Why Weren’t Clinton’s Lawyers Prosecuted for Failing to Report Mishandling of Classified Information?

download-17National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy October 25, 2016:

I have a column just up on the website, focusing on an issue that’s been ignored: the classified-information law implications of Hillary Clinton’s transmission of classified information to her lawyers.

There has been a good deal of commentary about the fact that Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, former State Department officials under Secretary Clinton, should not have been permitted to represent Clinton as lawyers in the e-mails investigation: They were subjects of the same investigation; as former government officials, they were disqualified from advocating on Clinton’s behalf; they were barred from representing Clinton by ethical rules applicable to lawyers; and the arrangement was illegal under federal criminal law.

But let’s put all that aside for the moment. There is no doubt that Clinton willfully provided Mills and Samuelson with her e-mails, at least 110 of which (the FBI tells us) were classified at the time they were sent or received. Those include e-mails classified as top-secret and designated as “special access program.” Even if Mills and Samuelson had security clearances, the transmission of such highly classified information to them would have been illegal unless they were read into these limited-access programs and had a government-certified need to know the information.

The same is true of Clinton’s principal criminal defense lawyer, David Kendall. He reportedly has a security clearance, but that is not sufficient to make one an authorized recipient of this kind of intelligence.

On this subject, my column raises a little-noticed provision of federal law that I want to flesh out a bit more.

It is not only a criminal offense for government officials to mishandle classified information willfully or with gross negligence. It is also a felony for a persons trusted with security clearances to fail to report to the government that they have learned classified information has been removed from its authorized, secure location and transmitted to an unauthorized person or stored in an unauthorized setting.

When Clinton, Mills, Samuelson, and Kendall reviewed Clinton’s emails – beginning in mid-2014, at the State Department’s request – did they immediately report to the government that classified information had been removed from its proper government repository and stored on non-secure, non-government servers, laptops and thumb-drives?

I’m betting they didn’t. Indulge me for a moment as we consider how a failure to do so would be prosecuted.

There is no doubt that Mills and Samuelson had Clinton’s classified e-mails on their laptops. As FBI director James Comey conceded in his congressional testimony, these lawyers had copies of what was on Mrs. Clinton’s home-brew server so that, at Clinton’s direction, they could sort the supposedly private e-mails from those that were State Department-related.

Again, let’s assume they failed to report to the government that they’d learned during this review that highly classified information had been improperly removed and was being improperly stored. That’s a criminal offense, so how would the Justice Department and the FBI ordinarily go about proving it? Well, it would be straightforward as long as the government had obtained the laptop computers on which the classified information was improperly stored.

The Justice Department could easily have obtained these computers by either having the FBI seize them pursuant to search warrant, or issuing subpoenas that compelled the lawyers to surrender their laptops to the grand jury.

But what did the Obama Justice Department do? It refused to open a grand jury investigation so subpoenas could be issued; and it treated Mills and Samuelson as friendly witnesses – even lawyers – in the case, not as suspects from whom investigators typically seize evidence by warrant.

The Justice Department gratuitously gave the two lawyers immunity from prosecution in order to cajole them into turning over their laptops, promising that Mills andSamuelson would not be indicted based on any evidence found on those laptop computers. And Justice promised these computers – the incriminating evidence – would be destroyed after the FBI conducted a highly limited examination.

In a normal investigation, the government does not grant immunity when it has a solid, prosecutable criminal case against a suspect. It indicts the suspect and then, from a position of strength, negotiates a guilty plea agreement in which the suspect promises to cooperate in the investigation of other suspects in return for sentencing leniency.

But for some reason – can’t imagine what it might be – that didn’t happen in the Hillary Clinton e-mails investigation.

Hillary’s 33,000 emails might not be ‘missing’ after all

clintonswiftboatNew York Post, by Paul Sperry, October 25, 2016:

For months now, we’ve been told that Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 missing emails were permanently erased and destroyed beyond recovery. But newly released FBI notes strongly suggest they still exist in several locations — and they could be recovered, if only someone would impanel a grand jury and seize them.

In a May interview with FBI agents, an executive with the Denver contractor that maintained Clinton’s private server revealed that an underling didn’t bleach-clean all her subpoenaed emails, just ones he stored in a data file he used to transfer the emails from the server to Clinton’s aides, who in turn sorted them for delivery to Congress.

The Platte River Networks executive, whose name was redacted from the interview report, said PRN tech Paul Combetta “created a ‘vehicle’ to transfer email files from the live mailboxes of [Clinton Executive Services Corp.] email accounts [and] then later used BleachBit software to shred the ‘vehicle,’ but the email content still existed in the live email accounts.”

Unless one of Clinton’s aides had the capability to log in to the PRN server as an administrator and remove a mailbox, her archived mailboxes more than likely still reside somewhere in that system. And they may also materialize on an internal “shared drive” that PRN created to control access to the Clinton email accounts among PRN employees. PRN has been under FBI order to preserve all emails and other evidence since the start of its investigation last year.

Clinton’s missing “personal” emails may also be captured on a Google server. According to FBI notes, Combetta “transferred all of the Clinton email content to a personal Google email address he created.” Only the FBI never subpoenaed Google to find out.

The FBI documents also reveal that Hillary’s server was mirrored on a cloud server in Pennsylvania maintained by Datto Inc., a tech firm that performs cloud-to-cloud data protection.

When PRN contracted with Datto, it requested that Hillary’s server be backed up locally and privately. But the techs forgot to order the private node, and they sent the server backup data “remotely to Datto’s secure cloud and not to a local private node.” The FBI never subpoenaed Datto’s server, either.

Then there’s the laptop Combetta loaded with the Clinton email archive and allegedly shipped back to a Clinton aide in Washington, who claims it got “lost” in the mail. Not so fast: The latest FBI document dump includes a series of interviews with an unidentified former “special assistant” to Clinton at the State Department who said the elusive Apple MacBook laptop was actually “shipped to the Clinton Foundation in New York City.”

But in a June follow-up interview, FBI agents inexplicably left it up to this critical witness to “inquire about the shipment” with the foundation’s mailroom manager, who works in Rockefeller Center. The FBI still does not have the laptop in its possession.

It turns out that investigators also know the whereabouts of the original Apple server Clinton used in her first two months in office. Recovering that equipment is critical because it contains a mass of unseen emails from Jan. 21, 2009, to March 18, 2009 — a critical period in Clinton’s tenure at State. Witnesses say the equipment was not discarded, as first believed, but “repurposed” as a “work station” used by staff in Clinton’s Chappaqua residence.

Yet the FBI says it “was unable to obtain the original Apple server for a forensic review.” Instead of seizing it, the agency has taken Clinton’s aides’ and lawyers’ word that the server’s bereft of relevant emails. In fact, the agency confesses on Page 27 of its 47-page investigative case summary that it failed to recover other equipment and data as well: “The FBI’s inability to recover all server equipment and the lack of complete server log data for the relevant time period limited the FBI’s forensic analysis of the server systems. As a result, FBI cyber analysis relied, in large part, on witness statements.”

Congressional investigators say FBI Director James Comey in his year-long “investigation” didn’t even bother to send agents to search Clinton’s homes in Chappaqua or Washington, DC. Nor did he dispatch them to the offices of the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Executive Services Corp. in New York City.

“The Clinton residences and other locations should have been treated like any other criminal investigation — with federal grand jury subpoenas or search warrants issued by judges and served in the middle of the night,” said veteran FBI special agent Michael M. Biasello, who worked criminal cases out of New York and other field offices for 27 years.

“Never — I repeat, never — in my career have I or any FBI agent known to me investigated a criminal case without the use of a federal grand jury, grand jury subpoenas or search warrants,” he said. “It’s disgraceful they weren’t used in this case.”

The most damning evidence against Clinton may never have been actually destroyed. It was simply left untouched by the FBI.

Paul Sperry, a former DC bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily and Hoover Institution media fellow, is author of “Infiltration.” Sperry@SperryFiles.com

In This War Minnesota’s Twin Cities Are Lost


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.


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


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.


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.

Did the State Department Float a Quid Pro Quo to the FBI over Hillary’s E-mail Scandal?


There is overwhelming evidence that Clinton, Kennedy, and their confederates corruptly obstructed judicial FOIA proceedings and congressional investigations. But there is no bribery case.

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, October 19, 2016:

This is a long column, so let me cut to the chase. Hillary Clinton’s circle, including Patrick Kennedy, the State Department’s under secretary of state for management, absolutely subordinated national security to politics and broke federal law. But in the “quid pro quo” controversy with the FBI, they are not guilty of bribery. Because the term “quid pro quo” was used — by an FBI agent, in an understandable but overwrought description of a half-baked arrangement proposed by another FBI agent, not Kennedy — commentators are focused on the wrong crime.

The right crime is conspiracy to obstruct justice and congressional investigations. The Clinton camp clearly and corruptly pressured government officials to downgrade the intelligence classification of documents in order to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s false claim that she never trafficked in classified materials on her private e-mail system. Further, they fraudulently exploited exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in order to bury documents that might harm Clinton — including documents on the Benghazi terrorist attack — such that the public would never see them. Their motive was political — i.e., to minimize the damage of Clinton’s felonious mishandling of classified information — but the intentional effect of their corrupt actions was to obstruct both FOIA cases and Congress’s oversight of the State Department.

Kennedy improperly pressured the FBI to declassify and help him conceal a classified Benghazi e-mail. Nevertheless, after studying the pertinent FBI reports from the batch released on Monday, I conclude that he did not offer a bribe to entice the FBI’s cooperation — the alleged quid pro quo in which, for downgrading the document’s classification, the State Department would reward the FBI with workspace in countries where the bureau’s presence was prohibited or extremely limited.

Instead, I surmise that a very foolish FBI agent — who was frustrated by Kennedy’s unresponsiveness about foreign postings for the FBI and who was ignorant of the magnitude of what Kennedy was asking him to do — loosely floated a potential quid pro quo to Kennedy . . . not the other way around. Moreover, this agent immediately alerted Kennedy that he could not help him once he finally realized the document in question (a) related to the Benghazi terrorist attack in which four Americans including the U.S. ambassador had been killed, and (b) had been classified as “SECRET/NOFORN” (i.e., secret information not releasable to foreign nationals) by the bureau’s counterterrorism division.

Read more

How Hillary’s lawyers ran roughshod over the FBI

Hillary Clinton and FBI Director James Comey Photo: Getty Images; AP

Hillary Clinton and FBI Director James Comey Photo: Getty Images; AP

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, October 19, 2016:

Last August, FBI officials paid a visit to Hillary Clinton’s lawyers’ office in Washington and begged to see six laptop computers containing the former secretary of state’s classified e-mails. They were told to take a hike, and they did.

Clinton’s lawyers “declined to provide consent” for the bureau to even search the laptops, let alone seize them, claiming they may contain “privileged communications.”

Instead of seeking to subpoena the evidence, the FBI meekly “wished to arrange for secure storage of them in a manner agreeable to both the FBI and the attorneys” — even though the attorneys lacked authorization to handle the material, which included Top Secret information.

While arrogantly stiff-arming the FBI, Clinton’s lawyers “admitted that the e-mails contained on these laptops had been viewed by attorneys who did not have a security clearance at the time,” a newly released FBI report of the incident reveals.

The embarrassing scene, which played out at the law offices of Williams & Connolly, is just one of many examples of how lawyers loyal to Clinton ran roughshod over the FBI investigation.

In the end, investigators were able to see only e-mails from certain dates on laptops owned by top Clinton aides Heather Samuelson and Cheryl Mills, who conducted the e-mail seek-and-destroy mission for Clinton. After the restricted viewing, they had to agree to destroy the evidence as part of outrageous side deals FBI Director James Comey agreed to honor, even after these key witnesses were immunized against prosecution.

Mills and Samuelson are represented by former Justice Department attorney Beth Wilkinson, a longtime Democratic booster. Wilkinson also is defending two other former State Department officials central to the FBI investigation: former deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines, who served as Clinton’s spokesman.

Veteran FBI agents say letting one attorney represent four subjects is unheard of in a criminal investigation. The highly unusual arrangement not only allows witnesses the opportunity to share information and corroborate their stories, but it makes it virtually impossible for the FBI to put pressure on one of them to cooperate against the others.

If one of the clients ended up in criminal jeopardy, Wilkinson would never let that client say something adverse about any of her other clients. In effect, Comey let all these important witnesses — Mills, Samuelson, Reines and Sullivan — collude and coordinate their testimony before his agents ever got a crack at them.

Sure enough, partially declassified summaries of their interviews with FBI agents show that all four hewed to the same unbelievable line that they did not know their boss had a private e-mail address hosted on a private server until they heard about it in the news.

A cabal of lawyers also arranged a joint defense for Clinton inside State after she left and as Congress sought her e-mails in the Benghazi investigation.

An FBI staffer believed the State Department was shielding Clinton.

“[Redacted] believes STATE has an agenda which involves minimizing the classified nature of the CLINTON emails in order to protect STATE interests and those of CLINTON,” FBI notes read.

According to interview summaries from the FBI, staffers came under “immense pressure to review quickly and not label anything as classified.”

The team normally responsible for determining which records should be kept secret said lawyers “conducted their own review” of Clinton’s e-mails — and did not consult with the CIA and FBI but with lawyers at the White House and Justice Department.

The team “felt intimidated when they used or suggested the use of the [classified] exemption on any of the 296 [Benghazi] e-mails,” according to “302” interview notes.

State lawyers gave a thumb drive containing the archive of Clinton’s e-mails to her lawyers at Williams & Connolly, but would not provide copies to the State Department’s own inspector general or to diplomatic-security officials, even though they requested them.

Career bureaucrats “were suspicious” of the lawyers John Kerry tapped to deal with congressional committees seeking Clinton e-mails, because some of them previously worked for entities that “appeared to create a conflict of interest,” the FBI said.

The names of those entities were redacted, and are among the more than 4,500 redactions in the 350 pages of documents released in the FBI investigation.

Comey has testified that he could find no evidence of ill intent by Clinton and her minions in his year-long probe of her e-mails. But his own FBI staffers complained that State officials pressured them to downgrade the classification of Clinton e-mails, even offering a “quid pro quo.” If that’s not ill-intent, what is?

Paul Sperry is a former DC bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily.

Islamists’ Double Standards on FBI’s Use of Informants

trappedIPT NewsOctober 18, 2016:

American Islamists routinely criticize law enforcement sting operations involving Muslim terrorism suspects as “entrapment” and condemn the use of “agent provocateurs.” But the role of an FBI informant last week in thwarting a planned bombing attack by a militia group targeting the Somali Muslim immigrant community in Kansas failed to evoke a similar reaction.

This time, Islamists applauded FBI agents for the successful undercover investigation against three Kansas men who wanted to blow up a mosque and an apartment complex in Garden City that housed a large number of Somali immigrants. The men were alleged to be part of a militia group that called itself “the Crusaders” and championed “sovereign citizen, anti-government, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant extremist beliefs.”

The investigation started with a tip from a confidential informant who heard “Crusaders” members talking about attacking Muslims, an FBI affidavit said. The informant later recorded similar conversations, including one in June in which defendant Patrick Eugene Stein allegedly talked about targeting Garden City apartment buildings.

“I mean I wouldn’t be against if I could get a hold of some RPG’s (rocket propelled grenades), I’ll run some RPG’s right through…I’ll blow every goddamn building up right there…boom…I’m outta there,” Stein said, according to the affidavit.

The investigation also included an undercover FBI agent, who offered to sell the suspects automatic weapons.

By all accounts, it appears law enforcement did save the people of Garden City from a horrific act of terrorism.

But when informants and undercover agents use similar tactics against radicalized Muslims hoping to carry out attacks in the United States, the response is dramatically different.

“Watch how a paid FBI Agent Provocateur trains a mentally disturbed youth to commit disgusting acts of terrorism and provides him with weapons to do so,” Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Tampa Director Hassan Shibly wrote in a Facebook post. This comment followed the conviction of Sami Osmakac, who was convicted in 2015 of plotting to attack multiple targets in Tampa using a car bomb, assault rifle and other explosives.

Similarly, CAIR’s Michigan Director Dawud Walid dismissed any case involving informants and sting operations, saying the FBI “has recruited more so called extremist Muslims than al-Qaida themselves.” Other CAIR officials say the FBI gins up cases against innocent Muslims to fool the public. CAIR’s Philadelphia chapter even offered classes on the issue, promoting them with a graphic depicting the FBI as a spider trying to catch innocent Muslims in its web.

“What the FBI came and did was enable them to become actual terrorists, and then came and saved the day,” CAIR-San Francisco’s Zahra Billoo said in 2010. The FBI “is creating these huge terror plots where they don’t exist.”

In those cases, investigations also started with tips, or from seeing social media postings in which the suspects expressed a desire to wage jihad.

In a Facebook post last year, CAIR-LA chief Hussam Ayloush wrote, “…FBI-paid informants hired to entrap feeble-minded young Muslim men. Both sources of such hatred and violence are bad news.” In an earlier Twitter post he posited, “Is the FBI now going to send informants to entrap, radicalize, then arrest young Jewish Americans joining Israel’s terrorist army?”

But in the Kansas case, no concerns have been expressed about the use of an informant.

Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab American Association of New York, wrote that she was “literally physically sick to my stomach” upon learning of the plot. She also reposted the tweet: “Thank you to law enforcement for thwarting #Kansas terrorist plot. Glad to hear that the community is safe. #KansasPlot”

1872Seeking enhanced protection for Islamic institutions following the thwarted plot, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad “thanked state and federal authorities for their efforts in this case.”

During a radio interview, CAIR Kansas chapter leader Moussa Elbaoumy expressed gratitude toward law enforcement for being “able to thwart this plan before it even came to the point where it put anybody’s life in danger or property in danger.”

Dalia Mogahed, a pollster and former White House adviser, also expressed thanks to law enforcement for foiling the Kansas plot. In a Twitter post she drew a distinction between the use of informants in investigations where there was “credible evidence” against cases where informants were “sent to lure mentally ill into crime they wouldn’t otherwise commit.”

Mogahed at least was consistent in showing the reflexive opposition Islamists express toward counterterrorism investigations that involve sting operations and informants.

Ironically, in the same CAIR news release detailing the Kansas bomb plot and expressing relief is a link to a Detroit Free Press article, “Use of Undercover Informants in Muslim Communities Sparks Concern.” The release mentions an April lawsuit filed against the FBI and other federal agencies by CAIR’s Michigan chapter “saying the Muslim-Americans from Michigan and other states were being pressured to become informants.”

Law enforcement saved lives in Kansas by infiltrating a group of terrorists plotting to attack innocent Somali Muslims, and stopping them before they could act. That’s easy to recognize. But it also should be easy to see that, while the pronouns and ideologies may differ, the tactics used here are the same as those used in cases against Muslims seeking jihad.

State Department tried to bribe FBI to unclassify Clinton emails

Photo: Getty Images

Photo: Getty Images

New York Post, by Daniel Harper, October 17, 2016:

A top State Department official offered a “quid pro quo” to an FBI investigator to declassify an e-mail from Hillary Clinton’s private server in exchange for allowing the bureau to operate in countries where it was banned, stunning new documents revealed Monday.

The FBI documents show that Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy pitched the deal to the unnamed agent, allegedly as part of an effort to back up Clinton’s claim that she did not send or receive classified documents on the server in her Westchester home.

“[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by [Kennedy], Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the e-mail’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo,’ ” according to the documents, which summarized interviews the feds conducted in the summer of 2015 while investigating Clinton’s e-mail practices.

“[Redacted] advised that in exchange for marking the e-mail unclassified, STATE would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden,” the document added.

One State Department staffer described feeling “immense pressure” to complete the review quickly and to not label anything as classified.

Officials were told there was nothing classified in the 296 emails about Benghazi that were among those under review, the document stated.

State’s inspector general also told the FBI that Kennedy’s “tone and tenor were definitely not positive when dealing” with his office.

“[REDACTED] believes STATE has an agenda which involves minimizing the classified nature of the CLINTON e-mails in order to protect STATE interests and those of CLINTON,” the documents stated.

The documents also showed that Kennedy was not happy cooperating with the feds — and wanted some emails kept secret.

In one instance, Kennedy wanted information changed to an obscure classification code called B9, to “allow him to archive the document in the basement of DoS [Department of State] never to be seen again.”

The B9 exemption is normally used to protect geological and geophysical data and maps to keep details about oil and gas wells secret.

Some of the interview notes appear contradictory.

In one, an FBI official said he heard that State had offered the “quid pro quo.”

But a different FBI official in a separate document said it was the FBI that made the offer to review the e-mail if State helped the bureau get agents in Iraq.

In what could be a scene out of a novel, a group of ranking State officials — dubbed “the shadow government” — would meet on Wednesdays to discuss the Clinton e-mail scandal, the documents showed.

During another meeting with the FBI, CIA and other agencies, Kennedy was asked whether any of the emails in question were classified.

“Making eye contact with [redacted] KENNEDY remarked, ‘Well, we’ll see,’” Kennedy responded.

Donald Trump’s campaign didn’t waste any time attacking the latest disclosures.

“CORRUPTION CONFIRMED: FBI confirms State Dept. offered ‘quid pro quo’ to cover up classified emails,” Trump said on Twitter, retweeting a post by Official Team Trump.

“The news that top Clinton aide Patrick Kennedy tried to engage in a blatant quid pro quo for changing the classification level of several of Clinton’s e-mails shows a cavalier attitude towards protecting our nation’s secrets. Kennedy must resign from the State Department immediately,” said Trump spokesman Jason Miller.

House Oversight Committee Chair Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)and House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry demanding that Kennedy be fired and an investigation started.

“We find Under Secretary Kennedy’s actions extremely disturbing. Those who receive classified intelligence should not barter in it – that is reckless behavior with our nation’s secrets,” they said in a statement. “Someone who would try to get classification markings doctored should not continue serving in the State Department or retain access to classified information. Therefore, President Obama and Secretary Kerry should immediately remove Under Secretary Kennedy pending a full investigation.”

Both State and the FBI said Monday that the document under discussion remained classified and that the request for agents to operate in other countries was not part of any quid pro quo deal.

The bureau said in a statement that investigators were reviewing the emails to determine whether they were properly classified.

“Any assertion that this was somehow a tit for tat or quid pro quo or exchange in that manner, frankly, is insulting,” State spokesman Mark Toner told reporters.

“[The agent] was on the phone with Pat Kennedy and took advantage of that fact to raise the issue of [more] slots in Baghdad,” he said.

“I can’t speak to what his or her intentions were saying these kinds of things. Clearly he was expressing a personal opinion about what happened,” he added.

Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook argued that disputes over classification between State and other departments was “not unusual.”

He called for an investigation into the FBI’s investigation.

The documents were released under the Freedom of Information Act following a lawsuit by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

We are disconcerted by what we have found thus far from publicly accessible sources about the possible hacking of Hillary Clinton’s illicit server,” Tom Fitton, the group’s president, said in a statement.

“It is unfortunate that Judicial Watch – not Congress or federal law enforcement – undertook this basic investigative step.”



Also see:

Clinton Campaign Tried to Limit Damage From Classified Info on Email Server

 (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Washington Free Beacon, by Bill Gertz, October 18, 2016:

Documents from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign show researchers justified leaks of top secret data on drone strikes and North Korea’s nuclear program found on her private email server by highlighting similar disclosures.

The detailed reports on the classified information found on Clinton’s private email system were produced by campaign researchers and sent to senior officials, including campaign chairman John Podesta, by opposition research director Tony Carrk on January 29.

The documents were among thousands of hacked emails obtained from Podesta’s Gmail account and posted last week on Wikileaks. The U.S. intelligence community has accused Russia of orchestrating the hack in order to influence the U.S. presidential election.

The documents were part of what Carrk, the campaign’s research director, called “pushback on classification” after news reports days earlier had revealed that information classified above top secret was found on the unsecure private email server Clinton used while she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

The campaign used six different lines of political counterattack in an attempt to exonerate Clinton of charges she had leaked highly classified information.

The methods ranged from asserting “congressional hypocrisy” on leaks of classified information to listing how other senior government officials discussed similar information about drone strikes and satellite secrets about North Korea’s nuclear program.

The research appears to have been compiled in response to a January 14 letter to Congress from I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the nation’s intelligence agencies, who stated that some of the secrets found in Clinton’s emails were classified at the “Top Secret/SAP [special access program]” level. The classification marking SAP is reserved for the nation’s most closely guarded secrets.

The FBI launched its criminal investigation into the secrets found on Clinton’s email server on July 10, 2015 based on McCullough’s request, according to FBI documents made public on Monday.

“The FBI’s investigation focused on determining whether classified information was transmitted or stored on unclassified systems in violation of federal criminal statutes and whether classified information was compromised by unauthorized individuals, to include foreign governments or intelligence services, via cyber intrusion or other means,” the FBI report states.

The report said seven email chains and 22 emails contained SAP secrets. These emails included discussions between Clinton and Jake Sullivan, at the time her deputy chief of staff for policy and currently a campaign policy adviser.

When questioned by the FBI, Sullivan told investigators that the SAP information was discussed due to “the operational tempo at the time.” He also asserted that some of the secrets might have appeared in news reports.

Three other email chains contained sensitive compartmented information, or SCI, a classification of data more restricted than top secret.

Among those who trafficked in the classified information were Clinton aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Jake Sullivan, and five people not in the State Department, including Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal.

FBI Director James Comey, in a controversial decision, announced July 5 that while Clinton and her aides were “extremely careless” in mishandling highly secret information, he did not recommend that the Justice Department prosecute her on charges of mishandling classified information.

The FBI had, however, found signs that “foreign hostile actors” had gained access to some of Clinton’s private emails after hacking an associate’s email account.

The hacked documents show a concerted effort by campaign staff to deflect criticism from Clinton.

One report, labeled “Drone Email,” states that the emails under scrutiny by investigators “did not involve information obtained through a classified product but is classified because it pertains to drones.” The report claims that the highly classified information on drones was contained in news articles discussed in the emails.

The report linked to a 2012 report in Politico that quoted President Obama in a Google Plus video chat acknowledging drone attacks on al Qaeda in Pakistan.

The report quoted published reports from “U.S. officials who have reviewed the correspondence” as identifying the classified information in the emails about drones as “discussion of a drone strike.” The report stated that the discussion centered on “a covert program that is widely known as discussed.”

A second email improperly referred to highly classified material that could have reflected information gathered independently of U.S. intelligence.

The report stated that the State Department had published several email chains “that appear to discuss CIA drone strikes in Pakistan,” including an email to Clinton aides from CIA Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash referring to an Associated Press report on a dispute between the State Department and CIA about drone strikes in Pakistan as “a stinker.”

Another campaign report stated that “leading Democrats and administration officials” have frequently mentioned U.S. drone strikes, including Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Sen. Diane Feinstein (Calif.), Sen. Bill Nelson (Fla.), and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen. Republican senators and congressmen also were quoted as mentioning drone strikes.

A 16-page campaign report labeled “North Korea Email” attempted to refute a September 1, 2015Washington Times report that stated the inspector general had identified a Clinton email that revealed the secret movement of North Korean nuclear assets derived from spy satellites.

The report said the information appeared to have been transmitted by a Clinton aide who summarized it from secret intelligence reports labeled “Talent Keyhole,” the code name for intelligence derived from imagery satellites.

“The Washington Times is reporting that ‘multiple intelligence sources’ are happy to discuss allegedly ‘top secret’ information as long as they are provided anonymity to criticize Hillary Clinton,” the report said, noting that the Associated Press and the New York Times had reported on similar secrets.

A 31-page campaign report labeled “Overclassification” stated that classified information found in the emails was the result of an “arbitrary and inconsistent” policy toward classified information.

“The federal government requires employees to treat drone program as highly classified despite wide public knowledge,” the report states, adding that the classified information system is outdated and no longer works with modern diplomacy.

The report quotes McCullough, the intelligence community IG, as disputing claims of information overclassification but noted he had been criticized for saying so.

A separate report argued that Clinton was being unfairly criticized over the email server because of “bad retroactive classification,” or information that was declared secret after it was sent in emails.

Another report criticized Sens. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) for “hypocrisy” on leaks of classified information.

Grassley was criticized by campaign researchers for pressuring the State Department to classify Clinton’s emails over concerns that they contained intelligence information.

Clinton Email Server Hit in Cyber Attacks From Russians, Other Hackers

 (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Washington Free Beacon, by Bill Gertz, October 18, 2016:

Hackers from Russia attempted to break in to Hillary Clinton’s private email server although the cyber intrusions did not appear to be successful, according to FBI documents made public Monday.

FBI investigators issued a qualified assessment of whether foreign hackers broke into the email server, stating in the heavily redacted report that it could not confirm evidence of foreign hacking.

The FBI concluded that the unsecure email system was “potentially vulnerable to compromise” and was frequently attacked by unknown foreign hackers, according to part one of a four-part report.

Hacking attempts against Clinton’s private email server increased sharply after the New York Times revealed its existence on March 2, 2015. The cyber attacks were targeted against the server, an associated domain controller, and Clinton’s Apple iCloud account, the FBI stated.

The Times report did not identify Clinton’s email address, but the FBI said hackers likely learned her email address from open sources after aide Sidney Blumenthal’s AOL email was hacked in 2013. Among the hacked emails made public were emails between Blumenthal and Clinton writing under the email alias “hdr22.”

The FBI stated that Blumenthal was hacked by the Romanian hacker Marcel Lehel Lazar, known as “Guccifer,” and suggested he was linked to Moscow.

U.S. intelligence agencies announced on October 7 that the Russian government, operating through cutouts identified as Wikileaks, DCLeaks.com, and Guccifer 2.0, directed the hacks of American political organizations in a bid to influence the U.S. presidential election.

“Lazar disseminated emails and attachments sent between Blumenthal and Clinton to 31 media outlets, including a Russian broadcasting company,” the FBI said.

Additionally, hackers from Russia and Ukraine tried to log in to Clinton’s email accounts shortly after Guccifer’s hack of Blumenthal.

“An examination of log files from March 2013 indicated that IP addresses from Russia and Ukraine attempted to scan the server on March 15, 2013, the day after the Blumenthal compromise, and on March 19 and March 21, 2013,” the report said. “However, none of these attempts were successful and it could not be determined whether this activities was attributable to Lazar.”

Lazar’s claim to Fox News that he used information from Blumenthal’s emails to break into the Clinton server was false, the FBI said after questioning the hacker.

Other cyber attacks on the server included numerous attempted break-ins described by the FBI as “brute force” attacks—repeated log-in attempts, usually by automated hacking software.

Brian Pagliano, who was the system administrator for the email server, told the FBI that the brute force cyber attacks increased over time, although he asserted there were no security breaches to the system.

The server used for the emails also employed a Microsoft remote access protocol that the FBI described as having “known vulnerabilities” to hackers.

In January 2011, Justin Cooper, an aide to former President Bill Clinton who helped set up the private email, notified Clinton aide Huma Abedin that the system was being hacked and that he had shut it down in response. The FBI was unable to identify what it termed the “successful malicious login activity” from the hack.

Forensic analysis by FBI investigators determined that “scanning attempts” by outside cyber intruders took place against the private server and “one appears to have resulted in a successful compromise of an email account on the server,” the report said.

The hack took place on January 5, 2013, when an anonymous user operating Tor software hijacked the email account of a woman described by the FBI only as a “President Clinton staffer.” The hacker then browsed email folders and attachments.

The FBI also stated that potentially malicious hackers tried to exploit software vulnerabilities in the server on multiple occasions, although they were not successful.

The report stated there were major gaps in the investigation of cyber intrusions because the FBI did not have access to all 13 mobile devices Clinton used during her tenure as secretary of state.

“As a result, the FBI could not make a determination as to whether any of the devices were subject to compromise,” the report said, noting the FBI also did not examine two of Clinton’s five iPads for signs of compromise.

Clinton was the target of multiple email “phishing” attempts while using the private server, including a fake email from a State Department official’s email account that contained a potentially malicious link.

Clinton sent a reply to the email asking, “Is this really you? I was worried about opening it?”

Another email quoted Abedin as telling a colleague Clinton was worried “someone [was] hacking into her email” after she received an email from an associate with a link to a website with pornographic material.

“The FBI’s inability to recover all server equipment and the lack of complete server log data for the relevant time period limited the FBI’s forensic analysis of the server system,” the report said.

“As a result, FBI cyber analysis relied, in large part, on witness statements, email correspondence and related forensic content found on other devices to understand the setup, maintenance, administration and security of the server systems.”

More than 15 pages of the 47-page FBI report were cut out according to declassified guidelines that allow information to be withheld on national defense and foreign policy grounds, and to prevent the disclosure of techniques and procedures used for law enforcement prosecutions that would be useful to cyber criminals.

Did the FBI chief lie to Congress about the Hillary email probe?

Photo: AP

Photo: AP

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, October 12, 2016:

Congressional leaders investigating the FBI’s suspiciously inept investigation of ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s e-mails are turning their attention to FBI chief James Comey’s truthfulness. Did he mislead them? Did he perjure himself?

Two days after clearing Clinton of criminal wrongdoing, Comey went to Capitol Hill and explained his reasons for coming to that stunning conclusion. Testifying under oath, he claimed to be an open book: “I think transparency matters tremendously.”

But he not only held back critical details about his investigation, he repeatedly misrepresented his actions and findings.

In his July 7 testimony, Comey assured Congress that he examined all the evidence of Clinton’s lawyers and aides deleting her e-mails, and concluded they weren’t trying to hide anything. “We did not find evidence to indicate that they did the erasure to conceal things of any sort,” he swore. “We didn’t find evidence of evil intent to obstruct justice there.”

“In his statements before Congress, Director Comey repeatedly assured us that the FBI investigated whether charges of obstruction of justice and intentional destruction of records were merited,” the chairmen of three House committees and a Senate committee complained last week in a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. “The facts of this investigation call those assertions into question.”

Congress has now obtained letters detailing unprecedented immunity agreements and side deals with multiple witnesses in the case — including one in which Comey agreed to prevent his investigators from reviewing any e-mails from Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills to Clinton’s server administrator Paul Combetta generated in late 2014 and early 2015. The off-limits correspondence, the chairmen point out, could reveal information “directing the destruction or concealment of federal records.”

Astonishingly, before Comey agreed to the June side deal with Mills’ attorney, he “already knew of the conference calls between Secretary Clinton’s attorneys and Mr. Combetta, his use of BleachBit, and the resulting deletions, further casting doubt on why the FBI would enter into such a limited evidentiary scope of review.”

In other words, Comey never really investigated Clinton and her aides for obstruction of justice, as he claimed. Lacking access to key evidence, he couldn’t have explored the possibility, though the circumstances were beyond suspicious.

“The sequence of events leading up to the destruction of Secretary Clinton’s e-mails — the conference call, the work ticket, the use of BleachBit, and [Combetta’s] subsequent refusal to discuss the conference call with the FBI — raises questions about whether Secretary Clinton, acting through her attorneys [including Mills], instructed [Combetta] to destroy records relevant to the then-ongoing congressional investigations,” noted House Oversight Committee Chair­man Jason Chaffetz.

In his July testimony, Comey said it was unclear if anyone had helped Clinton’s lawyers delete e-mails — yet he had to have known that Combetta, in his final interview under his immunity deal, had admitted destroying evidence under subpoena.

Comey also swore his team asked Clinton if she knew her lawyers had wiped clean the devices containing her e-mail archives, when it seems clear from the summary of her interview that agents did not ask her that question.

“Did you ask that question?” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) asked.

“Yes,” Comey replied.

In 4½ hours of testimony, Comey never once mentioned that he’d agreed to give Mills, Combetta and three other key subjects of his investigation immunity from prosecution. Also belying his pronouncements of “transparency,” he failed to reveal the unusual side deals that severely limited the scope of his probe.

Congressional investigators only learned about the deals weeks later, and still have not obtained all of the documents.

Lynch and Comey have redacted parts of the side-deal letters, including the names of all Justice Department and FBI personnel. They have also restricted access to the letters to certain members of Congress, while prohibiting even those members from removing them from the secure viewing room where they are kept. They’re also barred from taking notes.

“These onerous restrictions are not consistent with the high degree of transparency you and director Comey promised to Congress,” the chairmen complained.

Though Comey has turned over some 250 pages of investigative-case summaries and witness-interview summaries known as FBI 302s, he’s still withholding summaries of interviews with some 30 other witnesses.

It’s more evidence that Comey hasn’t been straight with the public about this probe, and raises serious questions about his integrity.

Congress must treat Comey as a hostile witness and investigate the investigator.

Paul Sperry, formerly DC bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily, is the author of “Infiltration.”

Also see:

FBI agents are ready to revolt over the cozy Clinton probe

Hillary Clinton and FBI Director James Comey Photo: Getty Images

Hillary Clinton and FBI Director James Comey Photo: Getty Images

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, October 6, 2016:

Veteran FBI agents say FBI Director James Comey has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his “cowardly” whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private e-mail server.

Feeling the heat from congressional critics, Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, “So if I blew it, they blew it, too.”

But agents say Comey tied investigators’ hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

“In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews,” said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer-investigations unit.

Instead of going to prosecutors and insisting on using grand jury leverage to compel testimony and seize evidence, Comey allowed immunity for several key witnesses, including potential targets.

The immunity agreements came with outrageous side deals, including preventing agents from searching for any documents on a Dell laptop owned by former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills generated after Jan. 31, 2015, when she communicated with the server administrator who destroyed subpoenaed e-mails.

Comey also agreed to have Mills’ laptop destroyed after the restricted search, denying Congress the chance to look at it and making the FBI an accomplice to the destruction of evidence.

Comey’s immunized witnesses nonetheless suffered chronic lapses in memory, made unsubstantiated claims of attorney-client privilege upon tougher questioning and at least two gave demonstrably false statements. And yet Comey indulged it all.

What’s more, Comey cut a deal to give Clinton a “voluntary” witness interview on a major holiday, and even let her ex-chief of staff sit in on the interview as a lawyer, even though she, too, was under investigation.

Clinton’s interview, the culmination of a yearlong investigation, lasted just 3 ½ hours. Despite some 40 bouts of amnesia, she wasn’t called back for questioning; and three days later, Comey cleared her of criminal wrongdoing.

“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time,” Hughes said. “I hold director Comey responsible.”

Agreed retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello: “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.”

The accommodations afforded Clinton and her aides are “unprecedented,” Biasello added, “which is another way of saying this outcome was by design.” He called Comey’s decision not to seek charges “cowardly.”

“Each month for 27 years, I received oral and computer admonishments concerning the proper protocol for handling top secret and other classified material, and was informed of the harsh penalties, to include prosecution and incarceration” for mishandling such material, he pointed out. “Had myself or my colleagues engaged in behavior of the magnitude of Hillary Clinton, as described by Comey, we would be serving time in Leavenworth.”

Former FBI official I.C. Smith knows a thing or two about Clinton corruption. After working at FBI headquarters as a section chief in the National Security Division, he retired as special agent in charge of the Little Rock, Ark., field office, where he investigated top Clinton fund-raisers for public corruption and even Chinese espionage.

“FBI agents upset with Comey’s decision have every reason to feel that way,” Smith said. “Clearly there was a different standard applied to Clinton.”

“I have no doubt resourceful prosecutors and FBI agents could have come up with some charge that she would have been subject to prosecution,” the 25-year veteran added. “What she did is absolutely abhorrent for anyone who has access to classified information.”

Smith said Congress should subpoena the case’s agents to testify about the direction they received from Comey and their supervisors: “It would be interesting to see what the results would be if those involved with the investigation were questioned under oath.”

Comey made the 25 agents who worked on the case sign nondisclosure agreements. But others say morale has sunk inside the bureau.

“The director is giving the bureau a bad rap with all the gaps in the investigation,” one agent in the Washington field office said. “There’s a perception that the FBI has been politicized and let down the country.”

Comey has turned a once-proud institution known for its independence into one that bows to election pressure, hands out political immunity to candidates and effectively pardons their co-conspirators. He’s turned the FBI into the Federal Bureau of Immunity and lost the trust and respect of not only his agents but the country at large. He ought to step down.

Paul Sperry, formerly Washington bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily, is author of “Infiltration.”

Also see:

FBI Releases Video, New Details in Minnesota Mall Terror Attack by Somali Refugee Dahir Adan


The FBI held an unusual press conference today in the case of last month’s terror attack at a shopping mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota. The attacker, 20-year old Somali refugee Dahir Adan, was shot and killed on the scene by an off-duty police officer after stabbing ten mall workers and shoppers.

The press conference was unusual in that the investigation into the matter is still ongoing, but the FBI and local law enforcement felt the need to release graphic video of the attacks in order to shoot down various conspiracy theories circulating in the Minnesota Somali community and perpetuated by Black Lives Matter groups.

One of the early conspiracy theories floated by Adan’s family was the claim that he was an innocent bystander who was in the mall to pick up his new iPhone at the mall:

Those false rumors led some in the Somali community to use the incident to circulate claims that the shooting of Adan was unjustified:

Others claimed that Adan was mentally ill, which the family denied:

Just last week FBI Director James Comey testified that Adan appeared to be inspired by “extremist ideology”:

The FBI released further details on his possible motivation during their press conference today.

CBS News reports:

The stabbings at a central Minnesota mall last month that wounded 10 likely was premeditated by the attacker, who may have become radicalized recently, federal authorities said Thursday.Dahir Ahmed Adan became interested in Islam in the last several months, withdrew from his friends and encouraged his sisters to be more religious, FBI Special Agent Rick Thornton said at a news conference.

Witnesses told investigators that 20-year-old Adan yelled “Islam, Islam” and “Allahu akbar,” as well as asking several people whether they were Muslim before stabbing them during the Sept. 17 attack, which started outside Crossroads Center mall before moving inside.

“We were told Adan had not previously shown an interest in religion. Adan also encouraged some female relatives to become more religiously observant,” Thornton said, adding that investigators continue to analyze Adan’s digital footprint, including his social media and online activity, and are trying to obtain permission to unlock his smartphone.

FBI Director James Comey said last week it appeared Adan was at least partly inspired by extremist ideology. Thornton also said that Adan went from being a high academic performer to failing out of college “almost overnight” after taking an increased interest in Islam.

Read more

EXCLUSIVE: Muslim Terrorists Infiltrating Law Enforcement


Recent terror cases show security firms, police exposed to insider threat.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, October 6, 2016:

In an alarming trend, more and more Muslim terrorists are infiltrating the ranks of security firms and police departments, where they have acquired official IDs and uniforms to help gain access to secure areas, as well as firearms and tactical training to help carry out attacks.

Some jihadists posing as law enforcement officers have also gained access to classified federal databases to tip off other terrorist suspects under surveillance.

On Sept. 17, Somali-American Dahi Adan wore a security guard uniform as he stabbed or slashed 10 people at a St. Cloud, Minn., mall with a knife before he was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer. Adan made at least one reference to Allah during the stabbings and asked victims if they were Muslim before attacking. An ISIS affiliate claimed Adan was a “soldier of the Islamic State.”

Stockholm-based Securitas AB, a security firm that provides security services to companies in more than 200 cities worldwide, confirmed that Adan worked through June as a guard for its US division.

On the same day, Afghan-American Ahmad Rahami allegedly detonated a pressure-cooker bomb in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York that left 31 injured. A blood-soaked journal found on Rahami after he was shot by police indicated he was carrying out “jihad” against “nonbelievers” in their “backyard.”

Though Rahami was working for his family restaurant at the time, he aspired to be a police officer, according to friends and neighbors. He majored in criminal justice at Middlesex County College in Edison, N.J. Rahami was enrolled there from 2010-2012 but did not graduate.

Another Afghan-American terrorist, Omar Mateen, was employed as a security guard for a major federal security contractor this June, when he opened fire at an Orlando nightclub, killing 49 people. He had been dismissed from training as a prison guard after making threatening remarks, and ended up as a private security guard for G4S Secure Solutions USA Inc., which maintains a $234 million contract with the Department of Homeland Security.

Mateen was subject to a background check and psychological test when he was recruited by G4S in 2007 and rescreened in 2013 with no adverse findings — even though he threatened to kill a sheriff’s deputy at the St. Lucie County Courthouse where he was stationed as a security guard and had been placed on a terrorist watch list by the FBI.

“Omar became very agitated and made a comment that he could have al-Qaida kill my employee and his family,” St. Lucie County Sheriff Ken Mascara said. “If that wasn’t bad enough, he went on to say that the Fort Hood shooter was justified in his actions.”

As CounterJihad first reported, the Jupiter, Fla.-based security contractor G4S also provides security guards and other security services for “90 percent of U.S. nuclear facilities.”

In fact, G4S has the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) contract to run simulated Red Team terrorist attacks on US nuclear plants and US nuclear weapons labs, CounterJihad has learned. G4S is managing the exercises, and its armed guards are participating in the force-on-force attacks, including mock terrorist strikes, which are designed to identify weaknesses and vulnerabilities in nuclear security.

CounterJihad has also learned that Senate investigators have been working with NRC’s Nuclear Security and Incident Response division to determine if there are other potential Mateens working as security guards at America’s nuclear facilities. A preliminary review has found that dozens of other Middle Easterners have landed jobs with nuclear reactor licensees as contract security guards — including a possible relative of Mateen.  Only further scrutiny might identify insider threats among them.

It is far from an idle concern.  In a 2011 intelligence report, Homeland Security warned that “violent extremists have, in fact, obtained insider positions” at nuclear facilities.  Security experts fear opening nuclear security jobs to insufficiently vetted Muslims like Mateen risks inviting jihadists to exploit weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the security of US nuclear plants, as well as spent-fuel rod repositories and even the federal nuclear weapons labs.

“ISIS has nuclear facilities on their targeting radar, not only to secure fissile material for dirty bombs, but also to exploit the inherent vulnerability presented by overfilled spent fuel pools,” said Brian F. Sullivan, retired FAA special agent, retired Army lieutenant colonel in the military police corps and senior fellow at the American Leadership and Policy Foundation.

“Europe is well aware of this threat potential and the results could be devastating here in the United States, where our government has totally dropped the ball,” Sullivan added in a recent interview with CounterJihad. He said radioactive fallout from dirty nukes could render major US cities uninhabitable for years, if not decades.

Of increasing concern, meanwhile, are the operatives the terrorist front group Council on American-Islamic Relations is planting inside law enforcement agencies. CAIR is no friend of police. The group has published and distributed posters advising Muslims not to cooperate with FBI agents investigating terrorist suspects and to slam the door in their faces.

In Florida, for example, the Broward Sheriff’s Office employs a senior CAIR official, even though CAIR has been identified by the US Justice Department as a co-conspirator in funding terrorism and is so closely tied to the Hamas terrorist group that the FBI has banned CAIR from all its outreach activities nationwide.

Broward deputy sheriff Nezar Hamze doubles as regional director for CAIR in Florida, where he pushes CAIR’s Islamist agenda and defends Islam against criticism it promotes terrorism, most recently in the bloody wake of the Orlando terrorist attack by devout Muslim Omar Mateen, whose radical mosque was defended by a CAIR lawyer.

Broward Sheriff Scott Israel, who calls himself “Florida’s most progressive sheriff,” has ignored calls for Hamze’s removal from the force despite growing local protests.

Another CAIR executive, Khalid Latif, infiltrated the NYPD as its Muslim chaplain. Reportedly, Latif led the pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia that Mateen joined in 2012.

The case of Mohammad Weiss Rasool shows why such infiltration is potentially dangerous.

The FBI busted Rasool, an Afghan immigrant, for tipping off an al-Qaida terrorist suspect last decade while working as a police officer for the Fairfax County Police Department outside Washington and moonlighting for CAIR. He worked his way up to sergeant before authorities realized they had an al-Qaida spy in their ranks.

According to a Justice Department complaint filed in 2008, Rasool searched a national criminal database containing names of terrorist suspects and confirmed that FBI agents were tailing a Muslim friend of his from a local mosque.

When agents went to arrest the target early one morning, they found him and his family already dressed and destroying evidence. They knew they had a mole, and worked back through the system to find Rasool.

That’s when agents discovered the cop had breached their database at least 15 times to look up names of other contacts, including relatives, to see if they showed up on the federal terrorist watch list.

Rasool’s actions “damaged the integrity of the NCIC system and jeopardized at least one federal investigation,” prosecutors said in federal court papers. “The defendant’s actions could have placed federal agents in danger.”

Rasool at first claimed he didn’t know the terrorist target. He confessed only after hearing a recording of his message for the suspect, Abdullah Alnoshan — a close associate of al-Qaida cleric Anwar Awlaki, a local imam who had helped some of the 9/11 hijackers obtain housing and ID’s in Fairfax County.

Rasool finally pleaded guilty to illegally searching a federal database.

According to the bestselling book “Muslim Mafia,” Rasool at the time worked closely with CAIR, which lobbied on his behalf during his prosecution.

In fact, Rasool acted as CAIR’s liaison within the police department, and often met with CAIR officials at CAIR’s headquarters located just three blocks from the US Capitol.

A senior Fairfax County Police Department official, who called Rasool “a traitor” who “disgraced the uniform,” said he was “deeply embedded with CAIR.”

“He was the spokesman to the department for CAIR,” the official explained in “Muslim Mafia.”

The FBI has its own problems with Islamist moles.

Consider the case of the Muslim FBI agent in Los Angeles who allegedly compromised a multi-agency terrorism investigation by tipping off the ringleader of a Pakistani-based terror cell that the local Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) had under surveillance for more than two years.

The “dirty” agent — an Egyptian-American married to an Afghan woman — allegedly sabotaged several investigations across the country, including ones in New York and Boston, that tie back to the Taliban in Pakistan. According to “Muslim Mafia,” he not only tipped the terror cell leader off to a so-called “trash cover” that investigators tried to execute outside his home in Los Angeles, but also identified surveillance vehicles for the terrorist suspect.

After an internal FBI investigation, the Muslim agent was reprimanded but not fired.

“The dirty FBI agent, my JTTF counterpart, compromised by investigation as well as several other agency investigations across the country,” said a detective who works counterterrorism intelligence for the LAPD. “The agent is embedded with the bad guys and gave them critical information detailing the investigations.”

The LAPD source added: “The FBI is covering it all up.”

Bureau tolerance for such betrayal by Muslim agents is not new.

Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, an Egyptian-American and the first Muslim FBI agent, twice refused on religious grounds to tape-record Muslim terrorist suspects under investigation, including his friend Sami al-Arian, who was later convicted in spite of Abdel-Hafiz gumming up the investigation.

In early 2001, then-FBI Director Louis Freeh picked Abdel-Hafiz to become the FBI’s deputy legal attache at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia — a key post in the battle against al-Qaida, which had hit American military barracks inside Saudi and a warship in neighboring Yemen.

After 9/11, when 15 of the 19 hijackers turned out to be Saudi nationals, Abdel-Hafiz was in a prime position to run down leads in the Saudi capital. Only, that didn’t happen, at least not as often as headquarters had hoped. Agents back in Washington complained about his performance there, saying they were not getting answers to the hundreds of leads they were sending him in Riyadh. Abdel-Hafiz says he was one of only two people manning the office there and was further hobbled by an antiquated computer system.

But he and his FBI boss Wilfred Rattigan, a black convert to Islam, had still found time to travel to Mecca for the annual pilgrimage, where they surrendered their FBI cell phones to Saudi nationals and were out of contact with officials back in the U.S. who were trying to ring them up about investigations into al-Qaida and 9/11. Both Rattigan and Abdel-Hafiz wore traditional Muslim headgear and robes while on the job in Saudi Arabia, further outraging fellow agents.

When a senior supervisor was sent to the Riyadh office nearly a year after 9/11, she found secret documents strewn all over the office, some even wedged between cabinets. She also found a huge backlog of boxes each filled with three feet of paper containing secret, time-sensitive leads. Much of the materials, including information on Saudi airline pilots, had not been translated or reviewed.

It’s anyone’s guess how many terror cases were compromised in the FBI’s Saudi office.

The FBI tried to fire Abdel-Hafiz in 2003 for insurance fraud and making false statements on his FBI application. But his termination was overruled by a special panel convened to hear the case, and he was reinstated. Reassigned to Dallas, Abdel-Hafiz recruited other Muslims to join the FBI at Islamic conferences held by Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

He finally retired last year, after being placed in the bureau’s post-adjudication risk management program, or PARM, which stripped him of access to certain classified material. He now works as a Homeland Security contractor advising on “countering violent extremism,” or CVE, the program the Obama administration started to pretend Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.

Among other things, Abdel-Hafiz argues against arresting young Muslim men who are being radicalized in order to build “trust” in the Muslim community.

Hundreds of other Muslim FBI agents, analysts, linguists and contractors have been subjected to additional security screening under the PARM program. The investigations have been prompted by concerns these FBI employees maintain family and other ties in the Middle East, as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan, and could be coerced by foreign spies or terrorist organizations to leak classified national security information.

Obama to NatSec Agencies: Increase Diversity, Train on ‘Implicit or Unconscious Bias’

President Obama, joined by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Vice President Joe Biden speaks at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Va., on April 13, 2016. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

President Obama, joined by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Vice President Joe Biden speaks at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Va., on April 13, 2016. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson, October 5, 2016:

WASHINGTON — President Obama issued a memo to heads of government agencies today on increasing diversity in the national security workforce to make the diplomacy, development, defense, intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security complex “more effective at problem solving than homogeneous groups.”

The national security workforce in the federal government consists of more than 3 million workers from agencies such as the Intelligence Community, USAID, Treasury Department, State Department, Justice Department, and the Department of Homeland Security.

Obama said data collected on the departments “indicate that agencies in this workforce are less diverse on average than the rest of the federal government,” and in 2015 only the State Department USAID Civil Services “were more diverse in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity than the federal workforce as a whole.”

The president reminded agency heads of his 2011 directive to “promote diversity and inclusion” in the federal workforce as a whole, and directed national security leaders to “ensure their diversity and inclusion practices are fully integrated into broader succession planning efforts and supported by sufficient resource allocations and effective programs that invest in personnel development and engagement.”

Agencies will be required yearly to provide their demographic breakdown to the general public. Applicant data will be analyzed for “fairness and inclusiveness” in the recruitment process and “agencies shall develop a system to collect and analyze applicant flow data for as many positions as practicable in order to identify future areas for improvement in attracting diverse talent, with particular attention to senior and management positions.” Agencies will expand the categories of voluntary information current employees can provide to include details “such as information regarding sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Obama directed interviews with current employees and exit interviews to be studied by leaders for “if and how the results of the interviews differ by gender, race and national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability status, and other demographic variables” with any resulting policy recommendations.

National security agencies were also told to “prioritize resources to expand professional development opportunities” and “consider the number of expected senior-level vacancies as a factor in determining the number of candidates to select for such programs.”

“Agencies shall track the demographics of program participants as well as the rate of placement into senior-level positions for participants in such programs, evaluate such data on an annual basis to look for ways to improve outreach and recruitment for these programs consistent with merit system principles, and include such data in the report.”

Obama added that “for agencies in the national security workforce that place assignment restrictions on personnel or otherwise prohibit certain geographic assignments due to a security determination, these agencies shall ensure a review process exists consistent with the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, as well as applicable counterintelligence considerations.”

“Agencies shall ensure that affected personnel are informed of the right to seek review and the process for doing so,” he wrote.

Senior leadership and supervisors, the president directed, should “reward and recognize efforts to promote diversity and inclusion… consistent with merit system principles, such as through participation in mentoring programs or sponsorship initiatives, recruitment events, and other opportunities.”

“Agencies shall expand their provision of training on implicit or unconscious bias, inclusion, and flexible work policies and make implicit or unconscious bias training mandatory for senior leadership and management positions, as well as for those responsible for outreach, recruitment, hiring, career development, promotion, and security clearance adjudication,” he added.

That training “may be implemented in a phased approach commensurate with agency resources” and “should give special attention to ensuring the continuous incorporation of research-based best practices, including those to address the intersectionality between certain demographics and job positions.”

The first progress report on the new guidelines will be due to the president in 120 days — when there will be a new occupant in the Oval Office.

Also see:

If you don’t believe what the radicals think you should believe, you must be taught to believe something different — on the government’s dime, of course. Hillary wants to fund the retraining, and the NAACP wants to make it mandatory — complete with sanctions if your perceived biases don’t disappear.

How will the thought police know the actual police are biased? If they don’t believe the “right” things. Spend any time on campus, in diversity training, or on progressive websites, and you’ll see that disagreement with leftist cultural critiques is all the proof anyone needs of racism and other forms of bigotry. Evidence, experience, and probabilities are completely irrelevant when it comes time to cleanse the mind of “bias.”

There are those on the Left who simply refuse to look at a case on the facts. They insist that they have knowledge about the inner lives and motivations of the relevant parties that is unknown even to the parties themselves. They use this alleged knowledge to stoke unrest and violate civil liberties. And they have an ally in Hillary Clinton. She’ll fund all the re-education we need.

Freedom of Religion or Freedom from Terrorist Supporting Imams?


The FBI is trying to draw a difficult line between protected free speech and actual support for terror.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Oct.4, 2016:

America is well-known for its advancement of freedom and democracy but in an environment where the threat of terrorism is a real and present danger Americans are often faced with the struggle between liberty or security. A recent New York Times article called Extremist Imam Tests F.B.I. and the Limits of the Law touches upon how Imam Suleiman Anwar Bengharsa has been making authorities question the boundaries of this dilemma. Despite, Bengharsa allegedly telling Muslims that they “must strictly follow the shariah, or Islamic law, no matter where they live[,]” according to the Times – one can arguably say that he has went so far as to have caused incitement to violence/terrorism. They report on how Bengharsa has supported ISIS via social media:

But in the last two years, Imam Bengharsa’s public pronouncements have taken a dark turn. On Facebook, he has openly endorsed the Islamic State, posted gruesome videos showing ISIS fighters beheading and burning alive their enemies and praised terrorist attacks overseas.

Could one imagine if a Christian pastor endorsed a terrorist group and posted scenes of their grisly murders online – a group that is dedicated to destroying the U.S. and the rest of the West? There would be widespread outrage. Apparently, one saying that they support ISIS isn’t a crime in and of itself according to FBI director Comey, who has stated, “It’s even protected speech to say I’m a fan of the Islamic State so-called[.]” However, with Bengharsa there seems to be a trend of radical associations. In one case he actually gave money ($1,300check) to a Muslim convert in Detroit, Sebastian Gregerson or Abdurrahaman Bin Mikaayl, who has compiled of a number of deadly weapons – including explosives (grenades). It is possible that Gregerson may have been under the inspiration of former Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki – because when the FBI went into Gregerson’s home they discoveredCDs labeled “Anwar al-Awlaki[.]” The FBI also had suspicions that Bengharsa and Gregerson were possibly involved in the scheming of a terror attack:

Nearly a year ago, in fact, the F.B.I. said in a court filing — accidentally and temporarily made public in an online database — that agents suspected the two men were plotting terrorism. “Based on the totality of the aforementioned information and evidence, there is reason to believe that Bengharsa and Gregerson are engaged in discussions and preparations for some violent act on behalf of” the Islamic State, an agent wrote.

Supposedly, there’s “no proof that he [Bengharsa] knew Mr. Gregerson planned to buy illegal explosives.” The Times piece notesthat in Bengharsa’s checkbook he put “zakat” (charity) in reference to the $1,300 check. We have seen before how zakat funding has made its way to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. In fact, some authoritative Islamic texts on Islamic jurisprudence such as The Reliance of the Traveler, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law reveal that jihadists are one of the recipients of zakat. In this particular book there are eight types of zakat recipients – the seventh category includes:


The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster (O: but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration). They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses (O: for the duration of the journey, round trip, and the time they spend there, even if prolonged. Though nothing has been mentioned here of the expense involved in supporting such people’s families during this period, it seems clear that they should also be given it).

The Times article also leaves room for a possible connection between Bengharsa and the radical Yusuf Wehelie. Apparently, in 2010 Wehelie and his brother were halted in Cairo from returning back to the U.S. by the FBI. Of course, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Hamas linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) complained – CAIR still has a sympathetic letter from Yusuf Wehelie on its website attached here. Wehelie was so radical that:

At Yusuf Wehelie’s detention hearing in July, the authorities said he had told undercover agents that he supported the Islamic State and that if he couldn’t join it overseas, he would attack a military recruiting center, possibly using explosives. (Mr. Wehelie’s lawyer, Nina Ginsberg, said that in later recorded conversations, he disavowed those statements and later stopped replying to the undercover agents.)

It’s no surprise that CAIR would support a jihadist – knowing how the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated organization is unwavering in their commitment to “civilization jihad” which seeks “to subvert our society from within using the very freedoms they will then take away.” Jihadists and Islamists may use different tactics but they basically have the same goals.

There might also be a possible connection between Bengharsa and Maalik Alim Jones. According to The Washington Times, Jones was accused of providing “material support to al Shabaab and the receipt of military-type training from the terrorist group[,]” among other things. Apparently, Jones went to a Baltimore mosque where Bengharsa sometimes preached. In addition to everything mentioned above, Bengharsa allegedly “transferred money three times to an unnamed person in Yemen[,]” and “received $902,710 in wire transfers in 2014 and 2015, possibly an inheritance.” Furthermore, a couple of Bengharsa’s social media posts shown below with commentary (gathered from the New York Times) capture the type of hatred and anti-American/Western rhetoric he espouses.



It’s disturbing to know that Bengharsa was a chaplain for several years in Maryland prisons likely contributing to the Muslim radicalization problem. It’s almost like these supporters of jihad have to directly call for a specific attack in order to be apprehended by authorities. If we keep allowing these jihadists to establish vast networks of contacts, while building up their arsenals we are only making it easier for the next jihadist to takeover and continue the jihadist agenda. We must allow our law enforcement to be able to do their job effectively in combating jihad.