Sessions: 4 Charged in Leaks, Warns Intel Community and Media

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Aug. 4, 2017:

The message could not have been any clearer. The crackdown is here.

Attorney General Sessions appeared together with Dan Coates, the Director of National Intelligence, to offer some blunt words. Sessions and Coats head the National Insider Threat Task Force.

Sessions described the “leaks to both the media and “even unauthorized disclosures to our foreign adversaries” as a serious threat.

“Since January, the Department has more than tripled the number of active leak investigations compared to the number pending at the end of the last Administration,” Sessions said. “And we have already charged four people with unlawfully disclosing classified material or with concealing contacts with foreign intelligence officers.”

“Today, I have this message for the intelligence community: The Department of Justice is open for business,” the Attorney General warned.

That’s a very direct message. And an extremely unusual one. It indicates just how bad things have become.

Sessions also said that the FBI had “created a new counterintelligence unit” to manage leak cases. And, in another warning that has the media worried, he made it clear that they were not off limits.

“One of the things we are doing is reviewing policies affecting media subpoenas,” he said. “They cannot place lives at risk with impunity. We must balance their role with protecting our national security and the lives of those who serve in our intelligence community, the armed forces, and all law abiding Americans.”

“We will investigate and seek to bring criminals to justice,” Sessions concluded. “We will not allow rogue anonymous sources with security clearances to sell out our country any longer.”

Furthermore, the DOJ will begin looking into Obama Inc’s use of the DOJ to blackmail companies into moving money into leftist slush funds.

Islamic Society with Questionable Background Joins Forces with Justice Department to Intimidate Citizens Opposing Mosque

Thomas More Law Center, April 18, 2017:

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) has learned that the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge (“ISBR”), which was trying to obtain zoning changes to build a mosque in Bernards Township, NJ, has hidden from public view anti-Christian and anti-Semitic verses on its website, as well as its connection to the Islamic Society of North America (“ISNA”)— an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in America.  ISNA is claimed by the Muslim Brotherhood as one of “our organizations and . . . our friends.”  According to internal documents seized by the FBI, the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy is to engage in a “grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within . . .”—one of the stages of this civilization jihad is the building of mosques and Islamic centers.

Plaintiffs ISBR and Mohammad Ali Chaudry sued in March 2016, claiming that the denial of zoning changes to permit a mosque violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) of 2000 and reflected community “religious and cultural animus against Muslims.”  Within a week of the ISBR lawsuit, the Justice Department launched its own investigation and filed its own lawsuit.

While a visible link to the quotes below was once contained on the ISBR website, ISBR has now taken the extraordinary step of hiding the links from public view.  Accordingly, the quotes cannot be found through a simple internet search or a view of the public portion of ISBR’s website, they can only be found by access to the direct links here:

“Ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.”

“Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).”

“And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; … .”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI entered the case solely to protect the constitutional rights of several Bernards Township citizens who exercised their fundamental right to publicly oppose proposed zoning changes.

These private citizens had no authority to deny the zoning application; nor did they have any official role in the Township.  Nevertheless, they were served with burdensome and harassing subpoenas which demanded: all their email addresses and social media accounts; all personal documents including emails, voicemails, text messages, and social media posts concerning Muslims, Islam, mosques, the Quran, Muslim worship or prayer services, wudu, imams, burkas, hijabs, Sharia, jihad, or anything else associated with or related to Muslims or Islam; any object inscribed with or containing the words “Preserve Liberty Corner,” or anti-mosque signs, flyers, banners, email messages, or pamphlets, distributed or otherwise existing at any time within the Township.  In addition, Department of Justice (“DOJ”) lawyers began a new front of intimidation by directly contacting these private citizens, asking them to come in for interviews concerning the mosque.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, stated: “Under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the Justice Department, using politically driven DOJ attorneys, weaponized itself against fundamental constitutional principles to intimidate American citizens with whom they disagreed.  Immediately after the San Bernardino terrorist attack and just months before DOJ inserted itself into this case, Ms. Lynch made the infamous statement chilling free speech: ‘…when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric…. when we see that we will take action.’  This is exactly what happened to the citizens of Bernards Township. DOJ attorneys initiated a deep state inquisition, seeking to bring citizens objecting to the mosque in for questioning.”

Click here to read previous TMLC press release on Subpoenas.

Also see:

New Report: The Purge of US Counterterrorism Training by the Obama Administration

purged-rpt

February 7, 2017, New Unconstrained Analytics Report:

On June 28, 2016, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts held a hearing chaired by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) investigating a series of policies established by the Obama Administration during 2011-2012 that effectively neutered FBI counterterrorism training and blinded our nation’s national security, defense and intelligence agencies to the threat from Islamic terrorism.

In what some experts have termed a hostile “political warfare campaign” driven by an alliance between the administration, Islamic organizations and cooperating media figures, analysts and subject matter experts were blacklisted, and books and training materials were purged from official counterterrorism training programs government-wide.

This “purge” has contributed to clues being missed by the FBI in major terrorism cases, including the April 2013 bombing of the Boston Marathon, and more recently the June 2016 massacre at The Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, by Omar Mateen, who had been the target of previous FBI investigations in 2013 and 2014.

Patrick Poole of Unconstrained Analytics has written a new report detailing how this counterterrorism training purge happened, the players involved, the surprising but overlooked findings by a GAO report, and the consequences of having our law enforcement/military/intelligence professionals intentionally denied important training on the threat doctrine of the enemy, As a result, they have been blinded, losing any ability to identify, and then defeat, the enemy.

REPORT – Purged: A Detailed Look at ‘The Purge’ of US Counterterrorism Training by the Obama Administration (pdf)

Don’t Be Fooled: Hillarygate Probe Is Now a Formal Federal Criminal Investigation


American Thinker, by James G. Wiles, November 1, 2016:

The NY Times and the Wall Street Journal both reported on Monday morning that an FBI warrant application to a federal judge over the weekend for permission to search Huma Abedin’s emails and laptop had been granted. The application was made on the basis of the Clinton email investigation. Necessarily, that application (as required by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment) would have been supported by FBI affidavits.

This new fact is a development of immense potential significance – both for Mrs. Clinton personally and for us as American citizens. It is also unprecedented in American history.

At a minimum, it enables us to pierce the thick cloud of black ink and disinformation released over the weekend by Team Hillary and which is being widely misreported in the current news cycle.

The FBI agents had to make this warrant application because their existing Fourth Amendment search authority was on the basis of Anthony Weiner’s (unrelated) suspected misconduct with an underage girl. That investigation was already a grand jury matter. However, that grand jury’s authority – which is supervised by a federal judge — did not authorize the Bureau to pursue information which might be pertinent to the inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a personal email server while she was Secretary of State. Making that application, under standard DOJ protocol, required approval from Main Justice. In this case, the assistant attorney in charge of the Criminal Division, if not the attorney general.

Since the application was made, it’s safe to conclude that the Criminal Division at Main Justice authorized the warrant application. Thus, at a minimum, the senior leadership of the Justice Department is not as unanimously condemnatory of FBI director Comey’s letter to Congress on Friday as media reports would lead us to believe.

It also explains why Director Comey issued his letter to Congress. The reporting tells us that the FBI’s decision to make a warrant application to the supervising judge of the Weiner grand jury triggered Mr. Comey’s decision to notify Congress. Having promised Congressional leaders (perhaps unwisely, since he was not required to do so) that, if the Bureau uncovered new evidence relating to Hillarygate which required further inquiry, he would so notify them, he proceeded on Friday to keep his word and do so.

Now he’s being condemned by the Democrats and the MSM for not saying why. We’ll get to the reason why he’s not in a minute. But, first, the granting of the warrant application means several important and new things:

1) A federal judge supervising a grand jury has now made a finding, based on FBI affidavits which present evidence gathered during the preliminary Hillary inquiry (the one which the FBI director stated had been closed back in July), that there’s probable cause to believe that a federal crime was committed in connection with Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server.

We still, however, don’t know what crime(s) are suspected to have been committed. Or by whom.

2) The FBI can use this new grant of grand jury authority to investigate Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for the first time to issues subpoenaes to obtain testimony from witnesses and compel the production of documents and things. The Bureau and DOJ can, furthermore, use the judge’s probable cause finding to support further warrant applications.

This means that, if DOJ authorizes it, a United States attorney now has the ability for the first time to put subpoenaed witnesses before a grand jury. There, without their lawyer in the room, they may be questioned under oath by a federal prosecutor. If the witnesses take the Fifth – and the witness’s lawyer is allowed to sit outside the grand jury room and be consulted by the witness before answering a question, they can be immunized and, if they still refuse to testify, a judge can jail them indefinitely until they change their mind.

Huma Abedin, according to prior reporting, received a grant of immunity during the FBI’s preliminary investigation. During the first Clinton presidency, Clinton allies chose jail over cooperating with the federal grand jury investigating both Clintons.

We may get to see if a new generation of Clinton allies are willing to do the same.

3) The liberal media’s reporting that the Hillarygate email server investigation has not, in fact, been “reopened” is totally false.

Why?

Because, not only is the probe reopened, it has been upgraded and expanded. It has been upgraded from a preliminary inquiry to a formal criminal investigation with grand jury power. That also means that, at least at the level of the federal grand jury itself, assistant U.S. attorneys assigned to that grand jury are now for the first time formally involved.

In other words: the Beast is now fully awake.

4) This weekend’s development potentially escalates the threat to Mrs. Clinton. While several other procedural steps and processes are necessary, it is a federal grand jury, not the FBI,  which issues indictments. The FBI — using the the grand jury to obtain testimony, conduct searches and compel the production of documents and things – investigates crimes. The U.S. Attorneys, acting though the grand jury, charge and prosecute those persons whom the grand jury finds probable cause to believe have committed those crimes.

5) This weekend’s development also means that, for the first time in American history, a candidate for President of the United States is likely now a subject/target of a federal grand jury investigation.

These facts now enable us to analyze and dispel Team Clinton’s attempts to lay down a thick fog of misdirection over the scene.

Here it is: Mrs. Clinton’s demand that the FBI be “transparent” is pure posturing — spinning to the max (which Mrs. Clinton, as the most criminally investigated presidential candidate in U.S. history, well knows). Younger readers, please take note: this is not, to put it mildly, Hillary Clinton’s first rodeo.

Not for the first time, Mrs. Clinton is being totally disingenuous with the voters (and the media). She is also making FBI director Comey into her personal punching bag. And she’s doing it because she knows that the director can’t fight back.

In this, Mrs. Clinton is simply repeating a tactic which she and her catspaw Sidney Blumenthal used to good effect during the Whitewater, Travelgate, and Monica Lewinsky investigations in the 1990s. And that tactic worked.

It’s called grand jury secrecy. Now that Hillarygate is, for the first time, a grand jury investigation, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) prohibits the FBI and prosecutors from saying anything about “matters occurring before the grand jury.” Their lips are sealed.

Team Hillary’s lips, however, are not. They are neither federal prosecutors nor “agents of the grand jury.” So, Mrs. Clinton and her spokesmen — unlike the federal law enforcement officials they’ve been targeting all weekend — are free to tell us everything they know.

Let’s see if they do. A reporter should ask them.

And, in the meantime, let’s not bother to hold our breaths.

If Hillary really wants “transparency,” let her release the FBI’s warrant application for permission to search Huma Abedin and Mr. Weiner’s emails for evidence relating to whether Hillary’s use of a private server violated federal law. Huma’s lawyers likely have it. If not, they can certainly get it.

Huma, of course, is also free to release the emails too.

That’s why Hillary’s demand for “transparency” by the FBI is moonshine. She damn well knows the feds can’t do it.

She also now knows that the threat level against her has just been upgraded to ORANGE.

William Safire and Christopher Hitchens, thou shouldst be living at this hour!

In This War Minnesota’s Twin Cities Are Lost

mn-1

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, October 24, 2016:

After spending all of last week in Minnesota, UTT’s professional assessment of the enemy situation is this:  the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota – known as the “Twin Cities” – are in enemy-held territory.  They are, at least for the time being, lost – meaning, they are under the control of a collaborative jihadist/marxist element there.

Background

The jihadi network in America is documented by UTT here, here and here, as well as in Raising a Jihadi Generation.

The Islamic jihadi network in the United States includes the most prominent Islamic organizations in America, as well as most of the 3,000+ Islamic Centers/mosques, all of the 700+ Muslim Students Associations (MSAs), all of the Islamic Societies and Islamic Associations (Hamas), and a large number of the Islamic non-profits created in 1993 forward.

The purpose of the Islamic Movement here – per their stated doctrine – is to wage Civilization Jihad until America becomes an Islamic State under sharia (Islamic Law).

One of the most popular junior high school text book in Islamic schools in the United States (Emmerick, Yahya, 1999,What Islam is All About, page 382) states:

“The duty of Muslim citizens is to be loyal to the Islamic State.”

Enemy Strength

Minnesota is home to the largest Somali population in America.  It is estimated that over 125,000 Somalis live there, most of whom are in the Minneapolis area.  This community sent at least 22 Islamic jihadi fighters overseas to fight for the terrorist group Al Shabaab, although some estimate the number is closer to four dozen.

The  Cedar Riverside neighborhood is also called “Little Mogadishu” in reference to Somalia’s capital.  Some Minneapolis residents feel parts of their city have become like a third world nation.

Inside a 10 mile radius of Minneapolis city-center, there are at least 29 Islamic Centers/mosques, and an unknown number of home-mosques.  The Twin Cities area is home to Hamas organizations including CAIR and Islamic Associations.  The Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim Students Associations (MSAs) are on at least 21 Minnesota college and university campuses. There are MSAs in at least 11 Minnesota high schools recruiting jihadis and turning public opinion towards the Palestinian Cause (Hamas) and away from Israel.

Other Muslim Brotherhood (jihadi) organizations in and around the Twin Cities area include the Islamic Societies in Woodbury and Willmar, the Muslim American Society (MAS), and others.

The Twin Cities is home to the first official organization representing Al-Azhar University in Egypt -the Islamic University of Minnesota (IUM).  Al-Azhar is the oldest and most authoritative school of Islamic jurisprudence on the planet.  At IUM students are taught that killing Jews, waging jihad, and imposing sharia on the world are obligations for all Muslims.

Minneapolis and St. Paul are also home to the Minnesota Dawah Institute.  This Institute focuses on spreading Islamic Dawah, the call to Islam, a mandatory requirement before jihad can be waged.

As a result of this invasion of Minnesota, the average Muslim on the street wants to overturn U.S. law and live by sharia.  This includes the open support of killing people who mock Mohammad, Islam’s prophet.  For a realistic view, see the Ami Horowitz short video on the streets of the Muslim Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis, also known as the “West Bank” of the University of Minnesota, HERE.

Elected Leadership

Without exception, elected officials in the Twin Cities’ area have not only surrendered to local Islamic leaders, they are using the force of their positions to silence and attack Minnesota citizens who want to keep their freedom.

America’s first Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison, represents the 5th District of Minnesota, which includes Minneapolis.  Ellison has been a vocal supporter of Hamas (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood. Congressman Ellison is actively working to silence any criticism of Islam or jihad here in the United States, and works directly with the first Islamic political party here, the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations.

Watch the Congressional testimony of UTT’s Chris Gaubatz HERE about Congressman Ellison’s attendance at a Muslim Brotherhood event.

U.S. Congressman Keith Ellison speaks at the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) made up of many jihadi/Muslim Brotherhood leaders in America

U.S. Congressman Keith Ellison speaks at the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) made up of many jihadi/Muslim Brotherhood leaders in America

MN Governor Mark Dayton speaking at the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim American Society

MN Governor Mark Dayton speaking at the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim American Society

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton made his position clear when he told citizens of that state if they do not like the growing Muslim Somali population in Minnesota they can leave.

Lieutenant Governor Tina Smith is a hard-left Marxist who was the former Vice President of Planned Parenthood for Minnesota and the Dakotas.

Both Governor Dayton and Lieutenant Governor Smith have forged a strong working relationship with Hamas (CAIR) in Minneapolis.

MN Lt Governor Tina Smith (l) and MN Governor Dayton at HAMAS (CAIR) event

MN Lt Governor Tina Smith (l) and MN Governor Dayton at HAMAS (CAIR) event

Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges has bowed to the Islamic community, and advocates stopping “Islamophobia” instead of dealing with jihadi attacks in the United States and her state.

Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges speaking to Somali elders and others in Minneapolis

Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges speaking to Somali elders and others in Minneapolis

Under the watch of Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek, the jihadi threat has increased exponentially. There are 83 Islamic Centers/masjids/mosques and Islamic Societies in Hennepin County. Sheriff Stanek has refused briefings on the threat from UTT, yet works with jihadis in the community.

Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek (l) and President Barak Obama (r)

Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek (l) and President Barak Obama (r)

In March 2016, Sheriff Stanek and other law enforcement organizations from around Minneapolis hosted the jihadi community in the Hennepin County Public Safety Office.  The message to the Muslims was that the law enforcement community would protect Muslims from “hate crimes and backlash” despite the fact FBI Criminal data shows no such threat exists in the U.S.   Yet, despite the threat from increasing jihadi attacks, including the recent stabbing by a Muslim jihadi in a mall in St. Cloud on September 17, 2016, numerous Muslims are being recruited in Minneapolis for terrorist groups, and no measures have been taken by the Sheriff to deter the threat other than outreach to the Muslim community.

And…citizens in Minnesota voted for these people.

It is worth noting that Minneapolis City Councilman Abdi Warsame from Somalia moved to rename three streets in Minneapolis to Somali names since a large portion of Minneapolis is now Somali.

U.S. Attorney for Minneapolis

Of all the officials in Minneapolis, the U.S. Attorney, Andrew Lugar, is the most egregious example of abuse of power.  Mr. Lugar does not pursue the jihadis in Minneapolis, he openly defends them and has publicly stated he will use the full authority of his office to stop “Islamophobia.”  Meaning, he will squash Minnesotans free speech rights to give cover to jihadis in Minneapolis.

U.S. Attorney for Minneapolis Andrew Lugar (at podium) speaks on behalf of Jihadis in MN

U.S. Attorney for Minneapolis Andrew Lugar (at podium) speaks on behalf of Jihadis in MN

Media

The media in Minneapolis, including the Star Tribune, the local CBS affiliate WCCO, Minnesota Public Radio and many others, are not interested in investigative journalism or the truth.  These media outlets propagate a hard-left/Marxist narrative that provides cover to the jihadis in Minnesota while keeping the public in the dark of the real dangers.

UTT provided these organizations evidence from the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history revealing CAIR was created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee (Hamas) to be a Hamas organization here in America.  Yet, while they called for UTT’s programs to be shut down in Minnesota, they openly defend Hamas (CAIR) and never mention any of the evidence from the FBI or Department of Justice detailing CAIR is a terrorist organization.

CVE Gets Minnesota Coming and Going

The Countering Violent Extremism or CVE is a program created in Britain by the Muslim Brotherhood.   This is a hostile information campaign and a double-agent program, and was eagerly sought after by the U.S. government.  CVE’s purpose is to ensure Muslim Brotherhood leaders are exclusively used by the government as the liaison for all matters pertaining to Islam and terrorism, so the MB controls the narrative in this war.

In Minnesota, the Islamic leadership took this to a new level when President Obama used Minneapolis as a CVE pilot city.   The Muslim community not only uses CVE to control the counterterrorism efforts in Minneapolis/St. Paul, they are now bashing Minnesota’s leaders for the “Islamophobia” of CVE.  It is a self-sustaining circular thrashing of Minnesota’s leadership for doing what the Muslim community asked them to do.  Classic counterintelligence tactics.

Other Noteworthies

Moreover, since Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (6th District, 2007-2015) began courageously defending the state of Minnesota against the jihadi onslaught, the federal government has poured tens of thousands of Somali refugees into Minnesota.  The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Department of Justice filed lawsuits against her high school – Anoka – for “harassment” of lesbian and gay students.  This is exactly the kind of targeted attack that is typical of the Marxist movement in support of jihadis across the United States.

Summary

UTT’s assessment the Twin Cities are lost is based on:

  1. The significant Islamic jihadi network.
  2. The support the jihadis have from all levels of the government in Minneapolis, as well as the Governor and Lieutenant Governor.
  3. A complicit media.
  4. Minnesota citizens are nearly completely unaware of the threat or willfully complacent.
  5. Law enforcement leadership is either defending the jihadis or denying there is a counterintelligence issue.
  6. Pastors and rabbis sit silently.

If Minnesota is to retake its capital city and survive this war, it is the Sheriffs and Pastors who must be pressed by the citizens to do their duties.  The situation in Minnesota, as in the United States in general, constitutes an insurgency. In the counter-insurgency, Minnesota must be retaken County by county.   Citizens must ensure their law enforcement officers/deputies are knowledgeable and trained, and their pastors are fit for the pulpit.  If the people are to be energized, courageous Pastors must speak truth in love to the growing threat to Minnesota.

Obama’s Conflict Tanked the Clinton E-mail Investigation — As Predicted

pic_giant_096416_obama-hillary

Hillary couldn’t be proven guilty without proving the president guilty as well.

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Sept. 26, 2016:

‘How is this not classified?”

So exclaimed Hillary Clinton’s close aide and confidante, Huma Abedin. The FBI had just shown her an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton’s private account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system — something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.

Abedin was sufficiently stunned that, for just a moment, the bottomless capacity of Clinton insiders to keep cool in a scandal was overcome. “How is this not classified?”

She recovered quickly enough, though. The FBI records that the next thing Abedin did, after “express[ing] her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym,” was to “ask if she could have a copy of the email.”

Abedin knew an insurance policy when she saw one. If Obama himself  had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Thanks to Friday’s FBI document dump — 189 more pages of reports from the Bureau’s year-long foray (“investigation” would not be the right word) into the Clinton e-mail scandal — we now know for certain what I predicted some eight months ago here at NRO: Any possibility of prosecuting Hillary Clinton was tanked by President Obama’s conflict of interest.

As I explained in February, when it emerged that the White House was refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with then-secretary Clinton over the latter’s private e-mail account, we knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified information.

To be sure, he did so on a smaller scale. Clinton’s recklessness was systematic: She intentionally set up a non-secure, non-government communications framework, making it inevitable that classified information would be mishandled, and that federal record-keeping laws would be flouted. Obama’s recklessness, at least as far as we know, was confined to communications with Clinton — although the revelation that the man presiding over the “most transparent administration in history” set up a pseudonym to conceal his communications obviously suggests that his recklessness may have been more widespread.

Still, the difference in scale is not a difference in kind. In terms of the federal laws that criminalize mishandling of classified information, Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton. It would not have been possible for the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton for her offense without its becoming painfully apparent that 1) Obama, too, had done everything necessary to commit a violation of federal law, and 2) the communications between Obama and Clinton were highly relevant evidence.

Indeed, imagine what would have happened had Clinton been indicted. The White House would have attempted to maintain the secrecy of the Obama-Clinton e-mails (under Obama’s invocation of a bogus “presidential communications” privilege), but Clinton’s defense lawyers would have demanded the disclosure of the e-mails in order to show that Obama had engaged in the same misconduct, yet only she, not he, was being prosecuted. And as most experienced criminal-law lawyers understand (especially if they’ve read a little Supreme Court case known as United States v. Nixon), it is an argument that Clinton’s lawyers would have won.

In fact, in any other case — i.e., in a case that involved any other unindicted co-conspirator — it would be the Justice Department itself introducing the Obama-Clinton e-mails into evidence.

As noted above, the FBI told Huma Abedin that the name she did not recognize in the e-mail with Clinton was an Obama alias. For the agents to do this ran afoul of investigative protocols. The point of an FBI interview is for the interviewee to provide information to the investigators, not the other way around. If agents give information to potential witnesses, the government gets accused of trumping up the case.

But of course, that’s only a problem if there is actually going to be a case.

In this instance, it was never going to happen. The president’s involvement guaranteed that . . . so why worry about letting Abedin in on the president’s involvement?

Abedin was startled by this revelation. No wonder: People in her lofty position know that direct presidential communications with high-ranking officials who have national-security and foreign-policy responsibilities are presumptively classified.

To convey this, and thus convey the legal significance of Obama’s involvement, I can’t much improve on what I told you back in February. When the Obama Justice Department prosecuted retired general David Petraeus, the former CIA director, for mishandling classified information, government attorneys emphasized that this top-secret intelligence included notes of Petraeus’s “discussions with the president of the United States of America.”

Petraeus pled guilty because he knew the case against him was a slam-dunk. He grasped that trying to defend himself by sputtering, Clinton-style, that “the notes were not marked classified” would not pass the laugh test. As I elaborated in the February column, when you’re a national-security official engaging in and making a written record of policy and strategy conversations with the president, the lack of classified markings on the documents you’ve created

[does] not alter the obvious fact that the information they contain [is] classified — a fact well known to any high government official who routinely handles national-defense secrets, let alone one who directly advises the president.

Moreover, as is the case with Clinton’s e-mails, much of the information in Petraeus’s journals was “born classified” under the terms of President Obama’s own executive order — EO 13526. As I’ve previously noted, in section 1.1(d) of that order, Obama issued this directive: “The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.” In addition, the order goes on (in section 1.4) to describe other categories of information that officials should deem classified based on the damage to national security that disclosure could cause. Included among these categories: foreign relations, foreign activities of the United States, military plans, and intelligence activities.

Abedin knew, as the FBI agents who were interviewing her surely knew, that at least some of Obama’s pseudonymous exchanges with Clinton had to have crossed into these categories. They were born classified. As I said in February, this fact would profoundly embarrass Obama if the e-mails were publicly disclosed.

Hundreds of times, despite Clinton’s indignant insistence that she never sent or received classified information, the State Department has had to concede that her e-mails must be redacted or withheld from public disclosure because they contain information that is patently classified. But this is not a concession the administration is willing to make regarding Obama’s e-mails.

That is why, as I argued in February, Obama is trying to get away with the vaporous claim that presidential communications must be kept confidential. He does not want to say “executive privilege” because that sounds too much like Nixon. More important, the only other alternative is to designate the e-mails as classified. That would be tantamount to an admission that Obama engaged in the same violation of law as Clinton.

Again, this is why the prosecution of Mrs. Clinton never had a chance of happening. It also explains why, in his public statements about the matter, Obama insisted that Clinton’s e-mailing of classified information did not harm national security. It is why Obama, in stark contrast to his aforementioned executive order, made public statements pooh-poohing the fact that federal law forbids the mishandling of any intelligence secret. (“There’s classified, and then there’s classified,” he said, so cavalierly.) He had to take this position because he had himself effectively endorsed the practice of high-level communications through non-secure channels.

This is also why the Justice Department and the FBI effectively rewrote the relevant criminal statute in order to avoid applying it to Clinton. In his public statements about Clinton, Obama has stressed that she is an exemplary public servant who would never intentionally harm the United States. In rationalizing their decision not to indict Clinton, Justice Department officials (in leaks to the Washington Post) and the FBI director (in his press conference and congressional testimony) similarly stressed the lack of proof that she intended to harm the United States.

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, however, the operative criminal statute does not call for proof of intent to harm the United States. It merely requires proof of gross negligence. This is entirely lawful and appropriate, since we’re talking about a law that can apply only to government officials who have a special duty to preserve secrecy and who have been schooled in the proper handling of classified information. Yet the Justice Department frivolously suggested that applying the law exactly the way it is written — something the Justice Department routinely tells judges they must do — would, in Clinton’s case, potentially raise constitutional problems.

Alas, the Justice Department and the FBI have to take that indefensible position here. Otherwise, Clinton would not be the only one in legal jeopardy.

I will end with what I said eight months ago:

To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama. From these facts and circumstances, we must deduce that it is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information.

That is why the Clinton e-mail scandal never had a chance of leading to criminal charges.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka: Political Correctness Starts at DOJ HQ, Not FBI

Fox News/Screencap

Fox News/Screencap

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sept. 21, 2016:

During a Tuesday night appearance on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” Breitbart News National Security Editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, author of the best-selling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, joined human-rights attorney and former State Department official David Tafuri to discuss the Chelsea bombing.

Gorka said that from his travel records, we now know that bomber Ahmad Khan Rahami visited Quetta, “the hotbed of Salafi jihadism,” and home base of the Afghan Taliban’s leadership, the Quetta Shura.

“The fact that we have reports that he made anti-American statements here, and homophobic statements – I think an interview or two would have been very, very wise,” he suggested.

“There’s an amazing similarity between Rahami and the Orlando bomber, Mateen,” observed David Tafuri. “Both were disaffected Muslims, both were home-grown terrorists. Both came on the radar screen for the FBI. The FBI investigated both – but, apparently, the FBI concluded after investigating both that they did not think either of them were a threat to the U.S. That’s where the FBI made a mistake.”

“The FBI can’t get into the minds of these home-grown terrorists, but we would hope that the FBI will change its procedures, and look at threats like this more closely,” Tafuri added.

Gorka suggested there were several possible explanations for why “balls are being dropped in terms of national security.”

“One is simply a manpower issue. The director of the FBI himself has said there are 900 cases they’re investigating that are linked to ISIS alone, in every state of the union. That’s a huge labor-intensive exercise,” he noted.

“Secondly, we have seen that there are certain sensitivities, a certain political matrix being forced upon our operators, our investigators – which isn’t really often from the FBI,” Gorka continued. “If you dig deeper in these cases where something was spotted, and people were pushed back from the investigation – you saw this with Nidal Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter – the nexus of the political correctness that is pushed down is usually from the Department of Justice itself, and from the Civil Rights Division.”

“It could be a case of someone getting into the FBI’s protocols and saying, ‘no, we’re not going to focus on this right now,’” Gorka speculated.

Tafuri expected there would be some political fallout from these security lapses, including another mentioned by guest host Brett Baier, the Department of Homeland Securityerroneously granting citizenship to hundreds of illegal aliens who were facing deportation.

“None of these home-grown terrorists are actually refugees, as far as we know, so they did not come here as part of the refugee resettlement process,” said Tafuri. “And, in fact, no refugee so far has committed terrorism in the United States. But specifically look at the Syrian refugees, who are a hot-button political topic right now. No Syrian refugee who has been resettled in the United States has committed terrorism.”

“That doesn’t mean that the U.S. government hasn’t made mistakes with respect to immigration,” he added, calling the DHS story mentioned by Baier a “very important one.”

“We’ve allowed over a thousand people to go from a list where they were supposed to be deported, to somehow a different list, and they re-applied under a different name, and were mistakenly admitted. That is a significant error that needs to be corrected,” Tafuri said. “Luckily, the U.S. government has identified it, and is hopefully correcting it very quickly.”

Gorka agreed with Baier that the DHS debacle “backs up some of the things Donald Trump has been saying on the trail.”

“Again, just go to the chief law enforcement officer who’s talked about this,” said Gorka. “Director Comey said, when you have people coming from a war zone like Syria that is not friendly to us – on the contrary, we’re bombing them – there is no way to vet individuals from Syria, because there’s no database to vet them against. The Syrians aren’t going to give us the data.”

“So what’s the alternative?” he asked. “My parents were refugees. They escaped a dictatorship during the Cold War. There was no way to get information about who they were. So what happened? They spent weeks in a refugee camp, undergoing counter-intelligence interrogations to prove their bona fides. Again, incredibly labor-intensive protocols. Perhaps we don’t have the capabilities.”

Tafuri agreed that “we have to have significant vetting process for refugees, and I’m glad Sebastian pointed out, he’s a refugee.” (In fact, Dr. Gorka is not a refugee, and did not claim to be one; he said his parents were refugees.)

“Refugees have contributed a lot to this country. Donald Trump talked about how we defeated fascism in World War II. Part of the way we defeated it is, we had refugees who contributed to the nuclear program that helped us get out of World War II. Refugees do contribute so much, and so far, refugees have not been a source of terrorism. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to vet them significantly. But the refugee resettlement program has a significant vetting process. It takes 18 to 24 months to come here as a refugee. There are multiple interviews. There are background checks. And so far, it has worked,” Tafuri argued.

Here is the interview: