Did the FBI Want Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller Dead?

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, March 30, 2017:

60 Minutes ran a feature Sunday night about the FBI curious role in the May 2015 Garland jihad attack at a free speech event co-organized by Pamela Geller and me. It was, predictably enough, viciously biased, sloppy, and incomplete, but it was nonetheless illuminating in raising a hard and unanswerable question: did the FBI want Pamela Geller and me dead?

Despite the fact that the jihad attack took place at our event, neither Geller nor I appear, except in one still photo, in the 60 Minutes piece. All they say is that “a self-described free speech advocate named Pamela Geller was holding a provocative contest.”

The contempt fairly leapt from the screen. “A self-described free speech advocate”? Did 60 Minutes mean that Pamela Geller didn’t have the requisite degree in free speech advocacy? Or that she wasn’t really a free speech advocate? What they really mean, of course, is that she is not on the Left, and so cannot be celebrated as a free speech advocate the way the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, who were all Leftists, can be.

60 Minutes also gave a nod to Sharia blasphemy laws by describing the contest as “provocative.” It was an art exhibit, featuring historical and modern images of Muhammad, some created by Muslims. It was only provocative to Muslims who believe in Islam’s death penalty for blasphemy (and brainwashed dhimmis). Was 60 Minutes implying endorsement of that death penalty? Why, yes. If our event was provocative, the shooters were justifiably provoked.

Meanwhile, CBS gave a lot of space to Usama Shami, the imam of the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix, from which the jihadis came, allowing him to exonerate the mosque of any responsibility for “radicalizing” the jihad attackers. 60 Minutes didn’t mention what Simpson’s friend Courtney Lonergan told the Arizona Republic: “Simpson would never waver from the teachings he picked up in the mosque and elsewhere….He was one of those guys who would sleep at the mosque. The fact that he felt personally insulted by somebody drawing a picture had to come from the ideological rhetoric coming out of the mosque.”

60 Minutes also doesn’t challenge Shami on his lies right after the attack, when he said that the jihadis were not regular members of the mosque.

Despite all the predictable politically correct whitewashing and appeasement, CBS did a good job of highlighting a curious and still unexplained aspect of the attack: the FBI clearly knew the attack was coming (although it didn’t bother to inform us or our security team), as the FBI agent was right there, following behind the jihadis, whom he had encouraged to “tear up Texas.” But even though they knew the attack was coming, they didn’t have a team in place to stop the jihadis. They had one man there, and one man only. The jihadis were not stopped by FBI agents, but by our own security team. If the jihadis had gotten through our team, they would have killed Pamela Geller and me, and many others. (They would no doubt have loved to kill Geert Wilders, but he left before they arrived.)

The Daily Beast wrote in August 2016 about how this undercover FBI agent encouraged the jihadis. The Beast’s Katie Zavadski wrote: “Days before an ISIS sympathizer attacked a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, he received a text from an undercover FBI agent. ‘Tear up Texas,’ the agent messaged Elton Simpson days before he opened fire at the Draw Muhammad event, according to an affidavit (pdf) filed in federal court Thursday.”

This was not entrapment. Simpson and Soofi were determined jihadis who had scouted out other targets. Simpson, along with Soofi and Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, who supplied weapons to the pair and helped them train, sought information about pipe bombs and plotted to attack the Super Bowl, and planned to go to Syria to join the Islamic State (ISIS), long before anyone told him to “tear up Texas.”

But what was the FBI’s game in telling them to do that? Why didn’t they have a phalanx of agents in place, ready to stop the attack? Or did they want the attack to succeed, so that Barack Obama’s vow that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” would be vividly illustrated, and intimidate any other Americans who might be contemplating defending the freedom of speech into silence?

We twice asked the FBI for an investigation into this matter. They have ignored us. Of course. After all, it isn’t as if this happened to someone important, like Linda Sarsour.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

’60 Minutes’ Whitewashes Massive FBI Failure in 2015 ISIS Texas Terror Attack

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, March 26, 2017:

“Complexities.”

That’s the excuse invoked at the end of a 60 Minutes segment that aired Sunday evening to explain why the FBI failed to stop two ISIS-inspired terrorists in direct contact with two ISIS terror recruiters. The attackers rolled up in a car loaded with guns and ammunition to the “Draw Mohammad” cartoon contest event in Garland, Texas, on May 3, 2015:

What 60 Minutes, fronted by Anderson Cooper and echoed in an interview with Seamus Hughes of George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, explains is that FBI sources are stretched so thin that there’s no possible way to devote resources to every single potential threat.

I’ll grant that FBI counter-terrorism resources are overloaded WAY BEYOND capacity. That’s an appropriate and warranted discussion for policymakers to address. Also, in the real world of law enforcement, there are indeed many “complexities” during a case that lead to some very important investigative clues being missed — especially when FBI resources are overstretched beyond capacity.

But these “complexities” don’t even remotely begin to explain the massive failure by the FBI in this particular case. Like a blanket that’s too short that you can never turn the right way to cover everything, invoking “complexities” to explain the FBI failure in the attempted Garland attack doesn’t cover the very issues raised by 60 Minutes in their own report. Yet “complexities” is all that 60 Minutes, Anderson Cooper, and Seamus Hughes give viewers.

So here’s the real clarity in this story: at the time of the Garland attack, as the two terrorists, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, were traveling in their car loaded with guns and ammo, they were being closely tailed by an undercover FBI agent (not an informant — an actual FBI agent) whom they had previously been in contact with on social media.

The undercover agent even snapped pictures of the attack site just seconds before Simpson and Soofi jumped out of their car with guns blazing:

60 Minutes helpfully provides the undercover FBI agent’s picture taken seconds before the attack showing two individuals, including a police officer, who were shot at by the pair:

And they provide a helpful graphic of how close the undercover FBI agent was tailing Simpson and Soofi (see the terrorists’ car turning into the Curtis Culwell Center, and the FBI undercover agent following immediately behind):

And yet, according to a statement provided to 60 Minutes, the FBI claims they had no advanced knowledge of the attack:

We wanted to ask the FBI those same questions. But the bureau would not agree to an interview. All the FBI would give us was this email statement. It reads: “There was no advance knowledge of a plot to attack the cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas.”

This is not even remotely believable.

The information about the undercover FBI agent being at the scene was already known before the 60 Minutes broadcast, given some details were included in court documents for a related terrorism case in Ohio this past August:

I noted that here at PJ Media, while mentioning the (at that point) dozen “Known Wolf” terror cases during the Obama administration:

But the FBI undercover agent being at the Garland attack site was more than coincidence. In fact, the FBI agent had been in contact with Simpson on social media in the three weeks prior to the attack, and at one point had even told Simpson to “tear up Texas,” as the attorney in the Ohio case explained to 60 Minutes:

Anderson Cooper: After the trial, you discovered that the government knew a lot more about the Garland attack than they had let on?

Dan Maynard: That’s right. Yeah. After the trial we found out that they had had an undercover agent who had been texting with Simpson, less than three weeks before the attack, to him “Tear up Texas.” Which to me was an encouragement to Simpson.

The man he’s talking about was a special agent of the FBI, working undercover posing as an Islamic radical.  The government sent attorney Dan Maynard 60 pages of declassified encrypted messages between the agent and Elton Simpson — and argued “Tear up Texas” was not an incitement. But Simpson’s response was incriminating, referring to the attack against cartoonists at the French magazine Charlie Hebdo: “bro, you don’t have to say that … ” He wrote “you know what happened in Paris … so that goes without saying. No need to be direct.”

Again, this is information that was reported months ago:

The FBI isn’t too interested in answering questions about their undercover agent’s encrypted communications with would-be Garland killer Elton Simpon, as Daily Beast reporter Katie Zavadski found out when she asked them directly:

Press officers for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio, the Cleveland FBI Office, and the Department of Justice declined to comment beyond the affidavit. FBI spokeswoman Carol Cratty hung up on The Daily Beast after being asked about the “tear up Texas” text.

Complexities. But as the late Billy Mays would say: “But wait! There’s more!”

Unmentioned in the 60 Minutes report: the FBI sent a bulletin to Garland police hours before the event warning that Simpson — whom the Justice Department had already unsuccessfully prosecuted previously for his role in a terror cell — might be on his way to the Garland event, even including his photo and his license plate number:

FBI Director James Comey even admitted they had information, saying:

We developed information just hours before the event that Simpson might be interested in going to Garland.

Garland police claim they never saw the FBI’s bulletin. But 60 Minutes never bothers to mention it at all.

Also unmentioned was the considerable online chatter in ISIS circles about the event, and in some cases directly threatening it.

As I reported exclusively here at PJ Media at the time, what initiated most of the chatter was the attempt by the only two Muslim members of Congress — Keith Ellison and Andre Carson — to prevent Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders from attending the event:

The chatter began when news broke that two Muslim congressmen, Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, had appealed to Secretary of State John Kerry to deny entry into the U.S. for Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.

Wilders was scheduled to be the featured speaker at Sunday’s cartoon contest.

One law enforcement source who was monitoring potential threats to the event told PJ Media the following:

[Ellison and Carson] clearly set things off. Nothing was being said until that news story came out, and then the usual suspects began to talk about it. By the time the weekend rolled around, there were clear and identifiable incitements calling for an attack on the event.

So there was considerable ISIS chatter about the event, even incitement calling for an attack on the event. That concerned the Texas Department of Public Safety so much they committed considerable resources, including creating what one Texas DPS described to me as “a death trap” for anyone who attempted to attack the event.

The online chatter caused no concern for the FBI or any other federal agency. Again, as I reported exclusively, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security sent out a “Joint Intelligence Bulletin” to law enforcement four days before the Garland event dismissing any threat:

Their reasoning was astounding:

Although past events involving the alleged defamation of Islam and the prophet, Muhammad, have resulted in threats or overt acts of violence overseas, we have not yet seen such violence in the United States. The most frequent reaction among US-based homegrown violent extremists (HVEs) is discussion and verbal disapproval via online communication platforms, including websites with violent extremist content and social media sites.† We assess it is unlikely that any one event perceived to defame Islam would alone mobilize HVEs to violence.

Because such an attack had not happened here yet, as it had just four months prior in the attack on the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, it was unlikely to happen here, the FBI and DHS said.

The FBI and virtually all federal agencies were following a narrative enforced by the Obama White House that ISIS was the “JV team” and posed no domestic terror threat to the United States. That’s not where the facts led, but it was the narrative blinders that the FBI and Director James Comey were willing to assume.

How much of that narrative enforcement is still in place? No one really knows, and 60 Minutes doesn’t bother to ask.

So at this point we have:

  • An undercover FBI agent tailing the Garland terror attackers to the Draw Muhammed event
  • The FBI agent in direct communication with Elton Simpson telling him to “Tear up Texas”
  • The FBI sending Garland police a bulletin with Simpson’s picture and license plate warning he may show up hours before the attack
  • Considerable online chatter by ISIS operatives, including direct incitement calling for an attack on the event

For those outside the political/media establishment bubble, these might seem to be really important investigative clues that raise serous concerns about the FBI’s claims they had no prior warning to the Garland attack. But for 60 Minutes and Seamus Hughes of GWU’s Program on Extremism, all their viewers are left with in conclusion are … “complexities”:

The FBI’s actions around this foiled attack offer a rare glimpse into the complexities faced by those fighting homegrown extremism. Today, the battle often begins online where identifying terrorists can be the difference between a massacre, and the one that never occurred in Garland, Texas.

Anderson Cooper: People brag about stuff. People talk big. One of the difficulties for the FBI is trying to figure out who’s just talking and who actually may execute an attack.

Seamus Hughes: That’s the hardest part when you talk about this, right. There’s a lot of guys who talk about how great ISIS is. It’s very hard to tell when someone crosses that line. And in most of the cases, you see the FBI has some touchpoint with those individuals beforehand. There had been an assessment, a preliminary investigation or a full investigation. It’s just very hard to know when somebody decides to jump.

It should come as no surprise that Seamus Hughes trains FBI officials in knowing when somebody decides to jump.

Yes, that’s right. 60 Minutes turned to, as its sole outside “expert,” one of the FBI’s own advisers and terrorism training instructors.

That said, let me suggest that when one of your undercover agents is tailing a car with two ISIS operatives, including one you’ve already tried unsuccessfully to put in prison on previous terrorism charges, loaded with guns and ammunition and headed towards an event that has been targeted by ISIS supporters on social media: that might be an indication that somebody is prepared to jump.

Ironically, after their Garland attack whitewash, 60 Minutes continued their broadcast with a segment on “Fake News”:

However, Hughes’ colleagues over at the GWU “Project on Extremism” seemed pretty happy with how it all turned out:

No doubt a contract for FBI training is on its way to GWU right now.

Muslim Brotherhood (NAIT) Directly Confronts President of the United States

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, March  20, 2017:

In response to President Trump’s second Executive Order designed to keep individuals from hostile nations from entering the United States, the Attorney General of Hawaii announced he will file suit against the Trump administration.  The plaintiff listed in Hawaii’s lawsuit is Dr. Ismail Elshikh, the Imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii.

The Muslim Association of Hawaii is a Muslim Brotherhood organization, which means the Muslim Brotherhood is directly confronting the President of the United States and challenging his authority.

The address of the Muslim Association of Hawaii is 1935 Aleo Place, Honolulu, Hawaii.  The property records for Honolulu reveal this property is owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) – the bank for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.  You can search the address HERE for yourself.

NAIT was created in 1973 by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim Students Association per their own website.

A declassified document from the FBI’s Indianapolis office dated December 15, 1987 states:

“The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) was organized by the leaders of the Muslim Students Association of the United States and Canada (MSA) in 1973 as the parent organization of various Muslim groups in the U.S. and Canada.  The leadership of NAIT, MSA and other Muslim groups are inter-related with many leaders and members of NAIT having been identified as supporters of the Islamic Revolution as advocated by the Government of Iran (GOI).  Their support of JIHAD (a holy war) in the U.S. has been evidenced by the financial and organizational support provided through NAIT from Middle East countries to Muslims residing in the U.S. and Canada.”

A declassified FBI confidential informant (CI) report dated 8/17/1988, details the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in the United States at the time and states: “(CI) advised that in addition to the internal political structure and organization of NAIT as controlled by the IIIT leadership that as members of the IKHWAN they are involved in organizing external political support which involves influencing both public opinion in the United States as well as the United States Government.  (CI) has advised that the Ikhwan is a secret Muslim organization that has unlimited funds and is extremely well organized in the United States to the point where it has set up political action front groups with no traceable ties to the IIIT or its various Muslim groups. They also have claimed success in infiltrating the United States government…the IIIT leadership has indicated that in this phase their organization needs to peacefully get inside the United States Government and also American universities. (CI) noted that the ultimate goal of the Islamic Revolution is the overthrow of all non-Islamic governments and that violence is a tool…”

Evidence entered in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Dallas, 2008) – 15 year FBI investigation – identified the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood which directly funded Hamas (TERRORISTS) leaders and organizations.

On the last page of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic document (An Explanatory Memorandum), the MB identifies NAIT as one of their organizations.

The stated objective of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States is to wage civilization jihad “by OUR hands” to overthrow our government and replace it with an Islamic government ruled by sharia – Islamic law.  See “An Explanatory Memorandum” page 7 of 18.

The US v HLF evidence revealed that all of the prominent Islamic organizations in America are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement here, including NAIT.

NAIT’s financial records – entered into evidence at the HLF trial – reveal NAIT directly funds Hamas leaders and Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.  See the records here and here.

Children trained by Hamas. NAIT directly funded Hamas and Hamas leaders.

Because of the massive evidence revealing NAIT is a Muslim Brotherhood organization which directly funds terrorism, the U.S. Department of Justice lists NAIT as an Unindicted Co-Conspirator in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v HLF).  See the Unindicted Co-Conspirator list here.  NAIT is listed on Page 8, paragraph VII.

Being named an “Unindicted Co-Conspirator” means the government has enough evidence to indict but decides not to at that time.  In fact, after the HLF trial ended in November of 2008, the Department of Justice moved forward to prosecute the founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and CAIR itself, but after approximately six months, that effort was shut down by Attorney General Eric Holder and since that time none of the hundreds of unindicted co-conspirators have been prosecuted by the Department of Justice.

In response to NAIT’s request to the court to have its name removed from the unindicted co-conspirator list, the Department of Justice filed a memorandum in which it states (page 13):

“ISNA and NAIT, in fact, shared more with the HLF than just a parent organization.  They were intimately connected with the HLF and its assigned task of providing financial support to Hamas.”

The “parent organization” to which the U.S. government is referring is the Muslim Brotherhood.

In ruling on the matter, Federal Judge Jorge Solis listed key evidence, and ruled:

“The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with the HLF, the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), and with Hamas.”

HLF and IAP were Hamas (TERRORIST) organizations.  This ruling declares NAIT is directly associated with the terrorist organization Hamas headquarters overseas and its front organizations in the United States.

It should be noted, Hamas is an inherent part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Association of Hawaii is a NAIT property.  The leader of this organization, Dr. Ismail Elshikh, has led several other Muslim Brotherhood organizations and would not hold those positions if he himself were not a Muslim Brother.

The Department of Justice should indict NAIT and the affiliated Muslim Brotherhood Islamic Centers, mosques and other organizations, arrest all Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the United States, legally seize all NAIT and Muslim Brotherhood property, and utterly dismantle their jihadi network.

If this offensive assault by the Muslim Brotherhood against the President of the United States and his effort to secure our nation and keep our enemies out is not met with significant force by the U.S. government, the Muslim Brotherhood will view this as more weakness and push harder and more violently in the coming months.

Obama used NSA & FBI to spy on Trump – veteran CIA officer Gary Berntsen

RT – SophieCo, March 17, 2017: (go to RT for video)

The mighty CIA has fallen victim to a major breach, with WikiLeaks revealing the true scope of the Agency’s ability for cyber-espionage. Its tools seem to be aimed at ordinary citizens – your phone, your car, your TV, even your fridge can become an instrument of surveillance in the hands of the CIA. How does the CIA use these tools, and why do they need them in the first place? And as WikiLeaks promises even more revelations, how is all of this going to shape the already tense relationship between new president and the intelligence community? A man who has spent over two decades in the CIA’s clandestine service – Gary Berntsen is on SophieCo.

Follow @SophieCo_RT

Sophie Shevardnadze: Gary Berntsen, former CIA official, welcome to the show, great to have you with us. Now, Vault 7, a major batch of CIA docs revealed by Wikileaks uncovers the agency’s cyber tools. We’re talking about world’s most powerful intelligence agency – how exactly did the CIA lose control of its arsenal of hacking weapons?

Gary Berntsen: First off, I’d like to say that the world has changed a lot in the last several decades, and people are communicating in many different ways and intelligence services, whether they be American or Russian, are covering these communications and their coverage of those communications has evolved. Without commenting on the specific validity of those tools, it was clear that the CIA was surely using contractors to be involved in this process, not just staff officers, and that individuals decided that they had problems with U.S. policy, and have leaked these things to Wikileaks. This is a large problem, for the U.S. community, but just as the U.S. is having problems, the Russia face similar problems. Just this week you had multiple members of the FSB charged with hacking as well, and they have been charged by the U.S. government. So both services who are competitors, face challenges as we’ve entered a new era of mass communications.

SS: So like you’re saying, the leaker or leakers of the CIA docs is presumably a CIA contractor – should the agency be spending more effort on vetting its own officers? Is the process rigorous enough?

GB: Clearly. Look… There have been individuals since the dawn of history. Espionage is the second oldest occupation, have conducted spying and espionage operations, and there have been people who have turned against their own side and worked for competitors and worked for those opposing the country or the group that they’re working with. It’s been a problem from the beginning, and it continues to be a problem, and the U.S. clearly is going to have to do a much better job at vetting those individuals who are given security clearances, without a doubt.

SS: The CIA studied the flaws in the software of devices like iPhones, Androids, Smart TVs, apps like Whatsapp that left them exposed to hacking, but didn’t care about patching those up –  so, in essence the agency chose to leave Americans vulnerable to cyberattacks, rather than protect them?

GB: I think you have to understand, in this world that we’re operating and the number one target of our intelligence community are terrorists. Since the attacks of 9\11, 16 years ago, the obsession of the American intelligence community is to identify those planning terrorist attacks, collecting information on them and being able to defeat them. These individuals are using all these means of communication. I have spoken with many security services around the world, since my retirement back in 2005-2006, a lot of them have had problems covering the communications of somebody’s very devices and programs that you’ve talked about – whether they be narcotraffickers or salafist jihadists, they are all piggybacking off of commercial communications. Therefore the need for modern intelligence services to sort of provide coverage of all means of communications. And there’s a price that you pay for that.

SS: One of the most disturbing parts of the leaks is the “Weeping Angel” program – CIA hacking into Samsung Smart TVs to record what’s going on even when the TV appears to be turned off. Why are the CIA’s tools designed to penetrate devices used by ordinary Western citizens at home?

GB: Look, I wouldn’t say it has anything to do with Western homes, because the CIA doesn’t do technical operations against American citizens – that’s prohibited by the law. If the CIA does anything in the U.S., it does it side-by-side with the FBI, and it does it according to FISA – the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act laws. It’s gotta go to the judge to do those things. Those tools are used primarily against the individuals and terrorists that are targeting the U.S. or other foreign entities that we see as a significant threat to the U.S. national security, which is the normal functioning of any intelligence service.

SS: Just like you say, the CIA insists it never uses its investigative tools on American citizens in the US, but, we’re wondering, exactly how many terrorist camps in the Middle East have Samsung Smart TVs to watch their favorite shows on? Does it seem like the CIA lost its direction?

GB: Plenty of them.

SS: Plenty?…

GB: I’ve travelled in the Middle East, Samsungs are sold everywhere. Sophie, Samsung TVs are sold all over the world. I’ve spent a lot of time in the Middle East, I’ve seen them in Afghanistan, I’ve seen them everywhere. So, any kind of devices that you can imagine, people are using everywhere. We’re in a global economy now.

SS: The CIA has tools to hack iPhones – but they make up only around 15 % of the world’s smartphone market. IPhones are not popular among terrorists, but they are among business and political elites – so are they the real target here?

GB: No. The CIA in relative terms to the size of the world is a small organisation. It is an organisation that has roughly 20 or more thousand people – it’s not that large in terms of covering a planet with 7 billion people. We have significant threats to the U.S. and to the Western world. We live in an age of super-terrorism, we live in an age when individuals, small groups of people, can leverage technology at a lethal effect. The greatest threats to this planet are not just nuclear, they are bio. The U.S. needs to have as many tools as possible to defend itself against these threats, as does Russia want to have similar types of tools to defend itself. You too, Russian people have suffered from a number of terrible terrorist acts.

SS: Wikileaks suggest the CIA copied the hacking habits of other nations to create a fake electronic trace – why would the CIA need that?

GB: The CIA, as any intelligence service, would look to conduct coverage in the most unobtrusive fashion as possible. It is going to do its operations so that they can collect and collect again and again against terrorist organisations, where and whenever it can, because sometimes threats are not just static, they are continuous.

SS: You know this better, so enlighten me: does the he CIA have the authorisation to create the surveillance tools it had in the first place? Who gives it such authorisation?

GB: The CIA was created in 1947 by the National Security Act of the U.S. and does two different things – it does FI (foreign intelligence) collection and it does CA – covert action. Its rules for collection of intelligence were enshrined in the law that created it, the CIA Act 110, in 1949, but the covert action part of this, where it does active measures, when it gets involved in things – all of those are covered by law. The Presidential finding had to be written, it had to be presented to the President. The President’s signs off on those things. Those things are then briefed to members of Congress, or the House Permanent Subcommittee for Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence. We have a very rigorous process of review of the activities of our intelligence communities in the U.S.

SS: But you’re talking about the activities in terms of operations. I’m just asking – does CIA need any authorisation or permission to create the tools it has in its arsenal? Or it can just go ahead…

GB: Those tools         and the creation of collection tools falls under the same laws that allowed the CIA to be established. And that was the 1949 Intelligence Act. And also, subsequently, the laws in 1975. Yes.

SS: So, the CIA programme names are quite colourful, sometimes wacky –  “Weeping Angel”, “Swamp Monkey”, “Brutal Kangaroo” – is there a point to these, is there any logic, or are they completely random? I always wondered…

GB: There’s absolutely no point to that, and it’s random.

SS:Okay, so how do you come up with those names? Who… like, one says: “Monkey” and another one says: “Kangaroo”?…

GB: I’m sure they are computer-generated.

SS: Trump accused Obama of wiretapping him during the campaign… Could the CIA have actually spied on the president? It seems like the agency doesn’t have the best relationship with Donald Trump – how far can they go?

GB: Let me just say this: the President used the word “wiretapping” but I think it was very clear to us that have been in the intelligence business, that this was a synonym for “surveillance”. Because most people are on cellphones, people aren’t using landlines anymore, so there’s no “wiretapping”, okay. These all fall under the Intelligence Surveillance Act, as I stated earlier, this thing existing in the U.S.. It was clear to President Trump and to those in his campaign, after they were elected, and they did a review back that the Obama Administration sought FISA authorisation to do surveillance of the Trump campaign in July and then in October. They were denied in July, they were given approval in October, and in October they did some types of surveillance of the Trump campaign. This is why the President, of course, tweeted, that he had been “wiretapped” – of course “wiretapping” being a synonym for the surveillance against his campaign, which was never heard of in the U.S. political history that I can remember, I can’t recall any way of this being done. It’s an outrage, and at the same time, Congressional hearings are going to be held and they are going to review all of these things, and they are going to find out exactly what happened and what was done. It’s unclear right now, but all we do know – and it has been broken in the media that there were two efforts, and at the second one, the authorisation was given. That would never have been done by the CIA, because they don’t do that sort of coverage in the U.S.. That would either be the FBI or the NSA, with legal authorities and those authorities… the problem that the Trump administration had is they believed that the information from these things was distributed incorrectly. Any time an American –  and this is according to the U.S. law – any time an American is on the wire in the U.S., their names got to be minimized from this and it clearly wasn’t done and the Trump administration was put in a bad light because of this.

SS: If what you’re saying is true, how does that fall under foreign intelligence? Is that more of the FBI-NSA expertise?

GB: It was FBI and NSA – it was clearly the FBI and the NSA that were involved, it would never have been the CIA doing that, they don’t listen to telephones in the U.S., they read the product of other agencies that would provide those things, but clearly, there were individuals on those phone calls that they believed were foreign and were targeting those with potential communications with the Trump campaign. Let’s be clear here – General Clapper, the DNI for President Obama, stated before he left office, that there was no, I repeat, no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. This has been something that has been dragged out again, and again, and again, by the media. This is a continuing drumbeat of the mainstream, left-wing media of the U.S., topaint the President in the poorest light, to attempt to discredit Donald Trump.

SS: With the intelligence agencies bringing down Trump’s advisors like Michael Flynn – and you said the people behind that were Obama’s loyalists – can we talk about the intelligence agencies being too independent from the White House, playing their own politics?

GB: I think part of the problem that we’ve seen during the handover of power from President Obama to President Trump was that there was a number of holdovers that went from political appointee to career status that had been placed in the NatSec apparatus and certain parts of the intelligence organisations. It is clear that President Trump and his team are determined to remove those people to make sure that there’s a continuity of purpose and people aren’t leaking information that would put the Administration into a negative light. That’s the goal of the administration, to conduct itself consistent with the goals of securing the country from terrorism and other potential threats – whether they be counter-narcotics, or intelligence agencies trying to breach our… you know, the information that we hold secure.

SS: Here’s a bit of conspiracy theories – could it be that the domestic surveillance agencies like the NSA or the FBI orchestrated the Vault 7 leaks  – to damage CIA, stop it from infringing on their turf?

GB :I really don’t think so and that is conspiracy  thinking. You have to understand something, in the intelligence communities in the U.S., whether it be the CIA and FBI, we’ve done a lot of cross-fertilizations. When I was in senior position in CIA’s counterterrorism center, I had a deputy who was an FBI officer. An office in FBI HQ down in Washington had an FBI lead with a CIA deputy. There’s a lot more cooperation than one would think. There are individuals that do assignments in each other’s organisations to help foster levels of cooperation. I had members of NSA in my staff when I was at CIA, members of diplomatic security, members of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and it was run like a task force, so, there’s a lot more cooperation than the media presents, they always think that there are these huge major battles between the organisations and that’s rarely true.

SS: Generally speaking – is there rivalry between American intel agencies at all? Competition for resources, maybe?

GB: I think, sometimes, between the Bureau and the CIA – the CIA is the dominant agency abroad, and the FBI is the dominant agency in the U.S. What they do abroad, they frequently have to get cleared by us, what we do domestically, we have to get cleared by them, and sometimes there’s some friction, but usually, we’re able to work this out. It makes for great news, the CIA fighting FBI, but the reality is that there’s a lot more cooperation than confrontation. We are all in the business of trying to secure the American homeland and American interests globally.

SS: I’m still thinking a lot about the whole point of having this hacking arsenal for the CIA since you talk on their behalf – the possibility to hack phones, computers, TVs and cars – if the actual terrorist attacks on US soil, like San Bernardino, Orlando are still missed?

GB: Look. There are hundreds of individuals, if not thousands, planning efforts against the U.S. at any  time. It can be many-many things. And the U.S. security services, there’s the CIA, the FBI, NSA – block many-many of these things, but it is impossible to stop them all. Remember, this is an open society here, in America, with 320 million people, here. We try to foster open economic system, we allow more immigration to America than all countries in the world combined. This is a great political experiment here, but it’s also very difficult to police. There are times that the U.S. security services are going to fail. It’s inevitable. We just have to try the best we can, do the best job that we can, while protecting the values that attract so many people to the U.S.

SS:The former CIA director John Brennan is saying Trump’s order to temporarily ban travel from some Muslim states is not going to help fight terrorism in ‘any significant way’. And the countries where the terrorists have previously come from – like Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan, it’s true – aren’t on the list. So does he maybe have a point?

GB: John Brennan is acting more like a political operative than a former director of CIA. The countries that Mr. Trump had banned initially, or at least had put a partial, sort of a delay – where states like Somalia, Libya, the Sudan, Iran – places where we couldn’t trust local vetting. Remember something, when someone immigrates to the U.S., we have what’s called an “immigration packet”: they may have to get a chest X-ray to make sure they don’t bring any diseases with them, they have to have background check on any place they’ve ever lived, and in most of these places there are no security forces to do background checks on people that came from Damascus, because parts of Damascus are totally destroyed – there’s been warfare. It is actually a very reasonable thing for President Trump to ask for delay in these areas. Look, the Crown-Prince, the Deputy Crown-Prince of Saudi Arabia was just in the United States and met with Donald Trump, and he said he didn’t believe it was a “ban on Muslims”. This was not a “ban on Muslims”, it was an effort to slow down and to create more opportunity to vet those individuals coming from states where there’s a preponderance of terrorist organisations operating. A reasonable step by President Trump, something he promised during the campaign, something he’s fulfilling. But again, I repeat – America allows more immigration into the U.S., than all countries combined. So, we really don’t need to be lectured on who we let in and who we don’t let in.

SS: But I still wonder if the Crown-Prince would’ve had the same comment had Saudi Arabia been on that ban list. Anyways, Michael Hayden, ex-CIA…

GB: Wait a second, Sophie – the Saudis have a reasonable form to police their society, and they provide accurate police checks. If they didn’t create accurate police checks, we would’ve given the delay to them as well.

SS: Ok, I got your point. Now, Michael Hayden, ex-CIA and NSA chief, pointed out that the US intelligence enlists agents in the Muslim world with the promise of eventual emigration to America – is Trump’s travel ban order going to hurt American intelligence gathering efforts in the Middle East?

GB: No, the question here – there were individuals that worked as translators for us in Afghanistan and Iraq and serving in such roles as translators, they were promised the ability to immigrate to the United States. Unfortunately, some of them were blocked in the first ban that was put down, because individuals who wrote that, didn’t consider that. That has been considered in the re-write, that the Trump administration had submitted, which is now being attacked by a judge in Hawaii, and so it was taken into consideration, but… the objective here was to help those that helped U.S. forces on the ground, especially those who were translators, in ground combat operations, where they risked their lives alongside American soldiers.

SS:You worked in Afghanistan – you were close to capturing Bin Laden back in 2001 – what kind of spying tools are actually used on the ground by the CIA to catch terrorists?

GB: The CIA as does any intelligence service in the world, is a human business. It’s a business where we work with local security forces to strengthen their police and intelligence forces, we attempt to leverage them, we have our own people on the ground that speak the language, we’re trying to help build transportation there. There’s no “secret sauce” here. There’s no super-technology that changes the country’s ability to conduct intelligence collections or operations. In Afghanistan the greatest thing that the U.S. has is broad support and assistance to Afghan men and women across the country. We liberated half of the population, and for women were providing education, and when the people see what we were doing: trying to build schools, providing USAID projects – all of these things – this makes the population willing to work with and support the United States. Frequently, members of the insurgence groups will see this and sometimes they do actually cross the lines and cooperate with us. So, it’s a full range of American political power, whether it’s hard or soft, that is the strength of the American intelligence services – because  people in the world actually believe – and correctly so – that American more than generally a force of good in the world.

SS: Gary, thank you so much for this interesting interview and insight into the world of the CIA. We’ve been talking to Gary Berntsen, former top CIA officer, veteran of the agency, talking about the politics of American intelligence in the Trump era. That’s it for this edition of SophieCo, I will see you next time.

***

While searching for the RT video on YouTube I found this recent interview with Gary Berntsen by Newsfirst Sri Lanka:

Flynn Resignation Raises Tough Questions for FBI, Intel Services

Michael Flynn

Breitbart, by Joel Pollak, February 14, 2017:

The resignation of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn on Monday evening raises troubling questions about the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the intelligence services.

Flynn ostensibly resigned because he provided Vice President Mike Pence with “incomplete information” about a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador, which turned out to include a discussion of recent sanctions, contrary to his earlier denials. Trust is crucial; the resignation was warranted.

That said, the sanctions were largely bogus, and were applied not just to punish Russia for spying on the U.S. (both countries clearly spy on each other), but to substantiate the Democratic Party’s sore-loser conspiracy theory that Russia was responsible for electing Donald Trump.

There is no concrete evidence to support that theory, and there is no evidence (yet) that Flynn did anything but discuss sanctions in the most general terms. He did not break the Logan Act, nor any other law, apparently.

Whether Flynn deliberately concealed the contents of his conversation from Vice President Pence, or merely forgot what had been said, he was “caught” because the Department of Justice had been eavesdropping on the conversation. And one of the officials responsible for ordering the eavesdropping was none other than Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who forced President Trump to fire her when she defied her duty to enforce his executive order on immigration, however, controversial.

Four possibilities emerge. One, which the media and the Democrats (largely one and the same) clearly believe, is that Flynn really was a potential Russian plant, perhaps indicating much deeper Russian penetration of the campaign and administration.

A second possibility is that things really are what they seem, on the surface, to be. Russia’s unusual response to the sanctions — declining to retaliate — was so bizarre that it warranted investigation, which then raised legitimate suspicions about Flynn.

The remaining possibilities are more worrying. The third explanation is that President Obama deliberately, and cleverly, used the bogus sanctions as a “blue dye” test to expose which strings Russia might try to pull to relieve them. Flynn, with a prior relationship with the Russian government, may have been a natural, innocuous point of contact — or perhaps something more.

The fourth and most worrying explanation is that the government was not merely monitoring the communications of Russian diplomats, but of the Trump transition team itself. The fact that the contents of Flynn’s phone conversation — highly sensitive intelligence — were leaked to the media suggests that someone with access to that information also has a political axe to grind.

Democrats are clamoring for a deeper investigation of Russian ties to Trump. But the more serious question is whether our nation’s intelligence services were involved in what amounts to political espionage against the newly-elected government.

We know that there are hundreds and perhaps thousands of federal bureaucrats already using shadow communications systems. How far does that “shadow government” go?

The FBI, CIA and other agencies ought to reassure Congress, or come clean.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. His new book, How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Also see:

From Churchgoers to Military: ISIS ‘Kill Lists’ Explained

In this video released by ISIS' Amaq news agency in October 2016, jihadists patrol the streets of Mosul.

In this video released by ISIS’ Amaq news agency in October 2016, jihadists patrol the streets of Mosul.

PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson, December 29, 2016:

A Christmastime “hit list” of churches that appeared on a messenger app is far from the first such terrorist suggestion list, representing an escalating trend of terror supporters revealing reams of information on various targets compiled from public sources.

It’s a tactic to sow panic that ISIS and its supporters have used before: putting out a list of purported targets, random information that’s more of a data dump than a carefully curated list, often containing open-source information that a would-be jihadist could just get off of Google on his own.

It also represents the ideological crowdfunding of modern jihad: the terror outlet encourages followers to come up with ideas on training, weapons, targets and more — many of the manuals and guidebooks are not issued by the same official ISIS media outlets that produce videos and magazines, but by supporters who have never left their home countries or jihadists who have taken a trip to the Islamic State — and disseminate those tips across the web and encrypted messaging platforms.

A hacker working on the online campaign to take ISIS websites and social media accounts offline posted a screenshot of the threat discussion on Telegram that did not include a list of churches, but a link to USAChurches.org, a directory of some churches organized by state or denomination. The post also included links to Canadian, French and Dutch church directories, along with the call to target “churches, famous hotels, crowded cafes, crowded streets, markets and complexes.”

It was not issued by an official ISIS media outlet.

Before Christmas, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin to law enforcement agencies to be on the alert and watch houses of worship over the holidays, adding that there wasn’t specific credible threat information. Similar alerts have previously been issued by the FBI around holidays and special events.

A spokeswoman for the FBI’s Boston office told the Boston Herald that the FBI was “aware of the recent link published online that urges attacks against U.S. churches.”

“The FBI asks members of the public to maintain awareness of their surroundings and to report any suspicious activity to law enforcement.”

It wasn’t the first time ISIS supporters had distributed a hit list of religious targets. A July list that included church and synagogue members prompted Homeland Security officials to hold a conference call with Jewish leaders to discuss the finding. The list was compiled from directories posted on the religious institutions’ websites.

That month, ISIS’ Dabiq magazine issue was titled “Break the Cross,” and argued “the true religion of Jesus Christ is a pure monotheistic submission – called Islam.” A lengthy theological argument in the issue concluded with the warning that “if you continue to disbelieve, then know that you shall be defeated and then dragged altogether into Hell as your eternal, wicked abode.” The magazine also profiled Abu Sa’d at-Trinidadi, a former Baptist from Trinidad and Tobago who converted to Islam and joined ISIS.

A hit list released by ISIS supporters the previous month featured thousands of American names including tech-industry execs and celebrities.

In June, PJM was able to download a 458-page kill list distributed by ISIS supporters on a file-sharing site. Most of the addresses on the list were in Ontario or Quebec. Many of the names were duplicates. Names appeared to follow no pattern other than being ordinary citizens, with their address, email and phone number posted. Some of the lines were gibberish, as if corrupt data had been downloaded in the process and was unedited by whoever prepared the list for release. There were two Canadians named Mohammad on the hit list.

Another #OpISIS hacker told PJM at the time that it appeared ISIS supporters were simply pulling names off of publicly accessible social media lists.

Occasionally, terrorists get hit-list names from hackers who have done their dirty work.

This year, a 20-year-old Kosovar named Ardit Ferizi was extradited from Malaysia after handing personal information of 1,351 U.S. government employees and military members over to late ISIS hacker Junaid Hussain and others in the organization “for the purpose of encouraging terrorist attacks against the identified individuals,” according to the FBI affidavit. The stolen information, which was pilfered from the website of an unidentified retail company, included emails and passwords, addresses and phone numbers.

After the hacking, in August 2015, Hussain posted a message from the Islamic State Hacking Division claiming that they’d hacked the U.S. military and government instead of snagging the information from a hacker of online shopping.

Hussain tweeted out the list with the warning: “We are in your emails and computer systems, watching and recording your every move, we have your names and addresses, we are in your emails and social media accounts, we are extracting confidential data and passing on your personal information to the soldiers of the khilafah, who soon with the permission of Allah will strike at your necks in your own lands!”

Hussain was killed that month. Other operations from his ISIS hacking division included the March 2015 release of a hit list containing the names of 100 U.S. military officers. This time they also claimed they hacked the Defense Department, but the Pentagon said the information posted by ISIS was accessible via social media and people-search sites. ISIS is believed to have compiled that list starting with news articles about anti-ISIS operations featuring the names of the targeted officers.

An Army guide on operational security (OPSEC) for service members and their families warns that an al-Qaeda handbook suggested terrorists search online for data about “government personnel and all matters related to them (residence, work place, times of leaving and returning, children and places visited).”

ISIS also maintains internal hit lists. Two ISIS terrorists murdered a priest during Mass in Normandy this July; the parish was one of several on a list found when an ISIS suspect was arrested in Paris in April 2015. Authorities believe the Algerian student had been in contact with ISIS figures in Syria about proposed church attacks.

ISIS and sympathizers have been moving many of their communications and dissemination of propaganda to the encrypted Telegram app, where the pre-Christmas posting about churches was located, for greater ease of communication as Twitter has cracked down on their accounts in fits and starts.

Also see:

 

Connecting the Dots Between Boston, Columbus and Berlin

161228bostonmarathonbombersConservative Headquarters, by George Rasley, CHQ Editor | 12/28/16

After every Muslim terrorist attack the establishment media, and others who refuse to take the Koran at face value, seem astonished that a young Muslim “immigrant” or “refugee” would wreak death on innocent non-believers.

They always want to discount the attack as the work of a “lone wolf” or someone who was disaffected or mentally ill.

And they are never prepared to admit that had the authorities acted on the clear information at hand and not been blinded or hog-tied by political correctness the attack could have been stopped.

In the case of the Boston Marathon bombing that killed 3, and injured an estimated 264 others, the perpetrators, Chechen “refugee” brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, should have been on the authorities’ radar because both the FBI and the CIA had been alerted to Tamerlan Tsarnaev by no less an authority on Chechen Muslim terrorism than the Russian security services.

The Russians, who have been fighting the Chechen Muslims since the 19th Century, had separately asked both the FBI (at least twice: during March and November 2011) and the CIA (September 2011) to look carefully into Tamerlan Tsarnaev and provide more information about him back to Russia.

The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) even secretly recorded phone conversations between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his mother Zubeidat Tsarnaeva (they vaguely and indirectly discussed jihad) and sent these to the FBI as evidence of possible extremist links within the family.

The March 2011, Russian Federal Security Service alert provided the FBI with information that Tamerlan and his mother Zubeidat Tsarnaeva were “adherents of radical Islam and that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was preparing to travel to Russia to join unspecified ‘bandit underground groups’ in Dagestan and Chechnya.

A government report released in April of 2014 detailed the failures of federal law enforcement officials to recognize Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a potential source of terrorism in the years before the Boston Marathon bombing. The document—an unclassified summary report from the Inspectors General of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security—called particular attention to an FBI interview of Tsarnaev in 2011 and the failure of a Boston agent of the Joint Terrorism Task Force to follow up on an automated alert that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was leaving the country for Dagestan.

Despite all of these revelations, the report concludes that “based on all of the information gathered during our coordinated review, we believe that the FBI, CIA, DHS, and NCTC…followed procedures appropriately.”

Translation: The information to stop this Muslim terrorist attack was there, but Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were allowed to carry out their deadly attack because the FBI, CIA, DHS, and NCTC procedures allowed them to.

In the case of Abdul Razak Ali Artan, the Ohio State Muslim terrorist who ran over and slashed 13 people who were hospitalized for injuries once again the signs that Artan was a potential terrorist were there.

According to Senator Chuck Grassley, while applying for entrance into the U.S. as a “refugee” from Somalia in 2013, Artan’s mother told immigration officials she feared persecution from al-Shabaab, an al-Qaida affiliated terrorist group, and believed Abdul and his siblings would be recruited into the organization if they remained in Somalia, the Daily Caller reported.

That knowledge should have led USCIS officials to “conduct additional questioning to better understand ties to a group that the United States designated as a foreign terrorist organization in 2008,” a letter Sen. Grassley sent to DHS said. But the additional questioning, which the Senator’s committee describes as “common practice” in those situations, never happened.

Artan’s mother also told government screeners that her husband had been kidnapped by al-Shabab.

All of these facts should have been red flags our friend Phil Haney, a former DHS screening officer, told WND’s Leo Hohmann.

Haney, a recently retired Homeland Security officer and co-author of the bombshell book “See Something Say Nothing,” said it’s not all that rare that a case with obvious red flags gets no response when passed up the line from the original interviewer at DHS because, says Haney, concerns about certain refugee cases began to be ignored as soon as Obama took office.

Translation: The information to stop this Muslim terrorist attack was there, but Abdul Razak Ali Artan was allowed to carry out his attack because the FBI, CIA, DHS, and NCTC procedures allowed him to.

Anis Amri, the main suspect in the Berlin Christmas market truck attack, was also on the radar as a potential terrorist before he entered Germany.

A Moroccan security official says that his country’s intelligence service warned Germany twice about the risk posed by Anis Amri, the radical Muslim who slaughtered 12 people at a Christmas market in Berlin earlier this month.

“Correspondence from the Moroccan security agencies had a clear warning about the Tunisian man’s desire to carry out a terrorist act,” an unnamed Moroccan official told the Turkish newspaper Daily Sabah.

The UK’s Daily Mail has documented that Amri was under surveillance for months, arrested and freed three times, and not deported allegedly because of a clerical error.

According to team reporting by the Daily Mail, German security officials had Amri under close surveillance between March and September this year because he was suspected of dealing drugs and planning robberies to finance the purchase of assault rifles.

The Tunisian radical was known to be a supporter of Islamic State and to have received weapons training.  He also tried to recruit an accomplice for a terror plot – which the authorities knew about – but still remained at large.

Amri was also under investigation for planning a ‘serious act of violence against the state’ and counter-terrorism officials had exchanged information about him last month and after he was named as the suspect it emerged Amri spent four years in an Italian prison for acts of violence and vandalism inside a migrant center where he was being kept following his arrival in Europe, the Daily Mail reported.

Before he was killed in a gun battle with a heroic Italian police officer, it was revealed that Amri had used at least six different aliases under three different nationalities and photographs show how he had changed his appearance over his years of freely moving about Europe even as the signs he was a dangerous terrorist mounted.

The Daily Mail reported that a senior German politician blamed the atrocity on “institutional political correctness,” arguing that Amri would not have been free to act if police had enforced the law.

Hugh Theodore Bronson, the deputy leader of the German political party AfD, said that German deportation law was ignored because the authorities were afraid of offending Muslims, reports Karin Bredenkamp of Free West Media.

Anis Amri, who was being monitored by police, would have been deported long ago if it wasn’t for a liberal “ideological agenda,” Bronson told MailOnline. “The law as it stands is not being implemented,” he said. “If it was, 12 people would still be alive, 48 people would not be in hospital, and there would have been no attack on Monday.”

“We are being too lenient in our implementation of the law. You can call it political correctness, you can call it an ideological agenda, but it cost 12 people their lives.”

No translation needed for Mr. Bronson’s comments.

The German authorities say they have at least 7,000 active Muslim terror suspects at large in their country and they do not have the resources to track them. The FBI and American Department of Homeland Security say that there are too many people like Tsarnaev and Artan across America today for the FBI to track them all—leaving the vast majority of people who the FBI suspects might harbor terrorist aspirations to plan their attacks without government surveillance.

So why would we allow more potential Muslim terrorists into our country?

The dots or common thread that runs through all of these Muslim atrocities is that the perpetrators entered their target countries as “refugees,” took the Koranic directives to kill unbelievers at face value, and most importantly, were allowed to carry out their plans by failed security procedures based upon institutional political correctness.

Recognizing that Islam is the threat, and implementing threat-based security procedures devoid of political correctness or ideological agendas is the only way to stop these attacks from continuing in what Muslims now consider to be “the era of total confrontation” with the West.

As Muslim Jihadi Strikes OSU, Media Drives the Deception Operation

osu

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, November 28, 2016:

UTT readers know, this war in which we are engaged with the Islamic Movement in the United States is primarily an Information War.

A Muslim refugee from Somalia named Abdul Razak Ali Artan is “scared” to pray so he tries to kill non-Muslims on the Ohio State University (OSU) campus with his vehicle and a knife before being shot dead by an OSU police officer.

What he did was legal under sharia (Islamic Law).  Its all about sharia.

American mainstream media pushes the narrative that we simple cannot know what drove this poor young man.

CNN’s headline reads “Searching for a Reason.”

cnn2

Fox News says “The motive behind the attack is still unclear.”

NBC news writes “Officials cautioned that they have not determined a motive for the ambush.”

jihad-stupidWhere are the credible journalists?

A Somali Muslim plows over people with his car, then jumps out with a knife yelling allah u akbar.  For the media to say they do not know the motive is for the media to be waging an information campaign for the enemies of the United States.

mccaul

In come the political elite:  House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) said “we do not yet have confirmation of terrorist connections” to the attack, but he added “this is the type of indiscriminate violence our enemies are urging their followers to use against us.”

Sorry Congressman, this is not “indiscriminate violence.”  This is jihad being waged for the purpose of establishing a caliphate under sharia.  More specifically, this is jihad waged to cause fear to get Americans to further submit to Islam.  Abdul Artan was “scared” to pray because Americans were not providing an environment with more room for sharia.  Therefore, we get violence.

Perhaps if Mr. McCaul were not so busy supporting the jihadis by pushing the CVE program, getting it funded, and doing the business of our enemies, he might have more time to study our enemy and do his duty.

Congressman Adam Schiff, (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said Artan “may have been self-radicalized.”  What does that even mean?  “Self-radicalized?”  Abdul Artan was following the sharia which comes from the Koran and the example of the Muslim prophet Mohammad. And Adam Schiff serves on the “Intelligence Committee” for the United States House of Representatives.

And of course, in comes Hamas – doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – and no one in the mainstream media mentions they are a Hamas organization.  No one mentions they are terrorists.

Hamas Leaders in Ohio speaking to their lapdogs in the media

Hamas Leaders in Ohio speaking to their lapdogs in the media

CNN finished their piece by promoting CAIR as a soft and cuddly organization that just wants peace:       “As Ohioans, as Americans and as Muslims, we’re shocked by today’s senseless attack,” said Roula Allouch, national board chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations…Jennifer Nimer, legal director for CAIR’s Ohio chapter, urged the public not to jump to conclusions about Artan’s motive.

Good news is Hamas (dba CAIR) now has 3 offices in Ohio – Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus.

Americans elected Mr. Trump because there was some realization our leaders, media, and system has been utterly corrupted.  What will happen when they realize their leaders and media are working with our enemies against them with no response from federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies which have also been catastrophically corrupted?

Who can we thank for these continuing and increasing attacks?  Who can we thank for a disintegrating security in American hometowns?  President Obama, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Kerry, Congressman McCaul, Governor Chris Christie, Governor John Kasich, Senator John McCain, Senator Marco Rubio, and all of the other treasonous officials in the American government who continue to provide aid and comfort for our enemies while denigrating people speaking truth about a clear and present danger to the American people and our communities.

It is time, citizens, to understand the threat.  Join UTT to educate, train, and prepare America for this growing cancer, so it can be defeated.  No matter who is President, this war will be won or lost at the local level.

Here’s A Few Other Reasons Muslim Hate Crimes Spiked In 2015 That Have Nothing To Do With Trump

Tashfeen Malik, (L), and Syed Farook are pictured passing through Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in this July 27, 2014 handout photo obtained by Reuters December 8, 2015. REUTERS/US Customs and Border Protection/Handout via Reuters

Tashfeen Malik, (L), and Syed Farook are pictured passing through Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport in this July 27, 2014 handout photo obtained by Reuters December 8, 2015. REUTERS/US Customs and Border Protection/Handout via Reuters

Daily Caller, by Saagar Enjeti, 11/15/2016

Several headlines coming out about the FBI’s report on a 67 percent spike in hate crimes on U.S. Muslims in 2015 seem intent on attributing that spike to President-elect Donald Trump’s candidacy.

First and foremost, Trump didn’t announce his candidacy until June 2015, and his most cited transgression — the Muslim immigration ban — did not occur until December 2015.

Meanwhile, the slaughtering of a dozen cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo Jan. 7 and a staggering 1,200 sexual assaults in Cologne, Germany, Dec. 31 bracket a year of demonstrably bad headlines for the Muslim community ringing loud in the ears of the West.

Comprehensive retelling of history didn’t stop The New York Times deputy Washington editor from insinuating the rise in hate crimes are a burden of Trump’s 2016 campaign rhetoric.

While bearing brief mention of the tangible surge in high-profile Islamic attacks across the U.S. and Europe, media discussion of the FBI’s findings tends to put emphasis on Trump’s rhetoric.

Aside from the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, 2015 saw bloody Islamic State victories across Syria, the November Paris attacks, and then the December San Bernardino terrorist attacks. Collectively, these attacks killed nearly 200 people in the West and thousands in the Middle East.

These attacks were themselves spikes in a rather moderate, but consistent hum of bad news streaming from Muslim refugee camps popping up all around Europe.

Hate crimes against Muslim Americans historically correlate to terrorist attacks. Indeed, 9/11 is the news peg wider media seems most eager to cite along with Trump’s 2015 run.

To the end of avoiding key omissions, the Paris and San Bernardino attacks prompted widespread discussion of U.S. immigration and refugee policy.  Which makes sense, as the San Bernardino attacker, Tashfeen Malik, entered the U.S. on a spousal visa, and at least some of the Paris attackers entered Europe posing as Syrian refugees.

The Syrian refugee debate focused not only on counter-terrorism, but on troubling criminal incidents occurring all across Europe. German police documents indicate nearly 2,000 men, including many Syrian and Iraqi refugee’s, sexually assaulted 1,200 German women on New Years Eve 2015.

Berlin’s biggest pool was even forced to hire burly security guards to deter Muslim refugees from touching women. German civil society organizations also have created councils to teach refugees Western norms at pools — chief among these norms is not touching women.

The sharp rise in high-profile Western terrorist attacks and the flow of nearly 2 million Muslim refugees into Europe may have had more of an effect in stoking anger towards Muslim Americans than campaign rhetoric, which really didn’t hit its crescendo until early 2016.

CAIR Whips Pre-Election Hysteria and Fear Against FBI

shiblyIPT News
November 7, 2016

Federal law enforcement officials reported concern Friday over vague threats of an al-Qaida terrorist attack that could come today in an attempt to disrupt Tuesday’s U.S. elections. Three states – New York, Virginia, and Texas – were identified as potential targets.

So it makes sense that FBI agents in eight states reportedly wore out some shoe leather during the weekend, knocking on doors of people with family connections to Afghanistan or Pakistan – both operating bases for al-Qaida. One of those questioned reportedly is a youth group leader. Others were doctors.

No one was arrested.

To the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), this is an “outrageous and … borderline unconstitutional” “sweep” of American Muslim leaders.

The Dallas Morning News, Washington Post and Time magazine all published stories on the FBI action, offering little in the way of push-back to CAIR’s narrative.

The FBI is “harassing” Muslims in Oklahoma, CAIR’s state director Adam Soltani wrote on Facebook, Time reported.

CAIR-Florida director Hasan Shibly heard from six people contacted by the FBI, the Post story said. CAIR’s Texas office heard from 17 people. The stories lamenting this alleged FBI outrage, therefore, offered two dozen examples nationally.

CAIR officials sounded the alarm on social media, urging Muslims not to say anything to the FBI without a lawyer present. The organization offered to provide counsel to those who needed it. CAIR’s campaign then attracted the media coverage.

Calling it a “sweep,” as Shibly did, usually connotes mass arrests, not knocks on people’s doors. The Post at least placed the word in quotes.

This raises a question: What is the FBI supposed to do when it learns terror plots may be in the works? The news stories don’t say. They do quote CAIR officials expressing their outrage.

“The FBI actions … to conduct a sweep of American Muslim leaders the weekend before the election is completely outrageous and … borderline unconstitutional,” Shibly told the Post. “That’s the equivalent of the FBI visiting churchgoing Christians because someone overseas was threatening to blow up an abortion clinic. It’s that preposterous and outrageous.”

No, it’s not at all like that. There is no foreign terrorist network advocating American abortion foes to attack clinics. ISIS and al-Qaida have spent years advocating random, homegrown terror attacks in online videos, social media and in glossy publications.

It’s a disturbingly effective message, proven successful by the number of people who have tried to leave the country to join ISIS, or who have been arrested trying to do so, or who have plotted to carry out attacks.

Horrible attacks in just the past year show that individual actors responding to the call to jihad can create huge casualty counts. Omar Mateen killed 49 people at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub, pausing in his slaughter to call 911 and pledge allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people at an office Christmas party in San Bernardino last December.

And in September, 29 people were injured when a homemade bomb went off in a Manhattan dumpster. A second bomb was found nearby. Investigators later found five additional unexploded bombs in a trash can in Elizabeth, N.J. near a transit station.

CAIR officials insist they are not trying to hinder the FBI. They say they merely are ensuring people know about, and use, their constitutional right to have counsel present for any questioning. But CAIR’s long record of sowing fear against the FBI casts doubt on that assertion.

482Its “Know Your Rights” lectures have long included claims of tales of FBI agents breaking the law and willing to do anything in order to snare innocent Muslims. FBI agents are depicted as sinister forces lurking outside Muslim homes in images carrying the message “Build a Wall of Resistance: Don’t Talk to the FBI.”

Indictments of terror suspects involving informants and undercover agents are always dismissed by the group as entrapment, though no jury or court has agreed. A December promotional page touting an “entrapment workshop” depicting the FBI as a spider out to snare the Muslim community in its web remains active on CAIR’s Philadelphia office website.

1323

Last year, when authorities in Boston overheard a terror suspect they had been monitoring say he was going to go out and start stabbing police officers, CAIR spent days casting Usaama Rahim’s subsequent death as unjust despite video showing Rahim lunged at officers ordering him to drop a military grade knife.

No one would have learned that fact from reading any of the stories parroting CAIR’s outrage, unless he or she conducted independent web searches. Likewise, readers would not know that the FBI broke off outreach communication with CAIR in 2008, after an investigation placed the organization and its founders in the middle of a Muslim Brotherhood-created Hamas support network in America.

“[U]ntil we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner,” an FBI official explained in 2009. The policy remains in effect 7½ years later.

Once upon a time, the Morning News had CAIR’s number, investigating and exposing radical Islamist activity supporting Hamas in north Texas during the 1990s. The Posthas never devoted a story to the evidence that led to the policy.

The FBI declined to comment, the two newspapers reported. But missing from the stories were perspectives from retired law enforcement officials, at the very least, and an explanation about how the Bureau works in situations like this. This context would have been a service to readers, offering balance to CAIR’s talking points.

People in eight states are being targeted for questioning, the Post reported. “Several of the states — including Florida and Pennsylvania — are viewed as crucial swing states heading into the presidential election Tuesday,” the story said, underscoring Shibly’s claim that this is some kind of pre-election intimidation campaign.

But other states, especially Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, are not considered competitive Tuesday. No CAIR official presented anything to support the organization’s allegation that voter intimidation is in play. Yet, the Post and a story on Fusion.net included it.

Fusion’s story argued that the FBI is somehow ignoring threats of violence from white nationalists and militias, a claim belied by recent arrests.

If the FBI started arresting Muslim Americans without cause, CAIR’s campaign of fear and hysteria might make sense. But pursuing information about a possible terrorist attack, in swing states and decidedly red states, is not sinister.

It’s their responsibility.

Erik Prince: NYPD Ready to Make Arrests in Anthony Weiner Case

huma-abedin-hillary-clinton-anthony-weiner-sexting-1-ap-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, November 4, 2016:

Blackwater founder and retired Navy SEAL Erik told Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM that according to one of his “well-placed sources” in the New York Police Department, “the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making” in the Anthony Weiner investigation, but received “huge pushback” from the Justice Department.

Prince began by saying he had no problem believing reports that the FBI was highly confident multiple foreign agencies hacked Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“I mean, it’s not like the foreign intelligence agencies leave a thank-you note after they’ve hacked and stolen your data,” Prince said to SiriusXM host Alex Marlow.

Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server last week.

“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.

“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.

“The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.

“I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That’s the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince said.

“There’s five different parts of the FBI conducting investigations into these things, with constant downdrafts from the Obama Justice Department. So in the, I hope, unlikely and very unfortunate event that Hillary Clinton is elected president, we will have a constitutional crisis that we have not seen since, I believe, 1860,” Prince declared.

Marlow asked Prince to clarify these revelations.

“NYPD was the first one to look at that laptop,” Prince elaborated. “Weiner and Huma Abedin, his wife – the closest adviser of Hillary Clinton for 20 years – have both flipped. They are cooperating with the government. They both have – they see potential jail time of many years for their crimes, for Huma Abedin sending and receiving and even storing hundreds of thousands of messages from the State Department server and from Hillary Clinton’s own homebrew server, which contained classified information. Weiner faces all kinds of exposure for the inappropriate sexting that was going on and for other information that they found.”

“So NYPD first gets that computer. They see how disgusting it is. They keep a copy of everything, and they pass a copy on to the FBI, which finally pushes the FBI off their chairs, making Comey reopen that investigation, which was indicated in the letter last week. The point being, NYPD has all the information, and they will pursue justice within their rights if the FBI doesn’t,” Prince contended.

“There is all kinds of criminal culpability through all the emails they’ve seen of that 650,000, including money laundering, underage sex, pay-for-play, and, of course, plenty of proof of inappropriate handling, sending/receiving of classified information, up to SAP level Special Access Programs,” he stated.

“So the plot thickens. NYPD was pushing because, as an article quoted one of the chiefs – that’s the level just below commissioner – he said as a parent, as a father with daughters, he could not let that level of evil continue,” Prince said.

He noted that the FBI can investigate these matters, “but they can’t convene a grand jury.They can’t file charges.”

“The prosecutors, the Justice Department has to do that,” he explained. “Now, as I understand it, Preet Bharara, the Manhattan prosecutor, has gotten ahold of some of this. From what I hear, he’s a stand-up guy, and hopefully he does the right thing.”

Marlow agreed that Bharara’s “sterling reputation” as a determined prosecutor was “bad news for the Clintons.”

Prince agreed, but said, “If people are willing to bend or break the law and don’t really care about the Constitution or due process – if you’re willing to use Stalinist tactics against someone – who knows what level of pressure” could be brought to bear against even the most tenacious law enforcement officials?

“The point being, fortunately, it’s not just the FBI; [there are] five different offices that are in the hunt for justice, but the NYPD has it as well,” Prince said, citing the Wall Street Journal reporting that has “exposed downdraft, back pressure from the Justice Department” against both the FBI and NYPD, in an effort to “keep the sunlight and the disinfecting effects of the truth and transparency from shining on this great evil that has gone on, and is slowly being exposed.”

“The Justice Department is trying to run out the clock, to elect Hillary Clinton, to prevent any real justice from being done,” he warned.

As for the mayor of New York City, Prince said he has heard that “de Blasio wants to stay away from this.”

“The evidence is so bad, the email content is so bad, that I think even he wants to stay away from it, which is really telling,” he said.

Prince reported that the other legislators involved in the case “have not been named yet,” and urged the NYPD to hold a press conference and name them.

“I wish they’d do it today,” he said. “These are the unusual sliding-door moments of history, that people can stand up and be counted, and make a real difference, and to save a Republic, save a Constitution that we actually need and love, that our forefathers fought and died for. For any cop that is aware of this level of wrongdoing, and they have veterans in their family, or deceased veterans in their family, they owe it to them to stand up, to stand and be counted today, and shine the light of truth on this great evil.”

“From what I understand, up to the commissioner or at least the chief level in NYPD, they wanted to have a press conference, and DOJ, Washington people, political appointees have been exerting all kinds of undue pressure on them to back down,” he added.

Marlow suggested that some of those involved in keeping the details quiet might want to avoid accusations of politicizing the case and seeking to influence the presidential election.

“Sure, that’s it. That’s the argument for it,” Prince agreed. “But the fact is, you know that if the Left had emails pointing to Donald Trump visiting, multiple times, an island with underage sex slaves basically, emails, you know they’d be talking about it. They’d be shouting it from the rooftops.”

“This kind of evil, this kind of true dirt on Hillary Clinton – look, you don’t have to make any judgments. Just release the emails,” he urged. “Just dump them. Let them out there. Let people see the light of truth.”

Prince dismissed the claims of people like Clinton campaign CEO John Podesta and DNC chair Donna Brazile that some of the damaging emails already released by WikiLeaks were fabricated, noting that “forensic analysis done shows that, indeed, they are not fabricated; they are really legitimate.”

“This is stuff coming right off a hard drive that was owned by Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest adviser for the last 20 years,” he said of the new bombshells. “This is not from some hacker or anybody else. This is a laptop seized from a warrant in a criminal investigation.”

Prince confirmed that based on his information, Abedin is most likely looking at jail time, unless she cuts a deal with prosecutors.

“There’s a minimum of obstruction of justice and all kinds of unlawful handling of classified information,” he said. “Because remember, this laptop was in the possession of Weiner, who did not have a security clearance. And many, many of those emails were from her Yahoo account, which had State Department emails forwarded to them, so she could easier print these messages, scan them, and send them on to Hillary. That’s the carelessness that Hillary and her staff had for the classified information that the intelligence community risks life and limb to collect in challenged, opposed areas around the world.”

“That’s not who you want in the White House,” Prince declared.

Also see:

Frank Gaffney: FBI Will Probably Find Huma Abedin ‘Playing Fast and Loose’ with Facts

Getty

Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, November 3, 2016:

On Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said he “takes no satisfaction” from the renewed FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton, even though the latest developments have thrown a spotlight on top Clinton aide Huma Abedin – someone Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy have long warned was a more important, and troubling, figure than the mainstream media admit.

“I’d rather be wrong,” he told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow. “I really mean that. For the country’s sake, to be honest with you. But in this case, four years ago, we produced a course that’s still available online called MuslimBrotherhoodInAmerica.com. And Hillary’s right-hand woman, Huma Abedin, featured prominently in it as an example – just one example, but as an example of Islamist influence operations inside the United States government.”

“I made that contention on the grounds that Huma Abedin, at that time, was known to have essentially her entire family involved in what was a Muslim Brotherhood front group called the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs,” he explained. “And the question occurred to me – and, in due course, to several members of Congress, led by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann – that hey, wait, maybe if you have somebody that’s got that kind of personal investment in Islamic supremacism, it might have something to do with the fact that the State Department (and the Obama administration, more generally, but specifically the department in whom Huma Abedin then worked as a deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton) was aligning its policies so dramatically with the dictates of the Brotherhood, on a whole host of issues.”

Gaffney provided some examples of those issues: “You know, letting in Tariq Ramadan, something Hillary Clinton personally did. One of the, you know, sort of capo de capos of the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandson of its founder. Engaging the Brotherhood and suppressing freedom of speech. Helping overthrow friends of ours, such as they were, in the Middle East in favor of Muslim Brotherhood regimes or jihadist groups of other stripes. And on and on. Now we’ve learned, of course, of mishandling of classified information and the like.”

“But Alex, here’s the point: This was an inquiry, the concerns of Michele Bachmann and four other congressmen, that led to an official request of the State Department’s inspector general to look into this possible, very troubling correlation. And you know who stepped up to shut that down? None other than Republican Senator John McCain. And we now know, thanks to WikiLeaks explorations of John Podesta’s emails, that John Podesta and the Clinton team took credit for setting John McCain up to that,” Gaffney revealed.

“And the real message here – and why I feel regretful about this vindication, such as it is – is poor Michele Bachmann, who simply was doing her job in Congress, suffered the consequences of it. Her career was essentially destroyed when John McCain denounced her on the Floor of the United States Senate. And what’s really bad is that every other member of Congress basically, until very recently, had taken the message: You don’t want to touch this question of Islamist influence operations,” he warned.

“Thanks to Breitbart, you guys have done your heroic work in exploring this. Few others have, but not nearly enough. Had we done more – had that inquiry gone forward, Alex – perhaps some of the damage I believe Huma Abedin is now being examined for having done might have been prevented. At least we would have known about it four years ago,” Gaffney said.

Marlow asked Gaffney if he thinks FBI Director James Comey has “got the goods” on Hillary Clinton and her aides or if the renewed investigation is just a “political thing.”

“We don’t know, but my guess is, in 650,000 emails which we’re told are on Anthony Weiner’s computer, that were from Huma Abedin’s account, I’m reasonably sure you’re gonna find lots of classified information that shouldn’t have been there,” Gaffney replied.

He also anticipated the FBI would discover more evidence that “Huma Abedin was playing fast and loose – in the service of Hillary Clinton, to be sure – with all of the procedures for handling such classified information.”

“And that has resulted, according to Congressman Chris Stewart, who I talked with yesterday, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, that the compromise not just of that information, but of sources and methods by which it’s obtained, which is a hugely serious problem,” Gaffney said.

“I think you’re also going to see that Hillary’s right-hand gal perjured herself repeatedly in the course of the investigations conducted to date, and that in so doing has helped to cover up Hillary’s own malfeasance in many of these areas,” he added. “It’s the tip of the iceberg, what we know so far. I think if the FBI does do its job, and that’s a big ‘if,’ we’re going to find out a lot more about what was really a criminal conspiracy.”

Gaffney recommended a video called “Who is Huma Abedin?” which he said exposes “not simply that her father and her mother and her sister and her brother are all in a family business that was established by a guy by the name of Abdullah Omar Nasif – one of the top Saudi financiers of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood – but that Huma herself was involved in this family business, the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, through its Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs.”

“And here’s the other thing about this, Alex: the Journal, and the Institute of which it was the sort of mainstay, had as its express purpose, in a radical Islamist sense, promoting Muslim minority rights by encouraging Muslims not to assimilate in countries in which they were minorities – to become, in other words, part of the Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure that was ultimately designed to take down those non-Muslim majority countries,” he said.

“This is the thing that’s so troubling,” Gaffney argued. “You had a woman with this in her DNA, if you will, at the right hand of the Secretary of State, and before that, the Senator from New York, and before that the First Lady of the United States. There’s no question, the more we look into this, Alex, with these emails hopefully shedding further light on it, we’re gonna find more and more evidence, I think, not only of Huma Abedin’s direct involvement in the compromise of classified information and various other misconduct with respect to treating classified communications and conversations and devices in inappropriate ways, but also advancing the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

He said the “most worrying” example was “promoting this idea that our freedom of speech must be restricted so as not to give offense to Muslims.”

“This is being used against Breitbart. It’s being used against me and my Center for Security Policy. We’re attending a meeting up in Stoughton, Massachusetts, tonight, which will be picketed by – get this – not only the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Hamas front group, but also rabbis and interfaith dialoguers of various stripes, and who knows who all else – all designed to suppress me and other patriots who are warning about this Islamist supremacist agenda that Huma Abedin has advanced,” Gaffney said. “The object is to silence us because the President has said, at the United Nations, ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.’ Think about it.”

“This is the story of our time,” he concluded. “It could be the time bomb that actually takes down Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. At the very least, the American people need to know, as they vote, whether we’re going to get more of the same – more of this embrace of the Islamists and enabling of their agenda – or whether we’re gonna get a course correction. I pray it will be the latter.”

LISTEN:

Is the Abedin/Weiner Laptop the Last of It?

Abedin and Clinton at the Democratic presidential debate in Iowa, November 15, 2016. (Reuters photo: Jim Young)

Abedin and Clinton at the Democratic presidential debate in Iowa, November 15, 2016. (Reuters photo: Jim Young)

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, November 3, 2016:

A nagging question has been lost amid the tempest over the FBI’s revival of the Clinton e-mails investigation. As everyone knows, the file has been reopened because of a trove of e-mails found on a laptop shared by top Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, Anthony Weiner. What we don’t know, however, is: Why has the FBI only recently learned about a computer used by Ms. Abedin?

Remember, Abedin is said to have cooperated in the Clinton e-mails investigation and sat for a lengthy interview with FBI agents. The agents asked her about her e-mail practices. Assuming they asked basic questions, as agents are trained to do, they would have methodically itemized the computers and e-mail accounts she used. Yet, the Abedin/Weiner computer, which is said to contain 650,000 e-mails (an unknown number of which are relevant to the Clinton investigation), was not acquired by the bureau in connection with the Clinton investigation. It was seized in an unrelated investigation of Weiner, reportedly involving his alleged “sexting” with a teenage minor.

Why did the FBI agents on the Clinton e-mails investigation fail to acquire and search this computer months earlier? The question becomes more pressing in light of the Washington Examiner’s report that the FBI failed to ask not only Abedin but other Clinton aides to surrender their computers, smartphones, or other communications devices.

Now, there could be a good explanation, at least in connection with some Clinton aides. If, after a reasonably thorough investigation, the FBI had found no indication that potentially classified information was transmitted or stored on a particular device, there’d be no need to seize it. Let’s say X is a Clinton staffer. Let’s also say the FBI finds that X appears only to have used her government e-mail account for official business; that X did not have an account on the clintonemail.com domain; that whenever Clinton or other government officials e-mailed X, they addressed the e-mail to X’s state.gov account; and that X was cooperative when interviewed and convincingly said she never used her private e-mail for government business. Under those circumstances, it would be reasonable not to ask for the surrender of X’s private cellphone or computers.

Let’s now consider, though, the case we actually have. Several Clinton staffers appear to have sent and received e-mails about government business on private devices and private e-mail accounts. A number of those e-mail exchanges involved classified intelligence. It seems like a no-brainer to me that these devices should have been seized and searched.

Why was this not done? There are at least four reasons, none of them good.

First, the Obama Justice Department under Loretta Lynch denied the FBI’s Clinton e-mails investigators access to the grand jury. The grand jury’s power to compel production of evidence and testimony is the source of much of the FBI’s power to convince people to be cooperative. Defanged by DOJ, investigators were forced to negotiate and cajole when they should have been able to demand. That makes it much harder to investigate. It undoubtedly drummed into the agents the message that they should not press too many requests for the voluntary surrender of items the owners would not want to part with — and no one wants to give up personal laptops and smartphones. If a request made by an agent was denied, the agent could have no confidence that the Justice Department would back him.

Second, the Good Ship Clinton overflows with lawyers. It is also very close to the Obama Justice Department (many Obama-administration lawyers were once Clinton-administration lawyers). Lawyers know that the FBI worries about being accused of violating attorney-client privileged communications. They also know that the Obama Justice Department is indulgent of extravagant claims about what the attorney-client privilege shields from disclosure. Lawyers’ devices are thus a big hassle for agents, and they no doubt shy away from asking for them unless it’s patently necessary (as it was, for example, with the laptops of Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, since those computers were used to store and vet all of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails). And when you start shying away from seeking access to the computers of important subjects (such as Mills) because you don’t want to deal with lawyer complications, it becomes much easier to rationalize not seeking the devices of other subjects. Once it is established by habit that obtaining computers is not a priority, you stop asking.

Third, it’s never good to compartmentalize an investigation. In this case, the classified e-mails investigation has apparently been severed from the Clinton Foundation investigation, as if they were completely separate and unrelated. When obviously related matters are joined together, there is a broader basis to demonstrate probable cause that evidentiary items, such as computers, are relevant and should be seized. But that advantage is lost when what should be one investigation is divided into two or more. If you are an agent investigating the classified e-mails case, you are not going to make efforts to acquire a computer that might be very relevant to the Clinton Foundation investigation but only marginally tied to the classified-information probe. When an investigation is artificially carved up, agents do not see the big picture: Things that ought to be acquired end up falling through the cracks.

Fourth and finally, there is the enervating effect of working on an investigation that agents strongly suspect is not going to result in charges. Even as the agents on the classified-information investigation gradually assembled compelling evidence, they had to know that the president and the Justice Department were very unenthusiastic about the case. President Obama talked the investigation down, going out of his way to say Mrs. Clinton would never do anything to harm national security. Justice Department officials leaked the same message to the press.

Put yourself in the shoes of FBI agents who witness things they’ve never seen before: subjects of the investigation given immunity from prosecution and then allowed to appear as lawyers for other subjects; Justice Department lawyers more accommodating of defense lawyers than of FBI agents; witnesses who lie to the FBI given immunity rather than being arrested and squeezed for cooperation. The agents see the handwriting on the wall that their hard work is going to come to nothing. An agent no doubt asks himself: “Why should I push to acquire this computer? If DOJ wanted me to have it, they’d let me subpoena it; if they wanted to make the case, some of these suspects would already be in cuffs.”

This is an understandable attitude, but it’s not an acceptable one. The FBI is not just the nation’s premier investigative agency; it is also our domestic-security service. Wholly apart from whether a computer contains evidence that can be used to prosecute a case, that computer has become a threat to national security if — as a private device that is not hardened against espionage and operates on networks that are not hardened against espionage — it is likely to contain classified information. Even if no one is indicted, the hacking or dissemination of the intelligence on the computer could damage national security.

The reports of the FBI’s investigation that have been made public indicate that there could be dozens of computers and other communications devices which may be storing classified information, but which the FBI has neither seized nor made plans to try to obtain. If that is true, it is inexplicable. That the Justice Department and senior FBI officials have adopted a theory that undermines prosecution of crimes involving mishandling of intelligence is beside the point.

It also raises another question: Is the Abedin/Weiner laptop the last one? Or will late discoveries continue to rock Camp Clinton and roil our politics?

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

‘Validly Predicated Investigation’: Reports Prove FBI ‘Aggressively Investigating’ Clinton Foundation For Potential Pay To Play Crimes

Spencer Platt/Getty Images/AFP

Spencer Platt/Getty Images/AFP

Breitbart, by Matthew Boyle, November 2, 2016:

NEW YORK CITY, New York — A pair of reports out on Wednesday evening from two of the nation’s biggest broadcasters brings gloomy news for the already hurting presidential campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton: The FBI has been “aggressively investigating” the Clinton Foundation for a year.

All of this comes as a third report, from the Wall Street Journal, walks through how “secret recordings” have “fueled” the FBI’s criminal investigation into the Clinton Foundation—a separate but parallel probe from the Hillary Clinton email scandal.

Pamela Brown, CNN’s Justice Department correspondent, announced on air on Wednesday:

My colleague Evan Perez and I have spoken to more than a dozen officials and agents and have learned that agents in the FBI wanted to aggressively investigate the Clinton Foundation several months ago. Earlier in the year, the Justice Department told the FBI essentially you don’t have enough evidence here for predication to get more tools such as warrants and subpoenas. ‘Go back and see what else you can dig up.’ We are told that after the Clinton email probe initially wrapped up in July that those agents wanted to continue their work on the case and again DOJ said ‘you don’t have enough evidence here to really investigate’ and so things are sort of on hold and this has sort of caused tensions to flare in the FBI and the Department of Justice. Some of those agents feel like those roadblocks are politically-driven.

WATCH PAMELA BROWN’S CNN REPORT ON CLINTON FOUNDATION CORRUPTION PROBE:

Similarly, over on Fox News, Special Report anchor Bret Baier dropped another bombshell on Wednesday night:

Two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations into the Clinton emails and the Clinton Foundation tell Fox the following: The investigation into the Clinton Foundation, looking into possible pay-for-play interaction between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Foundation has been going on for more than a year led by the White Collar Crime Division, Public Corruption Branch of the Criminal Investigative Division of the FBI. The Clinton Foundation investigation is a ‘very high priority.’ Agents have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple people about the Foundation case and even before the WikiLeaks dumps these sources said agents had collected a great deal of evidence. Pressed on that, one source said ‘a lot of it, and there is an avalanche of new information coming in every day—some of it from WikiLeaks, some from new emails.’ The agents are actively and aggressively pursuing this case and they will be going back and interviewing the same people again, some for the third time. As a result of the limited immunity deals to top aides including Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, the Justice Department had tentatively agreed that the Justice Department would destroy those laptops after a narrow review. We are told definitively that has not happened and those devices are currently in the FBI field office here in Washington, D.C., and are being exploited. The source points out any immunity deal is null and void if any subject has lied at any point in the investigation.

Baier also had new information on the investigation—a separate but parallel criminal probe—into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Baier reported:

Meanwhile, the classified email investigation is being run by the National Security Division of the FBI. They are currently combing through former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop. They have found emails they believe came from Hillary Clinton’s server and that also appear to be new—as in, not duplicates. Whether they contain classified material or not is not yet known, but will likely be known soon.

WATCH BRET BAIER ANNOUNCE THE BOMBSHELLS ON FOX NEWS

The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday night also broke a big story on this front.

“Secret Recordings Fueled FBI Feud in Clinton Probe,” read the headline from the Wall Street Journal’s Devlin Barrett and Christopher Matthews, with a sub-headline reading: “Agents thought they had enough material to merit aggressively pursuing investigation into Clinton Foundation.”

“Secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton Foundation fueled an internal battle between FBI agents who wanted to pursue the case and corruption prosecutors who viewed the statements as worthless hearsay, people familiar with the matter said,” Barrett and Matthews wrote.

In the wake of Breitbart News Editor at Large and Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer’s bombshell spring 2015 book Clinton Cash, the Wall Street Journal reported that FBI agents “using informants and recordings from unrelated corruption investigations, thought they had found enough material to merit aggressively pursuing the investigation into the foundation.”

Agents wanted to pursue a more aggressive investigation, they reported, but officials at the politically tainted Department of Justice wouldn’t let them. The Wall Street Journalreporters wrote:

Starting in February and continuing today, investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and public-corruption prosecutors became increasingly frustrated with each other, as often happens within and between departments. At the center of the tension stood the U.S. attorney for Brooklyn, Robert Capers, who some at the FBI came to view as exacerbating the problems by telling each side what it wanted to hear, these people said. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Capers declined to comment. The roots of the dispute lie in a disagreement over the strength of the case, these people said, which broadly centered on whether Clinton Foundation contributors received favorable treatment from the State Department under Hillary Clinton. Senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI didn’t think much of the evidence, while investigators believed they had promising leads their bosses wouldn’t let them pursue, they said.

But more importantly, FBI agents actually presented the case to prosecutors—after which they were told by officials in the politically controlled DOJ to “stand down.” Barrett and Matthews wrote:

As 2015 came to a close, the FBI and Justice Department had a general understanding that neither side would take major action on Clinton Foundation matters without meeting and discussing it first. In February, a meeting was held in Washington among FBI officials, public-integrity prosecutors and Leslie Caldwell, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division. Prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York—Mr. Capers’ office—didn’t attend, these people said. The public-integrity prosecutors weren’t impressed with the FBI presentation, people familiar with the discussion said. ‘The message was, ‘We’re done here,’ ‘ a person familiar with the matter said. Justice Department officials became increasingly frustrated that the agents seemed to be disregarding or disobeying their instructions. Following the February meeting, officials at Justice Department headquarters sent a message to all the offices involved to ‘stand down,’ a person familiar with the matter said.

Most damning for the Clintons, however, is the revelation that according to the Wall Street Journal report, even FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe confirmed that the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation was a “validly predicated investigation” to some people at the Justice Department who tried to shut down the case.

***

FBI Leaks: Clinton Foundation Probe a ‘Very High Priority,’ Will Likely Lead to an Indictment

“Because my former assistant Jim Comey made the wrong decision in July,” Giuliani replied. “You have outraged FBI agents that talk to me. They’re outraged at the injustice. They’re outraged by being turned down by the Justice Department to open a grand jury. They are convinced that Loretta Lynch has corrupted the Justice Department. You’ve got people in the Justice Department  involved in this investigation who were defense lawyers for Clinton people…. This is about as outrageous a corruption of the Justice Department that we’ve  seen.”

Giuliani said that the dissension within the FBI is very real.

“These are men and women who uphold the law. They’re not a bunch of slimy Washington politicians like the Obama administration and the people Clinton would bring in. And the reality is that they are outraged with what they have seen,” the former prosecutor said.

“Mrs. Clinton has violated easily 20 – 30 federal laws,” he continued. “I could outline them for you, I could show you how I could prosecute and convict her.”

Giuliani said that back in July when he read FBI Director Comey’s prosecutorial memo about the email case, “it was just the opposite of what he said.”

He continued, “Every reasonable prosecutor would have prosecuted that case in a second. I’ve won convictions on half the evidence that the FBI had gotten in July, and Jim has an FBI that’s in revolt right now and I think that’s one of the reasons he came out and did what he did to try to control his agents — who after all are true law enforcement people. And what they see is some of the slimiest stuff that we’ve seen in Washington since probably Teapot Dome.”

“This is worse that Watergate,” Giuliani declared. “They’ve corrupted the State Department with ‘pay to play’ and they’ve corrupted the Justice Department. You can’t go much further than that, Megyn.”

Also see: 

In case you haven’t seen it yet:

Clintonworld’s Top 5 Active FBI Investigations

Getty, AP

Getty, AP

Breitbart, by John Hayward, November 1, 2016:

There are enough active investigations of Hillary Clinton and her inner circle to merit a list of the most important ones. In short, just about everyone tied to Hillary Clinton is the subject of a serious investigation. Not all of them were are the beneficiaries of those curious preemptive immunity deals tossed around by FBI leadership, to the consternation of some agents.

1. Clinton Email Scandal: As everyone knows, this supposedly de-railed investigation was dramatically hoisted back onto the rails by none other than Anthony Weiner – the accused pedophile who ended up with a huge trove of State Department emails on his computer, which the FBI seized because Weiner has been sending sexually explicit messages to a 15-year-old girl.

Not only is the Clinton email investigation back on the rails, it’s chugging along at high speed. It was reported on Monday that the FBI has “accelerated its timeline” for reviewing Weiner emails linked to Clinton.

2. The Anthony Weiner Investigation: The poor judgment displayed by Hillary Clinton in allowing vital government emails to slip onto Anthony Weiner’s computer is absolutely breathtaking.

Furthermore, Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin has trotted out the shopworn all-purpose Obama administration excuse that she knew nothing about the situation until she heard it reported on the news. That should disqualify her from ever obtaining any sort of security clearance, if Hillary Clinton had not already rendered information security a joke.

Both Abedin and Clinton could be in legal jeopardy, depending on what emails the FBI finds lurking in the diseased corners of Weiner’s laptop. Weiner himself is absolutely in jeopardy, the kind that puts perverts in jail for long stretches of time. He has every reason to make a deal with law enforcement.

He might have a lot to deal with. How did 650,000 State Department emails end up on his computer? The simplest explanation might be that Carlos Danger (as he once liked to be called) was stockpiling leverage to use against his now-estranged wife and her boss, The Smartest Woman Who Ever Lived.

3. The Clinton Foundation Probe: We’ve learned an FBI probe of the Clinton Foundation for possible financial crimes and influence peddling has been in progress for over a year. As the Wall Street Journal put it, some of the investigators were “frustrated” because FBI leadership seemed “uninterested in probing the charity.”

This is an investigation that could rope in a lot of people in Clinton’s inner circle, besides Hillary and Bill Clinton themselves. Abedin is a player, and so is Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and another key aide, Philippe Reines. Bill Clinton’s old “body man” Doug Band – basically the Littlefinger of Bill Clinton’s financial empire, for you Game of Thrones fans – and even Chelsea Clinton could end up answering some tough questions.

Much will depend on whether the Clinton Foundation is scrutinized in isolation, or whether charges of influence peddling are pursued, at which point Hillary Clinton’s entire retinue from her days in the Senate and State Department would have reason to feel nervous.

4. The Podesta Brothers: Most of those WikiLeaks bombshells the Clinton media is ignoring with such furious intensity are to, from, or copied to John Podesta, the CEO of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and probably the most powerful figure in Clintonworld not named “Clinton.”

In one of the latest WikiLeaks revelations, Podesta is caught telling Cheryl Mills, “We are going to have to dump all those emails,” and it would be “better to do so sooner than later.” That sounds ominously like a conspiracy to destroy evidence in multiple federal criminal investigations, depending of course on which emails he was talking about, and what he meant by “dumping” them.

Podesta’s brother Tony, and the brothers’ Podesta Group lobbying firm, are involved in anFBI corruption investigation related to the deposed president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. The allegations boil down to illegal lobbying activities. Former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort also has a company that figures in the same investigation, so people across the 2016 political battlefield get to feel nervous about this one – but Podesta’s pipeline into the Clinton machine means more highly-placed people in her camp could become part of the investigation.

5. Terry McAuliffe’s Campaign Donations: The Clintons’ old friend Terry McAuliffe, currently the governor of Virginia, has been under FBI investigation for over a year by the Public Integrity unit over campaign fundraising and donations. Part of that investigation involves his time with the Clinton Global Initiative.

The events of greatest interest, until now, were some curious foreign donations, but now we’ve got the eye-popping sums of money McAuliffe steered to Virginia state senate candidate Jill McCabe, whose husband just happens to be Andrew McCabe, who just happens to be a top FBI official, and who just happened to end up in charge of the Clinton Foundation investigation.

This controversy doesn’t seem to be fading despite rote denials of impropriety and swift media assurances it was all a big nothingburger. Some of those dismissals are based on Jill McCabe receiving her pile of McAuliffe money before her husband became involved with an FBI investigation of the Clintons, but not all of it was donated before that point, and it hardly strains credulity to assert that the Clinton machine was making down-payments for favors it knew full well it would need later.

There have been calls for McCabe to recuse himself from the Clinton Foundation probe, and House Oversight Committee chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) has a few questions.

The fascinating thing about these five investigations is not just that so many prominent people from the Clintons’ orbit are caught up in them – the UK Daily Mail suggests a few more, lower-profile names – but that all of these cases could have trails leading to Anthony Weiner’s computer.

It will take a long time to go through all the material of interest, but meanwhile Weiner has suddenly become the key figure in Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. It seems safe to say nobody saw that coming.

Clintonworld is looking like a carload of bandits in a chase film from the 1970s, heading for the state line with pedal to the metal, a swarm of cop cars roaring through the dust right behind them. Can Hillary Clinton and her crew hit the White House in a squeal of shredding tires and win total political immunity before the law catches up with them? Stay tuned for the big finale on Election Day!

Also see: