could do so without an aristocracy and especially do so without an aristocracy that was, like King George, above the law.

Here’s a law: U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071, Paragraph a: “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

Paragraph b: Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Hillary Rodham Clinton decided to conduct, for four years, the office of Secretary of State using her own private email server. Because these emails were not transacted and recorded through the official State Department servers, Mrs. Clinton “willfully concealed and removed” these critical documents from the records and archives of the United States Government. You can further argue that by electing to not have these records placed onto government servers – which are secure, routinely backed up, and most importantly subject to Freedom Of Information Act requests, that she has, by any reasonable interpretation, “mutilated, obliterated and destroyed” these essential records, which belong not to Hillary Rodham Clinton but rather to the Secretary of State of the United States of America, and her employers, the people of that nation.

The penalty for this is a fine or up to three years imprisonment, or both. That’s paragraph (a) of the law.

By her own admission, transacting ALL of her State Department business through her private server means that by not turning the entire server over to the State Department – all of it, that’s for us to decide what is important or incriminating, not her – she has in fact “willfully and unlawfully concealed, removed, mutilated, obliterated, falsified, or destroyed the same.”

That too is punishable by fine, up to three years imprisonment, or both… and, parenthetically, forfeiture of office and disqualification from holding any office under the United States.

That’s the law. That’s what the law says.

The lawlessness is endemic in this administration. But beyond the lawlessness is, of course, the contempt. The contempt for the very idea that these Harvard and Yale Law School grads have to actually, you know, obey the law. The contempt for the American people’s right to know what their elected officials are doing. And beyond all of this, the towering, monumental, criminal arrogance of it: that the official business of the United States of America; the nation’s diplomacy, strategy, defense posture, privileged communications between our allies and in point of fact every particle of our nation’s foreign policy was being discussed and archived in a single box in either Texas or Manhattan or wherever the hell it is; that this server’s basic, routine, Microsoft security updates – the kind you and I get pestered with every day — were not complied with; that the vital security interests or in fact the very lives of 320 million people did not warrant the effort to even obtain a unique encryption certificate but rather used the same one issued to thousands if not millions of users; all of this gets to the heart not only of who Hillary Clinton is and the contempt in which she holds the American people. It is deeper than that.

When the President of the United States gets an official notification from his Secretary of State from BestMattressDeals99@yahoo.com, or any email that does not end in dot gov, then he too is complicit in this lawlessness, and for the same reason.

Barack Obama’s Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, admits that the President did receive emails from his Secretary of State, and went on to say this:

((14 SECOND CLIP))

Feel better now? The President of the United States, receiving emails from an illegal source, did not know or care or take any action whatsoever to ensure that she complied with the federal law she was in violation of. And neither did any of the people we pay to be responsible for the security of the communications of those at the uppermost level of the most powerful nation in the world.

This country was founded to be rid of the incompetence, reckless arrogance and casual stupidity of Kings and Queens who acted as though they were above the law. If we let these crimes go unpunished it will die of that same parasitical disease.

Legal Experts: Future U.S. President Could Revoke Bad Nuke Deal With Iran

John Kerry / AP

John Kerry / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Daniel Wiser, March, 12, 2015:

Legal experts are refuting a claim by Iran’s foreign minister that revoking a potential deal on the country’s nuclear program would violate international law, amid confusion Wednesday regarding whether or not the deal the State Department is negotiating will be in any way legally binding.

Javad Zarif, Tehran’s chief representative in the ongoing nuclear talks among the United States, Iran, and five other world powers, criticized on Tuesday an open letter sent by 47 Republican senators concerning the negotiations. While the lawmakers said in their missive that a future president or Congress could revoke or substantially alter a nuclear pact, Zarif responded that such changes would be illegal under international statutes.

“I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law,” he said, according to Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

However, the U.S. State Department asserted on Tuesday that a prospective nuclear agreement with Iran would be “nonbinding.” Secretary of State John Kerry also confirmed in congressional testimony on Wednesday that the Obama administration is “not negotiating a legally binding plan” but one from “executive to executive,” Politico reported. Kerry insisted such a deal would still “have a capacity of enforcement.”

Jeremy Rabkin, a law professor at George Mason University and an expert in international law and Constitutional history, said in an email that “nonbinding” by definition means that the United States “will not violate international law if we don’t adhere to its terms”—contrary to Zarif’s assertion.

“In other words we’re saying it is NOT an international obligation, just a statement of intent,” he said.

The legal nature of a potential nuclear agreement remains a matter of dispute.

The GOP senators wrote about the necessity of congressional oversight for “binding international agreements” in their letter. But on Wednesday, Kerry rejected that  characterization as “absolutely incorrect,” because the plan would not be legally binding.

The potential deal’s executive and nonbinding nature means Congress could not amend it, Kerry said.

Rabkin said the question of whether a U.S. president can institute a binding international agreement without congressional approval is disputed among legal scholars, but the State Department’s declaration that an Iran deal would be nonbinding places it in a different category.

“What Kerry seemed to say was not that his Iran deal would be in the same category but that it would not be legally binding in any sense, just a kind of memorandum of understanding,” Rabkin said. “I wonder whether he understood what he was saying. It was more or less conceding that what Cotton’s letter said was the administration’s own view—that the ‘agreement’ with Iran would not be legally binding, so (presumably) not something that could bind Obama’s successor.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), one of the lead authors of the GOP’s letter to Iran, expressed confusion on Wednesday about the State Department’s classification of a nuclear deal with Tehran.

“Important question: if deal with Iran isn’t legally binding, then what’s to keep Iran from breaking said deal and developing a bomb?” Cotton tweeted.

John Yoo, a law professor at University of California, Berkeley and a former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration, wrote on Wednesday that Cotton and his fellow senators had it “exactly right” in their letter on matters of Constitutional law.

“The Cotton letter is right, because if President Obama strikes a nuclear deal with Iran using only [an executive agreement], he is only committing to refrain from exercising his executive power—i.e., by not attacking Iran or by lifting sanctions under power delegated by Congress,” Yoo wrote on National Review Online. “Not only could the next president terminate the agreement; Obama himself could terminate the deal.”

Additionally, Yoo said that under the Constitution’s Foreign Commerce Clause, Congress could still apply financial pressure on Iran regardless of an executive agreement.

“Obama’s executive agreement cannot prevent Congress from imposing mandatory, severe sanctions on Iran without the possibility of presidential waiver (my preferred solution for handling the Iranian nuclear crisis right now),” he said. “Obama can agree to allow Iran to keep a nuclear-processing capability; Congress can cut Iran out of the world trading and financial system.”

“As a matter of constitutional law, the Cotton letter should be no more controversial than a letter that simply enclosed a copy of the U.S. Constitution (without President Obama’s editing),” he added.

Also see:

***

Published on Mar 12, 2015 by EnGlobal News World

Hillary Clinton Is Still Violating the Law and the Justice Department Should Take Custody of the Server

clinton3National Review, by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY March 12, 2015:

Shannen Coffin had an important NR column Wednesday, exploring for a second time the question whether Hillary Clinton committed a crime by failing to turn over government records – the thousands of work-related emails on her private server – when she left the State Department two years ago. On Fox News’s The Kelly File last night, he and Megyn Kelly followed up: outlining how, contrary to suggestions from Camp Clinton, there is a serious process involved when a high-level official stops working for a federal department – a process designed to ensure that all work-related information has been turned over for retention in government files.

While it is true, as Mrs. Clinton has said, that the departing official must decide what information belongs to the government and what is private, that is just the start of the process. What the official claims is private must be inventoried and reviewed by the department’s records retention staff; if there is any doubt about whether a record is related to official business, the default position is that the government retains the record.

More importantly for present purposes, there is a form involved – this is the government after all. The departing official must complete Form OF-109. As Shannen explains:

It is a formal separation statement, in which the departing official certifies the return of any classified materials, and, more relevant for present purposes, that the departing official has “surrendered to responsible officials all unclassified documents, and papers relating to the official business of the Government acquired by me while in the employ of the Department.” The form makes very clear that a false statement in the certification is punishable as a crime, including under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal facts in statements made to federal agencies concerning a matter within its jurisdiction.

As Megyn reported last night, Fox News has asked the State Department to produce Mrs. Clinton’s Form OF-109. The public should be able to learn whether she signed it, thus representing, falsely as it turns out, that she had turned over to the State Department all files and documents relating to official government business.

I would further point out that Mrs. Clinton, even by her own account, even with respect to the copies of e-mails she has deigned to produce, is still in defiance of federal law.

Not only did she conceal and apparently delete files without completing an inventory and enabling State Department record retention officers to review her claim of privacy. Even with respect to the thousands emails she has finally revealed, she is still withholding information. What Mrs. Clinton hoarded on her server are (or were until deleted) electronic communications; what she has reportedly turned over, by contrast, are paper copies of those e-mails –reportedly, 30,490 e-mails comprising 55,000 printed pages. The paper copies may or may not have some information deleted from them.

The government record is the e-mail, the electronic communication itself. A paper copy is just a picture – and perhaps an incomplete one – of an actual electronic mail. When I left the Justice Department, I had to surrender my files and my credentials, not photocopies of them. The photocopies are depictions of the records, they are not the records. The public is entitled to maintain the actual records in the government’s filing system. It is Mrs. Clinton who must content herself with photocopies (and only of files that contain whatever categories of non-classified information she is permitted to retain as a private citizen).

It is not just that what Mrs. Clinton produced are not the actual electronic records she continues to hoard. The paper production is also not searchable in the way the actual electronic government records are. If Mrs. Clinton is permitted with impunity to continue denying the public the actual records that, by law, must be retained in the government’s files, it will cost the public additional, unnecessary millions of dollars. After all, the insufficient paper copies will have to be reviewed, organized, converted into a searchable format, and analyzed to determine if they are responsive to pending or past congressional, judicial and public disclosure demands on which the State Department is now derelict because of Mrs. Clinton’s obstruction.

This is no longer a mere political issue, much less a partisan issue. It is now a black-and-white law-enforcement issue: Mrs. Clinton is withholding records that belong to the public and there is probable cause to believe she made a prosecutable false statement to the government in claiming to have surrendered all records of official business to the State Department.

If she does not voluntarily surrender her server, forthwith, to the State Department, the Justice Department should be taking prompt action – probably through the United States attorney’s in the Southern District of New York (where the Clintons reside and where their servers are believed to be stored), or in Washington (where the State Department’s records are retained and where Mrs. Clinton probably signed her departure form – assuming she did so).

Whether voluntarily or by judicial warrant, the Justice Department should take custody of the server(s). At an appropriate time, counsel for Mrs. Clinton could then meet with prosecutors and State Department record-keepers to sort out what electronic records should be transferred to the State Department, what records the Justice Department should retain in the event there are any criminal proceedings, and what records are private and should be returned to Mrs. Clinton.

***

Listen to Secure Freedom Radio:

Digging Deeper on the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal

***

 

 

 

Why was Sid Blumenthal advising Hillary Clinton on Libya?

timthumb (11)AIM, by Kenneth R. Timmerman,  March 11, 2015:

Until Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) revealed last week that his Benghazi Select Committee was investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server for her official State Department communications, no one had a good explanation for why none of the Congressional committees that had previously investigated Benghazi had ever cited a single Hillary Clinton email in their reports.

Congressional Democrats had been pooh-poohing Gowdy’s investigation, claiming that all the important questions about Benghazi had been “asked and answered” by previous committees.

Now the best that Gowdy’s counterpart, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), can do is object to subpoenas (especially when they are issued to Hillary Clinton in person, through Counsel), and to huff and puff about the investigation becoming a “surrogate” for the “Republican National Committee.”

What a change a single revelation can bring.

We now learn that Hillary Clinton not only used a private server, maintained at her Chappaqua, New York home for official communications, but that she never used a government email at all. Not once.

No secretary@state.gov, or Clinton.hr@state.gov or anything of the kind. Just multiple accounts on her family server, clintonemail.com, including hdr22@clintonemail.com, the same address used by former Clinton White House aide Sidney Blumenthal to communicate with her on Benghazi and related matters.

Federal prosecutors recently finished up their case against former CIA Director David Petraeus, who was conveniently forced to resign just three days after the November 2012 elections, before he could clarify what he knew about Benghazi. (Given that Petraeus had just returned from a September 2, 2012 trip to Ankara, Turkey, where he had been trying to tamp down publicity due to an arms shipment from Benghazi to the Syrian rebels, he certainly knew a lot.)

In a widely criticized decision, they forced him to plea bargain one count of a misdemeanor in exchange for dropping more serious charges. The full extent of the FBI’s case against Petraeus involved him sharing personal, hand-written notebooks with his biographer.

Prosecutors noted that the CIA had installed a SCIF—a specialized high-security area—in his Arlington, Virginia home where he could safely store classified materials brought home from the CIA. That facility was dismantled by the CIA without incident two months after Petraeus resigned from the Agency.

The prosecutors never accused Petraeus of improperly storing U.S. government classified materials either in the SCIF or elsewhere. Nor did they accuse him of sending classified materials over an unsecure server.

If they could prosecute Petraeus on one count of improperly handling classified material (he kept those personal notebooks in a rucksack in his attic), one can only speculate how many thousand counts of mishandling classified information could be brought against Mrs. Clinton. Of course, she denies having sent classified information over her personal server, but in that case how did she communicate on classified matters with her envoys and subordinates?

Was the private server at her residence designed, installed, and maintained by a U.S. government security agency? Was it connected to the government’s Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) and physically separated from the open Internet?

The Sid Blumenthal memos, sent from his AOL account to Hillary’s private email server, suggest that this was not the case. If so, the former Secretary of State was breaking the law—big time.

When the memos first surfaced in 2013—posted to the Internet by a Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer” —neither the State Department nor their purported author acknowledged their authenticity. Given that they initially surfaced on the website of Russia Today, Vladimir Putin’s reliably anti-American TV network, that was enough to consign them to oblivion as yet another Internet hoax.

Now we learn that former CIA official Tyler Drumheller apparently helped to gather the “intel” that Blumenthal sent to Hillary on the Benghazi attacks and other political developments inside Libya.

This is extremely significant because the initial memo sent by Blumenthal, dated September 12, 2012, cites “a sensitive source,” who purportedly met with Libyan President Magarief shortly after the attacks began and claimed that a YouTube video sparked the “protest” against the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

Magarief himself never said such a thing, although the memo is worded to suggest that he did. He blew up when he heard Susan Rice make that claim on the Sunday talk shows after the attack, as I write on pages 347 and 348 of Dark Forces: The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi.

Drumheller became infamous for several earlier pieces of disinformation. As European Division chief at the CIA’s Directorate of Operations in 2001 and 2002, he was the one who planted the phony evidence about the Niger uranium contract that was later used by the media during the Valerie Plame affair to claim that George W. Bush had “lied” about Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs. On three separate occasions, he passed the Niger information up the food chain as validated intelligence, when the CIA had been warned that it was not (see page 63 of my book Shadow Warriors).

Then-CIA Director George Tenet was so fed up with Drumheller that he spent seven full pages in his memoir debunking claims by Drumheller regarding the defector known as CURVEBALL that Tenet said were simply untrue.

Drumheller and Sid Blumenthal have a history together. In 2007, Blumenthal used Drumheller as a source to “prove” that Bush had “lied” about pre-war intelligence on Iraqi WMD. Drumheller and Blumenthal went on to work in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2007 and 2008.

So was the Guccifer/Blumenthal memo intended as disinformation, written after Hillary Clinton put out her statement on the night of the attacks blaming them on a YouTube video? Or was it actually the source of Hillary’s false claim about the video, written and sent by someone on the ground in Libya who was attempting to plant the story?

Many reporters, myself included, have submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the State Department, asking for all documents and communications that would show how Mrs. Clinton’s statement came to be worded as it was finally released. Where are all the drafts? Who commented on them? What did it say initially? How was it changed? By whom?

We have much of that information for the Susan Rice talking points, but nothing at all for Hillary Clinton’s statement on the evening of the attacks.

Given that there is not a single mention of a protest or the YouTube video in all the documents released to Congress, which included real-time communications from Tripoli and Benghazi from the State Department and CIA that night, exactly how Mrs. Clinton came up with that idea could provide key insight into what actually happened in Benghazi, and why.

Also see:

Hillary’s Connection To The Muslim Brotherhood And Her Multiple Private Emails

By Walid Shoebat, March 6, 2015:

Fox News reported tonight that Hillary Clinton may have had several different private email addresses she used that were all on her private email server. They got this information on the multiple email addresses from a professional hacker that used a tool to comb through public information found in major search engines.

h

A prominent hacker tells Fox News’ James Rosen that Hillary Clinton appears to have established multiple email addresses for private use.

Aides to the former secretary of state say she only used one private email while in office — hdr22@clintonemail.com. That domain name has been traced to a private Internet server in Clinton’s hometown of Chappaqua, N.Y. The server was registered in the name of Clinton’s former aide Eric Hothem a week before the Obama administration assumed office.

Rosen’s hacker source employed a tool called “The Harvester” to search a number of data sources to look for references to the domain name Clintonemail.com. The source says it appears Clinton established multiple email addresses, includinghdr@clintonemail.com, hdr18@clintonemail.com, hdr19@clintonemail.com,hdr20@clintonemail.com, and hrd21@clintonemail.com.

Other email addresses include h.clinton@clintonemail.com,Hillary@clintonemail.com, contact@clintonemail.com, andmau_suit@clintonemail.com.

After ignoring a Freedom of Information Act request submitted in August 2014, government watchdog Judicial Watch has issued a lawsuit against the State Department for all emails between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, her top aide Huma Abedin and wife of Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Morsi, Nagla Mahmoud, from January 2009 to January 2013. It was discovered earlier this week that both Clinton and Abedine used personal email accounts to conduct government business, potentially violating federal records laws.

The Judicial Watch lawsuit specifically seeks the following:

A. Any and all records of communication between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Nagla Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi, from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013; and
B. Any and all records of communication between former State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin and Nagla Mahmoudfrom January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013.

“Now we know why the State Department didn’t want to respond to our specific request for Hillary Clinton’s and Huma Abedin’s communications,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The State Department violated FOIA law rather than admit that it couldn’t and wouldn’t search the secret accounts that the agency has known about for years. This lawsuit shows how the latest Obama administration cover-up isn’t just about domestic politics but has significant foreign policy implications.”

Hillary received memos which included a note on the sources of intelligence referred to as “Sources with access to the highest levels of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.”

Both Hillary and Huma Abedin, her assistant had multiple emails, as it seems. Now we shall see what becomes of the lawsuit. Will it be discovered that Hillary and Huma were neck-deep involved with the Muslim Brotherhood?

But is it only the emails that will reveal such connections?

Shoebat.com has spent quite some time revealing the Muslim Brotherhood and the Wahhabist connections of the Abedin family and it is perhaps the right time for all this to resurface again. We do not need just emails to prove it.

And just to give a glimpse of what we researched, it was Huma’s mother, father and brother who were neck deep as well as Huma with activism for the Wahhabists and the Muslim Brotherhood. Her mother Saleha Abedin is Vice Dean at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia, Saleha was also one of the institution’s founders, along with Yaseen Abdullah Kadi—a designated terrorist by the U.S.—and members of the bin Laden family.

In 2010, Huma arranged for the Secretary of State to visit Dar El-Hekma where Clinton spoke alongside both Saleha and another Sisterhood member named Suheir Qureshi, who like so many of her colleagues, holds a Ph.D.

Courtesy of Internet Archives, we were able to learn that Huma Abedin served as an Assistant Editor with IMMA (Institute For Muslim Minority Affairs) from at least December 2, 2002—September 24, 2008. Her name fails to appear on the IMMA website some time before February 14, 2009. Presumably, Abedin left IMMA to accept her current position as Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton.

Our detailed research shows the roots of IMMA which had its roots from the Wahhabists and an Al-Qaeda financier Abdullah Omar Naseef, in which the Abedins were neck deep in involvement on plans to use the Muslim Minority Affairs to bring forth a grand Muslim revolution.

Read more

Hillary’s War

ty-450x304Frontpage, March 6, 2015 by Kenneth R. Timmerman:

What short memories we have.

Just three weeks ago, gloating ISIS terrorists beheaded 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians on a Libyan beach. The Catholic Church proclaimed them “martyrs.” Former Virginia Republican Congressman Frank Wolf, now at Baylor University, called for the creation of a safe haven for Middle East Christians.

And then, the world moved on. The body of yet another beheaded Coptic Christian was found in Libya on Wednesday. But by then the media had turned their gaze elsewhere so the outrage was gone.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters in the national media are counting on our short memories to allow them to tout her “successes” as Secretary of State as they gild her chariot for a ride to the White House in 2016.

And therein lies reason #1 why Mrs. Clinton will do everything in her power to keep the public from seeing her email — at least, an unsanitized version that would provide the full record of her tenure as Secretary of state.

“We came, we saw, he died.”

Anyone remember that one? That was Hillary Clinton, joking with a reporter just days after visiting Libya on October 18, 2011 when she was told that Qaddafi had just been killed. She immediately burst out into the famous cackle. But since she was not a Republican, Mrs. Clinton did not have to declare, “I am not a witch.”

She learned of Qaddafi’s demise when her aide, Muslim Brotherhood royal Huma Abedin, passed what appeared to be her personal Blackberry to her boss. One can only wonder who sent that message to Ms. Abedin. Was it a government official who used an official email account? Or was it some nebulous “informant” – perhaps the same one who convinced Mrs. Clinton on the night of the Benghazi attacks that a shadowy video they wrongly claimed was made by American right-wingers was at fault, when there was nary a trace of that “information” in the official reporting channels from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, the defense attaché in Tripoli, the CIA station chief, the CIA sub-station in Benghazi, or the State Department Operations Center.

Why can I say that? Because we have been told repeatedly that all the official reporting on the night of the Benghazi attacks has already been produced to multiple congressional committees. That’s why Media Matters and the Hillary Media Brigades continue to insist there is no story. It’s all a hoax. Move on.

I believe the question of where the YouTube video-is-the-culprit story originated lies at the core of the Benghazi scandal. I have called it the original “sin,”which led to the original “spin” by Susan Rice and others, including President Obama and of course Mrs. Clinton herself.

What prompted Mrs. Clinton to advance a story she knew was a fiction and to think she could get away with it? What real story was the fiction papering over?

Until now, although the State Department has said repeatedly they have produced every document and communication Congress has requested in a timely manner, we still don’t have any record of why Mrs. Clinton gave the stand down order to the Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST), an inter-agency rapid reaction force, with a substantial special operations component, that was created precisely to respond to the type of emergency that was taking place in Benghazi and is on call 24/7.

We still don’t know what instructions Mrs. Clinton gave her subordinates in preparing the infamous talking points for Susan Rice that blamed the attacks on a YouTube video and claimed preposterously that they were a demonstration gone wild. Nor do we have any inkling of the communications between Mrs. Clinton and her ambassador, Chris Stevens – although Steven’s #2, Gregory Hicks, has testified that they communicated directly. (Indeed, it would have been extraordinary if they had not).

We don’t know if she instructed him to head to Benghazi to circle the wagons with the CIA and the Turkish Consul General, to tamp down the growing scandal over the Entisar, a Libyan fishing boat carrying 400 tons of weapons sent by jihadi groups in Benghazi to the Syrian rebels whose presence in the Turkish port of Iskenderun had attracted the attention of Western reporters.

We should have had answers to all of those questions within three months of the attacks, when the Hillary-appointed Accountability Review Board delivered its “definitive” report.

But as the co-chairmen later testified, they never interviewed Mrs. Clinton during their “definitive” investigation, nor did they cite a single email from Mrs. Clinton. And no one understood enough to call the foul.

What about those pictures of Mrs. Clinton posing with jihadi fighters in Tripoli, who had come to welcome her U.S. Air Force C-17 in October 2011? How many of them have since joined up with al Qaeda or ISIS? How many of them took part in the murder of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi?

For with our short memories, we forget that Libya was Hillary’s war.

In separate tell-all accounts, former Defense Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta agreed that Mrs. Clinton dragged President Obama into this war kicking and screaming. She saw the fight against Qaddafi as a perfect opportunity to illustrate the wisdom of her new national security dogma, Responsibilty To Protect.

The Obama White House eventually bought into it hook, line and sinker, even touting their version of Hillary’s war by saying they had defeated Qaddafi by“leading from behind.”

Where has Hillary’s War left us?

Libya is a disaster. Jihadi militias who took part in the U.S.-backed rebellion against Qaddafi seized control of Tripoli this past summer, turning the international airport into a sand heap, forcing the evacuation of the remaining U.S. diplomats in Tripoli, shutting down much of Libya’s oil production, and driving the elected government into internal exile.

Today, two rival governments continue to jockey for power, while groups who have pledged loyalty to ISIS have taken over much of the eastern part of the country, including Derna and Benghazi.

Hillary’s War not only ended any attempts at mediation between Qaddafi and his opponents, which we have since learned were favored by the U.S. military and had a reasonable chance of success. It also ushered into power a jihadi state that has pledged its support to ISIS with the goals of launching terrorist attacks against the United States and of establishing a world-wide Islamic caliphate. And it sent a terrible message to dictators the United States might try to woo into giving up their weapons of mass destruction willingly, as Qaddafi did.

With successes like these on her account, who knows what failures those secret emails might reveal?

***

Published on Mar 5, 2015 by Dan Adams

Congressman: Clinton Email Scandal Nixonian

AP

AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, March 5, 2015:

Revelations that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton primarily conducted official state business using a private email address has prompted congressional investigators to ratchet up legal pressure on the likely Democratic presidential nominee, according to leading lawmakers and sources familiar with the ongoing investigations.

“Secretary Clinton’s claim that she asked the State Department to release her emails is meaningless since they only have access to the emails she chose to provide them,” Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), a member of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said Thursday.

“The Committee will use all tools at our disposal to ensure we obtain every relevant email, potentially including ones Mrs. Clinton, her political advisers and lawyers chose to hold back, as we compile a full and complete record of the facts on the Benghazi attacks,” Roskam revealed.

Clinton has become engulfed in controversy following the disclosure that she conducted official government business from a private email address, which appears to run counter to established security protocols and regulations governing communication between executive branch officials.

Congressional investigators looking into Clinton’s conduct during the 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans say they will step up their inquiry into Clinton following these new disclosures, which one leading lawmaker described as Nixonian in nature.

At issue is the possibility that Clinton intentionally failed to submit to Congress reams of correspondence that may have taken place over this private account, rather than over Clinton’s official State Department email address.

While the committee was aware that Clinton had been using a private email address, it did not know until recent weeks that she was using the account almost exclusively, according to sources familiar with the issue.

Sources tracking Congress’ investigation into the Benghazi attacks further told the Washington Free Beacon that lawmakers are becoming frustrated with what they see as the Clinton machine’s continuous stalling tactics.

“The Committee is clearly running out of patience for these stall tactics,” the source said. “They are ratcheting up efforts to get every piece of information relevant to the investigation in order to finally hold those responsible accountable.”

“Secretary Clinton owes the American people an explanation for what appears to be an intentional attempt to evade federal record protocols,” the source said. “Lawmakers seem poised to ensure these questions are answered in order to finally get to the bottom of this.”

Clinton said on Thursday in a tweet that she had asked the State Department to release all of her emails, though it remains unclear how the department could fully track an email address it did not operate.

A spokesman for the Benghazi committee said it “is in possession of records with two separate and distinct email addresses used by former Secretary Clinton and dated during the time she was Secretary of State.”

“Without access to the relevant electronic information and stored data on the server—which wasreportedly registered to her home—there is no way the Committee, or anyone else, can fully explain why the committee uncovered two email addresses,” the spokesman said.

“I want the public to see my email,” Clinton said Wednesday evening via Twitter. “I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”

Roskam said in a subsequent statement that the Benghazi committee has been fighting with the State Department for months to gain access to all Obama administration communications pertaining to the 2012 attacks.

“For months the Select Committee has pressed the State Department for access to all communications from key officials on watch during the Benghazi terrorist attacks,” Roskam said. “Yet until last week the administration failed to mention that countless emails from Secretary Clinton have been missing from this search because she exclusively used private accounts during her tenure.”

“The last time we saw a high government official seeking to edit their own responses was President Nixon, and at least then he enjoyed the benefit of executive privilege,” Roskam added.

“We have said from the beginning that our investigation would follow the facts wherever they lead us—and we intend to keep that promise by reviewing all of the relevant facts and documents in order to issue the definitive report on what happened before, during, and after the terrorist attacks in Benghazi,” Roskam added.

Also see:

 

Judicial Watch Sues for Hillary and Huma’s Egypt Emails

P25_Hillary_Clinton_261164k

Judicial Watch, MARCH 04, 2015 :

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the State Department seeking any and all communications – including emails – from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Chief of Staff Huma Abedin with Nagla Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian president Mohammad Morsi, from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00321)).   This latest lawsuit will require the State Department to answer questions about and conduct thorough searches of Hillary Clinton’s newly discovered hidden email accounts.  Judicial Watch also has nearly a dozen other active FOIA lawsuits that may require the State Department to search these email accounts.  Huma Abedin is also alleged to have a secret account as well.

Judicial Watch submitted its original FOIA request on August 27, 2014. The State Department was required by law to respond by September 26, 2014 at the latest to Judicial Watch’s request for:

  1. Any and all records of communication between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Nagla Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi, from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013; and
  2. Any and all records of communication between former State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin and Nagla Mahmoud from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013.

To date, the State Department has not responded.

Ms. Mahmoud threatened Mrs. Clinton after Morsi was ousted.  According to JihadWatch.org:

In the words of El-Mogaz News, Morsi’s wife “is threatening to expose the special relationship between her husband and Hillary Clinton, after the latter attacked the ousted [president], calling him a simpleton who was unfit for the presidency.  Sources close to Nagla confirmed that she has threatened to publish the letters exchanged between Morsi and Hillary.”

The report continues by saying that Nagla accuses Hillary of denouncing her former close ally, the Brotherhood’s Morsi, in an effort to foster better relations with his successor, Egypt’s current president, Sisi—even though, as Nagla laments, “he [Morsi] was faithful to the American administration.”

“Now we know why the State Department didn’t want to respond to our specific request for Hillary Clinton’s and Huma Abedin’s communications,” stated Tom Fitton.  “The State Department violated FOIA law rather than admit that it couldn’t and wouldn’t search the secret accounts that the agency has known about for years.  This lawsuit shows how the latest Obama administration cover-up isn’t just about domestic politics but has significant foreign policy implications.”

Also see:

Rep. Gowdy Must Confront Clinton, Valerie Jarrett on Potential Roles in Benghazi

AP Photo/Jacquelyn-Martin

AP Photo/Jacquelyn-Martin

Breitbart, by Charles Ortel, Feb. 11, 2015:

After six years of a foreign policy strategy that observers have assessed as questionable at best, Americans and remaining foreign allies finally deserve an honest explanation of President Obama’s true aims across the Middle East. One person who should explain why the Obama Administration continually asserts the United States is making progress abroad despite so many appalling setbacks is senior aide Valerie Jarrett, whose influence shaping key policies is suggested in second-hand reports, but not yet adequately understood.

With Iran rising, and regimes falling throughout the region, now is the time to subject our President’s singular Senior Advisor to rigorous Congressional oversight, under oath, beginning with an appearance before Congress’s Select Committee on Benghazi.

Expose the real command structure inside the Obama Administration

Numerous accounts by high level U.S. government officials suggest that traditional reporting lines inside the Executive Branch are essentially irrelevant. Using Valerie Jarrett and other reliable associates, President Obama imposes his will everywhere that he can, outside effective scrutiny of political opponents, investigative journalists, and the American public.

Congressman Trey Gowdy, as head of Select Committee investigating the 2012 attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, has the assignment and the resources he needs to retrieve answers and hold accountable those responsible for the disastrous events that occurred starting September 11, 2012. To do his job properly, he needs to widen his focus beyond Libya, expose how the Obama White House actually makes its decisions, and determine which foreign powers are prime beneficiaries of Executive Branch actions.

It is not enough for the Select Committee simply to identify which officials may have slowed, or even stopped, rescue efforts for beleaguered U.S. government employees and/or contractors mired inside Libya, almost three years ago. Instead, Americans need to understand how deeply involved in Federal government are organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and who has ultimate responsibility for vetting key government appointees and private contractors.

In addition, we deserve to know how deeply ties run between key Administration officials and the government of Iran, which seems to be the only clear beneficiary of Obama foreign policies. Furthermore, the American public should learn how widespread the practice has become wherein foreign interests purchase influence over government officials, theoretically independent scholars, and media watchdogs.

The truth actually matters

So far, Valerie Jarrett’s name does not figure on the published list of witnesses scheduled to appear before the Select Committee on Benghazi. Nor does Huma Abedin’s, a longtime aide to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Both of these individuals likely could help unravel the confusion concerning how America’s relations with Libya and with Egypt disintegrated so profoundly, opening up opportunities for Vladimir Putin to extend Russia’s influence in nations of key strategic significance.

Looking back before September 11, 2012, Congressman Gowdy should uncover who, other than Hillary Clinton (perhaps Ms. Jarrett?), must have approved the deeply troubling decision to let Huma Abedin simultaneously serve multiple masters– including the U.S. taxpayer, Hillary Clinton personally, Teneo Corporation and the Clinton Foundation. Given what happened after Mohamed Morsi took power by June 30, 2012, and given the continuing defiant support of the Obama Administration for the Muslim Brotherhood inside Egypt and the United States, the American public has every right to learn how someone with such suspect foreign connections became so involved in atypical ways influencing sensitive government initiatives.

Hillary Clinton apparently is eager to give her side of the story–though her attitude towards telling the truth is certainly flexible, as any fair-minded re-examination of her Bosnian landing under sniper fire reveals in retrospect.

Congressman Gowdy must summon the courage to examine closely the flows of official and intermediary communications and of money between and among interested parties in Libya and Egypt, not just in 2012, but from January 20, 2009 forward. Substantial U.S. government funds evidently disappeared under Hillary Clinton’s watch over the State Department–during the same period large donations flowed into Clinton Foundation while grants flowed to numerous recipients. Rather than shrugging off the confusing array of information, Congressman Gowdy needs to dive in and ferret out a comprehensible timeline that explains the motives and potential benefits derived by key interested parties.

When it comes to getting Obama Administration officials such as Valerie Jarrett to take Congressional oversight seriously, the record since January 2009 is certainly not encouraging–even now, on a potentially incendiary matter closer to home involving possible targeting of political opponents using the Internal Revenue Service, the Obama White House refuses to supply essential documents. So, teasing out the real timeline with regard to Libya, Egypt, and the Muslim Brotherhood will likely require aggressive tactics.

The difficult road ahead

Daunting as challenges seem across the Middle East, additional dangers threaten America in the potential splintering of Europe, the unrepentant rise of Putin’s Russia, and from China.

As Congressman Gowdy continues his important work, perhaps the governments of Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Egypt, and Israel can use their intelligence resources to help the American public understand exactly what the Obama Administration attempts as it continues redrawing the constellation of western interests across the Middle East.

Time is of the essence. Great nations with far more experienced leaders have floundered following misadventures outside their own borders. In the kind of Congressional oversight that has been sorely lacking until now, perhaps the United States can again find our best feet, and move these forward.

ADMIRALS, GENERALS: PENTAGON TAPES INDICT HILLARY

obamahillary

WND, by Jerome Corsi, Jan. 29, 2015:

NEW YORK – Recordings of top Pentagon officials in 2011 strongly criticizing Hillary Clinton for leading a State Department “march to war” against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 and for working with the Muslim Brotherhood confirm the conclusions of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, according to members who spoke to WND.

CCB members said the recordings revealed by the Washington Times provide additional evidence to support the group’s interim report concluding the Obama administration “changed sides” in Libya, rejecting an effort by Gadhafi to abdicate and choosing instead to arm al-Qaida-affiliated militia seeking to forcibly oust the dictator.

Last week, WND reported retired Adm. James Lyons’ conclusion the Obama administration could have ousted Gadhafi peacefully by accepting a deal brokered in March 2011 by retired Rear Adm. Chuck Kubic with AFRICOM in Germany.

“The release of the Pentagon secret tapes by the Washington Times today validates the CCB interim report that the Libyan war was totally unnecessary, since it now has been validated that Gadhafi was willing to abdicate and that he had no intention of causing a humanitarian crisis, as promoted by Hillary’s State Department,” said Lyons, a former four-star admiral who served as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific and a founding member of the CCB.

The CCB – comprised of 17 retired admirals and generals; former intelligence agents; active anti-terrorist experts; media specialists; and former congressmen – has been conducting its own investigation and working behind the scenes for the past year and a half to ensure Congress uncovers the truth of what happened in Benghazi and holds people accountable.

“It is long past time that the Obama administration and especially his then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton come clean about why they were so determined to turn on Gadhafi – our ally in the war against al-Qaida – and instead chose to arm and support al-Qaida militias fighting to overthrow him,” said Clare Lopez, a former career operations officer with the CIA and currently vice president for research at the Washington-based Center for Security Policy.

Lopez said it’s “critical to note that Gadhafi was actively engaged with Department of Defense officials to arrange discussions about his possible abdication and exile when that promising development was squashed by the Obama White House.”

“The Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi has been asking ‘Why?’ for well over a year now,” she said. “It is time the American people and the families of those who fought and gave their lives at Benghazi in September 2012 were told why those brave Americans had to die at all, much less die alone with no effort made to save them.”

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, another CCB founding member, told WND in an email that the Washington Times disclosure puts additional pressure on Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., to subpoena Clinton and other key Obama administration officials to testify soon in public before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

“Delays by Gowdy are unnecessary at this time,” Vallely insisted. “Gowdy can press forward now as he does have sufficient intelligence and documents to call all witnesses and issue subpoenas as necessary.”

“Additional delays will only give the obstructionists in the Obama White House, the State Department and the Democrats in Congress time to thwart the efforts of the select committee,” Vallely said. “Gowdy needs to call immediately former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Obama administration CIA Director General David Petraeus and former director of both the CIA and the Department of Defense Leon Panetta, as well as General Dempsey, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”

Retired Air Force Gen. Thomas McInerney, also a founding member of the CCB, was equally disturbed over the content of the Pentagon recordings revealed by the Washington Times.

“It becomes obvious these Pentagon tapes reveal a starting point by the Obama administration to start switching sides by taking down Gadhafi when all informed analysts knew that Benghazi was the incubator for radical Islam in sending suicide bombers to Iraq to kill American troops,” McInerney said.

“Why the administration wanted to do this is bewildering, but the evidence continues to grow,” McInerney added, citing as evidence President Obama’s enthusiastic support for former President Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood in his country, as well as the Obama administration determination to exchange five Muslim “high value targets” from Guantanamo for U.S. Army soldier Bowe Bergdahl, who was held captive by Taliban-affiliated radicals in Afghanistan after he allegedly deserted his unit.

The disclosure of the Pentagon recordings also prompted CCB members to comment on the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on the Obama administration.

“The war in Libya was a manufactured war produced in part by the influence the Muslim Brotherhood exerted on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with the Muslim Brotherhood penetrating her office through the influence of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s longtime deputy chief of staff, who transferred to the State Department to serve as Clinton’s aide,” Lopez added.

WND has reported extensively Abedin’s family origins in the Muslim Brotherhood and her work for a dozen years as an assistant editor for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs. The organization was founded by her late father and directed by her mother with the full backing of the Muslim World League, an Islamic organization in the Saudi holy city of Mecca founded by Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

“Remember that Huma Abedin’s family’s Saudi ‘godfather’ is Abdullah Omar Nasseef, the founder of Rabita Trust, an al-Qaida funding institution that was shut down after 9/11. These were the connections advising our secretary of state — it’s called an influence operation,” Lopez said.

Lopez said that also during that time, among the closest advisers to John Brennan, now head of the CIA, and Dennis McDonough, currently White House chief of staff, when they were on the National Security Council was the son of the Sudanese grand mufti, Imam Mohamed Magid, the president of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Islamic Society of North America, ISNA.

ISNA was listed by the Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, which convicted the organization and its leaders of funding the terrorist organization Hamas, Lopez noted.

Magid, imam at All Dulles Area Muslim Society, near Washington, D.C., is a member of the board of advisers to the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism working group.

***

America’s Fatal Flaw in the War on Terror: Underestimating the Jihadist Enemy

isis-flag-youtube-afp (1)Breitbart, by Kyle Shideler, Dec.16, 2014:

Hillary Clinton recently gave a foreign policy speech in what seems to be part of her early groundwork for an eventual 2016 Presidential candidacy.  In a speech widely panned by conservatives and foreign policy hawks, the former Secretary of State called out for more “smart power”, specifically encouraging that in the pursuit of peace the United States should be,

Leaving no one on the sidelines, showing respect even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.”

The remarks led to outrage and were called “naïve,” and “irrational.”

But Clinton is correct, although, admittedly, not in the way she meant. One of the largest problems since the beginning of the “Global War on Terror” has been the inability of U.S. policymakers to adequately understand the nature of the threat posed.

We have not shown respect for our enemies as Clinton demands. Instead we have minimized them as a “tiny minority of extremists,” when in reality the imposition of Shariah law-the stated raison d’etre of jihadist groups everywhere- is supported by substantial percentages of Muslim populations throughout the Middle East, Southwest and southeast Asia, and by significant percentages of Muslims in the Europe and North America.

We additionally fail to show respect by not taking our enemies and their ideas seriously. Instead we continuously assert-without evidence- that jihadist organizations, the members of Islamic State, Al Qaeda, etc. are ignorant of their own professed beliefs. We insist on this narrative even though the speakers in almost every video they produce- from the lowest AK-47-wielding foot soldiers to the highest-ranking propaganda spokesmen- remain utterly consistent in the quotation of traditional Islamic scripture, orthodox exegesis and the citation of canonical shariah jurisprudence regarding their actions.

It is we who are ignorant.

Clinton is correct as well in saying we lack empathy, the ability to put ourselves into the shoes of our opponents and understand their mindset sufficiently to know their goals, their dreams, their nature. Empathy is not something that can be outsourced to “cultural experts,” or regional allies. Instead of understanding, we super-impose our own values upon others, assuming that the sorts of things that would motivate us (access to clean water, governmental corruption, poverty etc.) automatically motivate our opponents.

As a result the United States finds itself flat-footed in attempting to comprehend, and respond to the Islamic State-for example- whose efforts to re-establish a Caliphate ruling all Muslims everywhere seems ludicrous to us, but represents a genuine dream held by millions of people around the world. That remains true, even though some of those people may also disagree with ISIS’s leader Abubakr Al-Baghdadi as the head of it.

Instead of genuine empathy, understanding the enemy as he understands himself, Clinton is proposing mere sympathy, an expression of apologetic support because it’s the “polite thing to do.”

Instead of getting into the minds of our opponents, we prefer to see them as aberrations. This is admittedly easy enough to do, with beheadings, forced conversions, sexual slavery and suicide bombings. These things seem alien to us, but they are not aberrations. They are the acts of real people with a different, but equally real, world-view. Viewing the enemy as a mere “aberration” does not lead to victory.

In the Orson Scott Card novel “Ender’s Game,” a piece of military sci-fi which remains part of the USMC Commandant’s Professional Reading List, the main character Ender, a young boy who is being prepared to lead the combined forces of the entire human race against an implacable alien enemy, says:

I don’t know anything about them, and yet someday I’m supposed to fight them. I’ve been through a lot of fights in my life, sometimes games, sometimes- not games. Every time, I’ve won because I could understand the way my enemy thought. From what they *did*. I could tell what they thought I was doing, how they wanted the battle to take shape. And I played off that. I’m very good at that. Understanding how other people think.

What Ender goes on to point out, and what Clinton’s “smart power” formulation misses, is that while understanding is essential to victory, it does not inevitably lead to peace.

Contrary to Clinton’s belief, it may be the case that a genuine understanding of the enemy- an examination of his doctrine and intentions that respects the seriousness of his commitment and the nature of his cause- does not lead to peace. It may lead to recognition that the enemy’s foundational beliefs rest on views of human nature, freedom, the relationship between God and men, and how society is meant to be organized which are fundamentally different from our own.

Hillary Clinton is right. To exercise “smart” power calls for understanding our enemies. But Clinton is wrong if she thinks that understanding the enemy obligates us to acquiesce to them.


Kyle Shideler is the Director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy.

White House Statement Ignores Brotherhood’s Continuing Hamas Support

797IPT News
December 5, 2014

The White House this week issued a statement explaining why it does not view the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group. It was in response to an online petition which attracted more than 213,000 signatures in support of designating the Egyptian-based group.

The statement emphasizes a lack of “credible evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has renounced its decades-long commitment to non-violence.”

The Brotherhood has another decades-long commitment, however, one that clearly endorses and supports terrorist attacks against Israel. That support began with Article Two of the Hamas charter, which clearly identifies it as “one of the wings of Muslim Brothers in Palestine.” It continues today with statements inciting and supporting Hamas attacks.

As the war between Israel and Gaza raged in August, a statement on the Brotherhood’s website translated by the Investigative Project on Terrorism praised “the valiant resistance factions [who] gave them [Palestinians] a lesson in heroism, faith, and courage. They decimated their soldiers and their officers…” Violent confrontation, the statement continued, “is the natural position which must be adopted with the heroes of Palestine, who have proven that the defeat of the Zionists as possible, which is closer when the will of the Umma [people] is united, with God’s will.”

President Obama publicly stood by Israel’s “right to defend itself against what I consider to be inexcusable attacks from Hamas,” including its indiscriminate rocket fire at Israeli civilian communities. The Brotherhood, by contrast, called for more attacks and “the defeat of the Zionists.”

That was not enough for the administration to question its “decades-long commitment to non-violence.” Other Brotherhood statements show that this is consistent rhetoric, even in more peaceful times.

A June message called “resistance to the occupier Zionist enemy” – a sterilized reference to terrorism – “a legitimate right and a sacred duty approved by all laws and customs and constitutions, and it is the only viable way to restore rights and reply to aggression.”

An April 2010 statement, marking the 62nd anniversary of Israel’s creation – what Palestinians call the Nakba, or catastrophe – said the only acceptable path is to continue trying to destroy an existing country.

“T]he Zionist destruction will only be by an Islamic, Arab plan which rejects peace begging initiative proposed since 2002; rejects normalization measures with the Zionist entity; reviews peace agreements and diplomatic relations with it; rejects foolish negotiations between Zionists and Palestinians which are like negotiations between the lamb and the wolf pack,” the Brotherhood statement said.

The United States has considered Hamas a terrorist group since 1995, when President Bill Clinton signed an executive order decrying “grave acts of violence committed by foreign terrorists that disrupt the Middle East peace process” and threaten American national security.

The United States has a record of aggressively pursuing Hamas-support operations within the country. It shut down the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF)’s assets in December 2001, labeling it a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. This action was based on the foundation’s routing of millions of dollars to Hamas-controlled charities in the West Bank and Gaza. Later, the governmentprosecuted and a jury convicted the foundation and five former officials.

Internal records seized by the FBI and entered into evidence in that prosecution showed that HLF operated under the umbrella of a group called the Palestine Committee, which was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and tasked with supporting Hamas politically and financially.

Some might argue that was a long time ago. But a look at Brotherhood actions and rhetoric indicates it continues to be fully supportive of Hamas and its violent attacks against Israelis.

Reports earlier this week indicate that members of Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood branch were arrested for trying to smuggle weapons into the West Bank to facilitate terror attacks.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, considered the Brotherhood’s most influential cleric, urged Muslimsto wage “the greatest battle of liberation” against Israel and the Jews in an online posting last month. Qaradawi, who also has a highly-rated program on Al-Jazeera, has an ever-expanding record of endorsing terrorist attacks and has prayed for the chance to “go to the land of Jihad and resistance” and “shoot Allah’s enemies, the Jews,” before he dies.

Interpol issued a bulletin Friday indicating that Qaradawi, 88, was wanted by Egyptian authorities for “incitement and assistance to commit intentional murder.”

After Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, a Brotherhood official, was forced from office in July 2013 in the wake of massive street protests against his rule, the Brotherhood’s political party posted a memo on Facebook inciting followers to take out their frustrations by burning Coptic churches.

“The Pope of the Church (Coptic Pope Tawadros II) took part in the ouster of the first elected Islamist president. The Pope of the Church charges Islamic Sharia with underdevelopment [and] stagnation,” the memo from the Freedom and Justice Party’s branch in Egypt’s Helwan Governorate, near Cairo, said.

“And for the Church to adopt a war against Islam and Muslims is the worst crime. For every action is a reaction.”

Before Morsi’s ouster, the White House welcomed a delegation of Muslim Brotherhood officials, even helping clear their path to avoid standard airport inspections as they landed in the United States.

State Department officials had numerous contacts with Brotherhood officials in the years leading up to Egypt’s Arab Spring revolution.

U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson reported in an April 2010 cable that Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie had “reaffirmed the MB was a non-violent” movement.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper similarly described the Muslim Brotherhood in February 2011 as “largely secular” and said that it “eschewed violence.” Four months later, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the U.S. planned to expand dialogue with the Brotherhood as part of a commitment “to engage with all parties that are peaceful and committed to nonviolence.”

Read more