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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Spencer on Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and why jihadis are fighting us


Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer explains why jihadis are really fighting us and explodes Hillary Clinton’s false analysis of this question.


Jamie discusses Hillary’s Dream of Flooding America With Syrian “Refugees”, unveiling what really lurks behind the impulse to bring in people from Sharia environments.

Clinton’s Shadow Diplomat: Thomas Pickering and Russia’s Pipeline Sales to Iran…

2033376978Center for Security Policy, October 25, 2016:

“Clinton’s Shadow Diplomat” is a hard-hitting investigative report from the Center for Security Policy, exposing the ties of former Ambassador Thomas Pickering to a Putin-linked Russian company that sold oil and gas pipelines to Iran and Syria when Pickering was on its Board of Directors. The report reveals Pickering’s overlapping roles: as Clinton’s Foreign Affairs Policy Advisor, as an Advisory Board member for two Iranian advocacy groups, as a paid Director for a Russian firm selling pipeline to Iran and Syria, as a paid consultant to Iranian aircraft contractor Boeing, and as a Senate committee hearing witness, all with a common goal of ending economic sanctions on Iran and reversing U.S. Iran policies.

As meticulously documented in “Clinton’s Shadow Diplomat,” Pickering was a paid Director for the Russian-owned company Trubnaya Metallurgicheskaya Kompaniya (TMK) from June 30, 2009 to June 26, 2012. TMK is majority-owned by Russian billionaire oligarch Dmitry Pumpyansky, a close Putin ally.

The investigation discovered extensive proof of TMK’s business dealings in Iran and Syria while Pickering was on the Board, including a financial offering disclosure, catalogs, marketing materials, websites, press releases, legal documents, reports from the steel industry press and Iranian customer websites. Sales of oil and gas pipelines to Iran were specifically prohibited under U.S. laws and executive orders.

According to TMK’s records, Pickering attended 143 of the 145 TMK Board meetings. Pickering is estimated to have been paid over half a million dollars for his service to TMK, based on TMK’s compensation rules.

“Clinton’s Shadow Diplomat” documents TMK’s relationships with three Iranian customers, all listed by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) as “Specially Designated Nationals” during the years Pickering served on the Board: the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Petropars, and Pars Oil and Gas Company.

The investigation also shows TMK’s relationships with three Syrian customers listed by OFAC as “Specially Designated Nationals” in 2011, while Pickering was on the Board: the Syrian Gas Company, the Syrian Petroleum Company, and the Al Furat Petroleum Company. U.S. persons are generally prohibited from conducting any kind of business with “Specially Designated Nationals.”

Thomas Pickering was appointed by Clinton as Chairman for the Benghazi Accountability Review Board three months after he left TMK. Starting in December 2011, he also served in official capacity on Clinton’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board. Emails released from Clinton’s private server show that Pickering was emailing and meeting with Clinton and her staff from the beginning of her time as Secretary of State, arguing for an end to economic sanctions on Iran, during the same years he was on TMK’s Board of Directors.

“Clinton’s Shadow Diplomat” raises questions for the American public and policymakers about Thomas Pickering’s and Hillary Clinton’s priorities. Did they put America’s interests first, or those of Iran and Russia?

“Clinton’s Shadow Diplomat” author Christine Brim is the former Chief Operating Officer for the Center for Security Policy. For more information contact christinebrim1@gmail.com (202-379-6776) or the Center for Security Policy at info@securefreedom.org (202-835-9077).

Download “Clinton’s Shadow Diplomat” at http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/clintons-shadow-diplomat/

Where Clinton and Trump Stand – on Every Major Issue


A majority of American voters view both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as candidates with significant personal flaws. But substantively, these are candidates who hold very different beliefs regarding the type of country the United States should be.

Front Page Magazine, by John Perazzo, October 25, 2016:

In poll after poll, a majority of American voters have reported that they hold an “unfavorable” opinion of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Nevertheless, there are enormous differences in the policy positions which these two candidates embrace. Following is a comprehensive overview of exactly what their positions and agendas are, with regard to the major issues confronting the United States. In some instances, background information is provided in italicized print, so as to place the candidates’ positions in proper context.


CLINTON: To address “the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II,” Clinton has called for bringing some 65,000 refugees from Syria into the United States as quickly as possible. This represents a 550% increase over Barack Obama’s 2016 goal of 10,000 Syrian refugees, which Clinton describes as merely a “good start.”

TRUMP: Pledging to suspend immigration from Syria and Libya, Trump says: “We have no idea who these people are, where they come from.”

NOTE: ISIS has vowed to infiltrate the flow of Syrian refugees with its own terrorist operatives; more than30,000 illegal immigrants from “countries of terrorist concern” entered the U.S. through its Southwestern border in 2015 alone; high-ranking government officials like FBI Director James Comey, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, CIA Director John Brennan, and FBI Deputy Assistant Director Michael Steinbach have all said that it is impossible to reliably screen out terrorists posing as refugees.

CLINTON: Describing those who wish to enforce immigration law as “obstructionists” whose “backward-looking” mindset is “fundamentally un-American,” Clinton vows to “introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship” within her first 100 days in office. “My dream, she said in a 2013 speech to a Brazilian bank, “is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.”

Stating that “we have to go back to being a much less harsh and aggressive enforcer” of immigration laws, Clinton pledges to “go even further” than the two executive orders by which President Obama protected millions of illegal aliens from deportation in 2012 and 2014—even though Obama himself had previously said, on more than 20 occasions, that such executive orders would cross the boundaries of legitimate presidential authority.

TRUMP: Under Trump’s plan, immigrants seeking to enter the U.S. would be subject to an “extreme vetting” process that would include an “ideological certification” to ensure that those who are admitted “share our values,” “love our people,” and do not hold extremist views regarding honor killings, “radical Islam,” and “women and gays and minorities.”

Trump has also called for the construction of “an impenetrable physical wall on the southern border”; an end to “catch-and-release” programs whereby illegal border-crossers are set free rather than deported; and the termination of “President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties.”


CLINTON: Clinton supports the “sanctuary” policies that bar police officers and other public-sector employees in some 340 U.S. cities from notifying the federal government about the presence of illegal aliens in their communities. Though sanctuary policies have turned many U.S. cities into very dangerous places, Clinton explains that without such arrangements, “people from the immigrant community … may not talk” to police who are trying to solve crimes there because “they think you’re also going to be enforcing the immigration laws.”

As Xochitl Hinojosa, a Clinton presidential campaign director, puts it: “Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years.”

TRUMP: Trump has called the existence of sanctuary cities “an absolutely disgraceful situation,” and has pledged to “block funding” for such locales.

NOTE: Of the 9,295 deportable aliens who were released after their arrest in sanctuary jurisdictions during the first eight months of 2014 alone, some 2,320 were subsequently re-arrested, on new criminal charges, soon thereafter. And before their initial release, 58% of those 9,295 aliens already had felony charges or convictions on their records, while another 37% had serious prior misdemeanor charges.


CLINTON: Clinton has stated that crime victims should be allowed to sue firearm manufacturers who lawfully produce guns that are subsequently used in crimes. Such a policy would inevitably cause the firearms industry to disappear, and thus would eliminate the Second Amendment virtually overnight.

Clinton has denounced the Supreme Court’s “terrible” ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that people have a right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.

When Clinton was asked at a town hall meeting whether she would support a gun-buyback measure similar to the one where Australia had “managed to … take away …  millions of handguns” in a single year, she replied: “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged.”

TRUMP: Trump’s position on the Second Amendment is as follows: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.” Calling for strict enforcement of gun laws that are already on the books, and for the aggressive prosecution of violent criminals, he adds: “Empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves” because “law enforcement … can’t be everywhere all of the time.”

CLINTON: Clinton plans to “defend and expand the Affordable Care Act” (Obamacare), which has caused insurance premiums and policy deductibles nationwide to skyrocket while almost every Obamacare state exchange in the country has already gone bankrupt.

To address the failure and financial implosion of Obamacare, Clinton proposes to implement a “public option” — i.e., a government-run insurance plan that would “compete” with private insurers. Pacific Research Institute President Sally Pipes explains what this means: “By drawing on taxpayer dollars, this public option would be able to out-price almost every private insurer in the country. Unable to compete, private insurers would be ‘crowded out,’ leaving Americans with just one choice: a government-operated health care plan that brings the entire health sector under government control.”

This is precisely what Hillary Clinton wants. Indeed, her presidential campaign website candidly states that she “has never given up on the fight for universal coverage.”

TRUMP: Trump seeks to “repeal and replace Obamacare with Health Savings Accounts”; “establish high-risk pools to ensure access to coverage for individuals who have not maintained continuous coverage”; and “allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, in all 50 states, creating a dynamic market.”

NOTE: The empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of universal healthcare systems in countries around the world is clear. As the Cato Institute puts it: “In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.”

CLINTON: Though illegal aliens do not qualify for coverage under Obamacare, the Clinton presidential campaign website says that “Hillary will expand access to affordable health care to families regardless of immigration status by allowing families to buy health insurance on the health exchanges regardless of their immigration status.”

TRUMP: Trump is opposed to permitting illegal aliens to qualify for coverage under Obamacare.


CLINTON: The Clinton presidential campaign website calls for “taking out ISIS’s stronghold in Iraq and Syria by intensifying the current air campaign, stepping up support for local forces on the ground, and pursuing a diplomatic strategy to resolve Syria’s civil war and Iraq’s sectarian conflict….”

TRUMP: In September 2016, Trump said: “I am … going to convene my top generals and give them a simple instruction: They will have 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for defeating ISIS.” In 2015, he stated: “ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because they have certain oil camps, certain areas of oil that they took away. They have some in Syria, some in Iraq. I would bomb the s— out of ’em…. That’s right. I’d blow up the pipes…. I’d blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left.”

NOTE: ISIS, which evolved out of Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, grew into the most powerful, well-funded terrorist organization in world history, precisely during Mrs. Clinton’s watch as secretary of state. While ISIS launched its campaign of mass rapes, tortures, beheadings, and murders — and gained control over enormous portions of Iraq and Syria — Clinton and President Obama did absolutely nothing to thwart it.

CLINTON: When Clinton was asked, in the second presidential debate of 2016, to articulate what would be her chief considerations for selecting nominees to the Supreme Court, she made no mention of fidelity to the Constitution. Instead, she stated that Justices should try to tip the proverbial scales of power, in favor of people who lack wealth and influence: “I want to appoint Supreme Court Justices who … actually understand what people are up against.” In the third presidential debate, Clinton reiterated that “the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people,” and “not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy.”

In other words, Clinton prefers Justices who seek to enforce her particular vision of “social justice,” rather than blind, unbiased justice. Anyone whom she nominates will be an activist judge — in the mold of Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer — whose foremost allegiance will be to left-wing ideology, not to the Constitution.

TRUMP: In the third presidential debate of 2016, Trump said the following about the types of Justices he would appoint to the Supreme Court: “They will interpret the Constitution the way the Founders wanted it interpreted, and I believe that’s very important. I don’t think we should have Justices appointed that decide what they want to hear. It is all about the Constitution …”

Read more


PragerU: Many of America’s legal and illegal immigrants fled nations that were ruined by corrupt politicians and failed government policies. But once here, they support the same things. Why? Gloria Alvarez, Project Director at the National Civic Movement of Guatemala, explains.

Clinton’s Pretense That She Didn’t Understand ‘C’ Was for ‘Classified’

hillary-clinton-secretar-state-emails-classified-information-fbi-justice-departmentNational Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, October 22, 2016:

So now Hillary finally knows what the “(C)” stands for in government documents: It’s Cartwright . . . as in four-star Marine General James E. Cartwright, the retired 67-year-old former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the expendable federal official against whom laws protecting classified information actually get enforced.

(C), see? Oh wait — sorry. I don’t mean to confuse Mrs. Clinton by starting this second paragraph with “(C)”. After all, as she diva-’splained to the FBI, she could only “speculate” that “(C)” must have something to do with organizing paragraphs “in alphabetical order.” Speculation was necessary, she said, apparently with a straight face, because she didn’t really know what “(C)” meant.

The question arose because the “(C)” designation — applicable to classified information at the confidential level — turned up in at least one of Clinton’s personal e-mails. Those would be the e-mails that, she repeatedly insisted, never, ever contained classified information. Or at least, that’s what she insisted until government agencies confessed that hundreds of the e-mails do contain classified information. Then Clinton’s “never, ever” tale morphed into the more narrowly tailored lie that there were no e-mails “marked classified.” Alas, that claim could not withstand examination of the e-mails, during which the “(C)” markings were found . . . whereupon the explanation underwent more, shall we say, refining. Thus the final, astonishing claim that she didn’t know what the markings meant, along with the laugh-out-loud whopper that maybe it was all about alphabetical order.

Yeah, that’s the ticket!

In case you’re keeping score: When a person being prosecuted for a crime changes her story multiple times, as if she were playing Twister (kids, ask your parents), the prosecutor gets to prove each of the evolving lies at the trial. As you’d imagine, juries grasp that the truth doesn’t need an editor. That’s why people whose explanations can’t keep up with the evidence are pretty much a lock to get convicted.

But that’s when it’s “(C)” as in Cartwright, not Clinton.

General Cartwright pled guilty this week to making false statements to FBI agents who were investigating his mishandling of classified information. The general admits to falsely concealing his communications with two journalists. They involved “Stuxnet,” a covert American–Israeli operation to infect the computer systems that controlled Iran’s main nuclear-enrichment facility. The information was top secret, regarding a crucial program. Its exposure caused diplomatic problems and threatens our spy agencies’ relationships with foreign intelligence services, which are based on the ability to keep secrets secret.

Still, compared with Clinton, Cartwright is a piker. As the Washington Post’s Josh Rogin reports, Cartwright appears to have been a “confirming” source. That is, reporters from the New York Times and of Newsweek already had the Stuxnet intelligence (from some other leaker whom the administration has not prosecuted). Cartwright merely acknowledged the information’s accuracy — and, he says, only after it had appeared in published news reports. His claimed purpose was to prevent additional intelligence from being published to the detriment of our national security. This does not excuse his conduct, but it may go a long way toward explaining why the Justice Department charged only a felony false-statement count, not a classified-information offense.

Clinton, by contrast, willfully set up a homebrew e-mail system. Given that the secretary of state’s duties preponderantly involve intelligence matters, this made it inevitable that classified information would unlawfully be transmitted and stored on non-secure servers (i.e., outside the multi-layered protection of the government’s classified communications system). Thus did the FBI find, for example, that of the 110 e-mails on Clinton’s non-secure system that were — contrary to her claims — classified at the time she sent or received them, eight involved top-secret information.

What does “top secret” mean? Under the executive order signed in 1995 by Mrs. Clinton’s husband, President Bill Clinton, it is information the mishandling of which “could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.” With such an enormous level of threat, extraordinary restrictions on access are imposed to limit the possibility of exposure. That’s why the government generally comes down like a ton of bricks on offenders, or at least offenders not named Clinton.

Even these extraordinary measures, however, are deemed insufficient when the information is designated as “SAP” (“special access program”) — as seven of Mrs. Clinton’s were. Because mishandling top-secret SAP programs could expose either intelligence-gathering efforts that are critical to protecting American lives or intelligence sources who gravely imperil themselves in order to acquire life-saving intelligence for the United States, access to such information is on an even more extremely limited “need to know” basis. Yet, Clinton made them vulnerable to everyone.

Fully 36 of Clinton’s e-mails fell into the “secret”-information category. That designation applies when information “could be expected to cause serious damage to national security” if transmitted or stored in an unauthorized manner. “Serious” is not as weighty as “exceptionally grave,” but it is, well, serious. That’s why people usually get prosecuted for compromising it.

Unlike Cartwright, Clinton did not just communicate with a couple of reporters who already knew the information in question. She made previously concealed intelligence massively vulnerable to capture by foreign intelligence agencies and hackers. On this point, the FBI’s rationalization that it found no evidence of capture is meaningless. As the FBI director conceded, competent cyber-thieves do not leave traces of their intrusions.

That brings us back to “(C),” the designation that applied to at least seven of Clinton’s e-mails at the time she sent or received them, and that now covers thousands more because government intelligence agencies adjudged them too sensitive to disclose publicly. Again, “(C)” does not really stand for “Cartwright” or indicate alphabetical ordering. It is, instead, the designation for “confidential” information that, if mishandled, could “cause damage to the national security.” This means its mishandling is a significant offense, even if the damage is not likely to be “exceptionally grave” or “serious.” That’s why its compromise often results in prosecution, or at least severe sanctions such as termination of employment or loss of security clearance.

In light of General Cartwright’s prosecution for lying about his mishandling of classified information, it is worth revisiting Mrs. Clinton’s representation to the FBI that she did not know what “(C)” meant.

For four years, Clinton was secretary of state, a job in which classified information is stock-in-trade. On starting her tenure, Clinton signed a document acknowledging that she had “received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information.” In the last paragraph, right over her signature, Clinton acknowledges that she has been provided with the aforementioned executive order signed by her husband in 1995 — the one that explains, in painstaking detail, what classified information at the confidential level is.

Naturally, when later asked about it by the FBI, Clinton denied any recollection of this security indoctrination. Yet in her memoir, Hard Choices, Clinton vividly recounts receiving thorough training to guard against the omnipresent danger of espionage. Indeed, she recalled that, when she traveled, she and her staff would leave “BlackBerrys, laptops — anything that communicated with the outside world — on the plane, with their batteries removed to prevent foreign services from compromising them.” Further, based on the training she’d gotten, she took to reading intelligence information

inside an opaque tent in a hotel room. In less well-equipped settings we were told to improvise by reading sensitive material with a blanket over our head.

These mountains of documents she scrutinized involved such matters as the Snowden leaks, the NSA program, the Libyan civil war, Mubarak’s fall and the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise, the Saudi role in 9/11, the Iraqi nuclear and missile programs, the Benghazi siege, the arming of “rebels” in Libya and Syria, the deterioration of Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and on, and on. And that’s not the half of it. Before heading the State Department, she spent eight years in the U.S. Senate, most of that time as a member of the Armed Services Committee. It was wartime, and the major national controversies centered on classified information. She therefore had to pore over intelligence that, for example, supported the Iraq invasion, was derived from interrogations, measured the success of the “surge,” and so forth.

If there is one thing Clinton has emphasized in her presidential campaign, it is her “readiness.” Whether she was on Capitol Hill or at Foggy Bottom, she wants you to know, she was never the phone-it-in type. She did all her homework, and then some.

Well, in those classified documents she studied lo those dozen years, the “(C)” designation is ubiquitous. It often appears numerous times in a single document — even on a single page. Yet, despite spending a decade-plus as a daily, top-level consumer of classified information, Clinton looked a room full of FBI agents and federal prosecutors in the eye and told them she didn’t know what the “(C)” designation meant.

Mrs. Clinton has told many preposterous lies, but that has to be the most outrageous of the lot.

Unlike Clinton, Cartwright was not a deft political climber. He maneuvered himself into President Obama’s good graces by siding with the White House on military planning for Afghanistan, in the process double-crossing his former patrons, including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. As these things tend to go in Gomorrah-by-the-Potomac, Cartwright’s detractors engineered a smear campaign against him — rumors of an alleged affair — that led Obama to renege on a promise to elevate him to Joint Chiefs chairman. So by the time he got jammed up on the Stuxnet leak, he was alone, without allies to bail him out.

When you’re expendable, it’s amazing how zealous law enforcement can be. Remember Clinton’s case, in which the Justice Department refused to open a grand-jury investigation or issue subpoenas to compel production of evidence? Remember how Justice gave immunity to any Clinton ally who wandered near jeopardy? With that in mind, get a load of the self-congratulatory press release Justice issued after Cartwright pled guilty:

We conducted a thorough and independent investigation included collecting tens of thousands of documents through subpoenas, search warrants and document requests, and interviewing scores of current and former government employees.

As these columns have observed, the Justice Department and FBI conduct themselves very differently when they are trying to make a case rather than not make a case.

“No, no, no,” they counter, “we treat everyone equally.” In fact, the FBI makes a cameo appearance in the Cartwright press release to state a solemn vow (my italics):

The FBI will continue to take all necessary and appropriate steps to thoroughly investigate individuals, no matter their position, who undermine the integrity of our justice system by lying to federal investigators.

Really? No tolerance for lying? Well then:

Hillary Clinton said she did not know what “(C)” meant.

Hillary Clinton told the FBI she could not recall any training regarding how classified information was to be handled, and yet she wrote extensively about it in her memoir, and — as a condition of getting access to such information — she signed a government declaration attesting that she had gotten precisely such training.

And speaking, as the FBI did, of “the integrity of our justice system”: Hillary Clinton swore in an affidavit, filed in federal Freedom of Information Act litigation, that she had directed that “all my e-mails . . . that were or potentially were federal records” — meaning: anything related to State Department business — “be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.” This affidavit was filed in August 2015: seven months after her homebrew server system became a public controversy — seven months to review the facts before making these sworn representations to a federal court. Contrary to what she stated, the FBI found that thousands of Clinton’s work related e-mails were not provided to the State Department, and at least three of these withheld e-mails contained classified information.

Moreover, in sworn testimony before the House Benghazi Committee, Clinton not only repeated the false claim that she had provided the State Department with “all of my work-related emails.” She further represented to the Committee that, in segregating what was work-related from what was purportedly private, her lawyers “went through every single email.” Plainly, this is not true.

This week, after General Cartwright’s guilty plea, the Justice Department and the FBI thumped their chests and told us that if any government official, no matter how powerful, mishandles classified information and then lies about it, that official will be prosecuted — at least for the false statements.

Well . . . how about it?

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

Also see:

MOSUL: Iraqi Military Displays Shi’ite Flags In Advance on Sunni Region

jihad-flagThe flags belie the Baghdad government’s promise that it will repair sectarian relations if it regains control of the Sunni regions of Iraq. Iran’s Shi’a militias are set to join the fray, which can only deepen the rift.

CounterJihad, October 24, 2016:

Here are CounterJihad we have been warning for some time about the growing influence of Shi’a militias within Iraq, as they proclaim that their first loyalty is to Iran and its clerical leadership.  The power that these sectarian militas are exercising within Iraq makes it difficult to believe that the government in Baghdad will be able to remain independent from Iran, as the militias are a dagger pressed at Baghdad’s throat.

This story is worse than that.  This story is about the flying of sectarian flags by Baghdad’s own official state military.

Iraqi soldiers fighting to retake the largely Sunni city of Mosul from Islamic State are mounting Shiite flags on their vehicles and raising them atop buildings, stoking the sectarian divisions that Iraq’s government has vowed to repair….  Flying on tanks or over government checkpoints and homes in recently reclaimed Sunni villages, they often dwarf Iraqi flags next to them.

The flags are rankling Sunnis as well as Kurdish Peshmerga fighters taking part in the assault. Sunnis said the display undermines the message of national unity against Islamic State and reinforces their long-held impression that they don’t belong in Iraq’s state and security structure.

Further testing the alliance, Iraqi Shiite militias said Friday they were set to join the battle to dislodge Islamic State from Mosul.

This development underlines just how we got to a caliphate in western Iraq to begin with.  The Sunni forces fighting against the Baghdad government were brought to the peace table out of an outrage with al Qaeda in Iraq’s brutality against them.  They agreed to support the Baghdad government in return for fair treatment, instead of being suppressed as an ethnic minority.

The US military, which in those days had multiple divisions within Iraq, conducted patient negotiation with militants formerly aligned with al Qaeda in Iraq.  The agreements the US military negotiated for the Sunnis were designed to effect a reconciliation between the government and the tribes.  Agreements included promises of jobs, assistance for communities recovering from the war, and many other things that the government agreed to provide in return for the support of these former enemies.  The United States helped to negotiate all these agreements, and promised to see that they would be kept faithfully.

Instead, our Secretary of State — one Hillary Clinton — failed to produce either a new Status of Forces agreement that would permit US troops to remain in Iraq, or an agreement that would allow State Department personnel to move about the country safely to observe whether agreements were being kept.  In the wake of the precipitous withdrawal of US forces, Prime Minister Maliki moved to arrest Sunni leaders in government, and broke all his promises to the tribes.

The result was that the western part of Iraq once again became fertile ground for an Islamist insurgency.

The Baghdad government is responsible for the actions that undermined Sunni faith in the system it represented.  It compounded the problem by allowing these Iranian-backed Shi’a militias to conduct punitive war crimes against Sunni villages that had supported Saddam’s regime.  At least the militias were plausibly acting on their own, however, rather than as agents of the state.

Shi’a flags above Iraq’s army as it proceeds into Mosul means that no peace is possible regardless of the outcome of the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS).  This is the endorsement of a sectarian war by the official arm of the Baghdad government.  Even if ISIS loses, the Sunnis will have to fight on in order to avoid being subjugated by a central government that has become their actual enemy.

Also see:

New O’Keefe Video: Hillary Clinton Approved Robert Creamer Plan Directly

Gerald Herbert / Associated Press

Gerald Herbert / Associated Press

Breitbart, by Joel B. Pollak, October 24, 2016:

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released video evidence that left-wing organizer and high-level Democratic Party operative Robert Creamer is, in fact, linked directly to Hillary Clinton, who personally approved at least one of his disruptive tactics.

Last week, O’Keefe produced video showing Creamer, the co-founder of the Democracy Partners consulting group, and his colleague, Scott Foval, discussing their past and present efforts to incite violence at Donald Trump rallies and other events.

The stated goal was to create “anarchy” around Trump, presumably to make him less appealing to American voters. Foval described Democracy Partners as a contractor for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook tried to evade the controversy by denying a direct link between Creamer and the campaign.

When Breitbart News’ Washington political editor, Matthew Boyle, confronted Mook about Creamer and his firm in the spin room after the third presidential debate, Mook claimed: “They’ve never worked for our campaign.” When asked if Clinton had ever discussed the controversial political operations with Creamer directly, Mook replied: “I don’t think so.”

Now, however, O’Keefe and Project Veritas have released video of Creamer claiming that Clinton directly approved one of his more bizarre plans — an effort to attract media attention and incite violence by dressing an activist in a Donald Duck costume and sending that activist into Trump events, emphasizing the argument that Trump was “ducking” releasing his tax returns.

Creamer has also been closely linked with the White House and with President Barack Obama himself. He is listed as having visited the White House some 342 times since Obama took office, 47 of which were with Obama himself.

Robert Creamer (Screenshot / Project Veritas)

Robert Creamer (Screenshot / Project Veritas)

Last week, White House deputy spokesperson Eric Schultz declined to explain those visits: “I’m not sure that I can describe [their relationship] because I’m not sure that there’s much of one,” he said.

In response to the denials, O’Keefe told Breitbart News: “We have hours and hours of footage, including audio recordings of phone calls between Robert Creamer and the White House.”

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, is available from Regnery through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

The refugee and asylum crisis: “Vetted” Iraqi refugee pleads guilty to supporting ISIS

Alessandro Rota | AP Photo

Alessandro Rota | AP Photo

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, October 21, 2016:

Last month, Francis Taylor, the DHS Under Secretary of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, told the House Committee on Homeland Security that “refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States.” Well, earlier this week, an Iraqi refugee plead guilty in federal court on charges of attempting to give material support to the Islamic State. If one man can evade the “highest level of security checks,” time will only tell how many others pose a security risk.

In January, Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, 24, who was brought here as a refugee in 2009, was arrested in Houston on charges of attempting to provide material support to ISIS. According to the plea agreement in court this week, Al Hardan wanted to blow up two malls in the Houston area. “I want to blow myself up. I want to travel with the Mujahidin. I want to travel to be with those who are against America. I am against America,” said Al Hardan, according to the local CBS affiliate. According to the FBI special agent involved in the case, Al Hardan was working with another Iraqi refugee, Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, 23, who was brought in as a refugee in October 2012 and just 13 months later allegedly flew to Syria to fight for terror groups in the warn-torn country. Al-Jayab is in jail in Chicago awaiting trial.

That is some vetting system we have in place. Al-Jayab allegedly wrote to a friend last year that “America will not isolate me from my Islamic duty.” But rest easy, we are promised that the over 150,000 Muslim immigrants we will bring in this year alone will easily assimilate into American culture.

According to the State Department’s refugee database, America has admitted roughly 135,000 Iraqi refugees since FY 2008 — with no sign of the pace abating. Ever since Congress gave Obama a blank check for his refugee increase last month, Obama has already accelerated the pace of Syrian refugees on top of the existing flow of Iraqi refugees. The reality is that even if the administration had a solid vetting system in place — which they don’t — there is no way to vet a mentality within Sharia law. How many more of these individuals subscribe to the mindset of “America will not isolate me from my Islamic duty?” And this is not even a belief the administration cares to weed out through social media.

What is evidenced from this case in Houston is that it doesn’t take many bad apples to wreak havoc on our homeland. Al Hardan taught himself how to make bombs and use automatic weapons, all for the purpose of large-scale attacks .

In addition to the gaping security hole in our refugee program, Obama’s other legacy has been the destruction of the even more perilous asylum process. While refugees are processed overseas, asylum seekers are able to show up on our shores and declare a credible fear of persecution even when their claim is specious. A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies shows that applications for asylum seekers have increased ten-fold since 2009! According to Jessica Vaughn, 90 percent of these applications have been approved, even though many of them have traditionally been rejected due to fraud. Yet, thanks to Obama’s illegal executive action granting asylum-seekers parole pending the outcome of their application (which is usually approved), instead of keeping them in custody as the law dictates, our country has become a magnate for asylum seekers. Although most of the asylum seekers are from Central America, there are concerns about Middle Easterners travelling to Central American countries via Greece and applying for asylum there.  The U.S. Southern Command admitted to at least 30,000 “from countries of terrorist concern” crossing over our southern border in 2016.


Center for Immigration Studies

Between the influx of refugees and asylum seekers, the growing surge on our southern border, the massive and influx of Cubans who are automatically eligible for welfare, who is looking out for the security of Americans? We are entreated to sob stories and highbrow rhetoric about our obligations to the world, but what about the one authentic obligation of the federal government to secure the sovereignty of the people and the states?

Sadly, these are the issues that have gotten overshadowed in the reality TV show of this election. If Hillary wins, it will clearly not be a result of popular support for her immigration policies. Assuming Republicans keep Congress, they can easily block the extension of Obama’s refugee and asylum policies. Unfortunately, as we warned earlier this week, absent a new opposition party, that will never happen, even in the face of a large-scale terror attack on our homeland.

Hillary Clinton Tops Middle East Forum’s ‘Islamist Money List’



Breitbart, by Allum Bokhari, October 21, 2016:

The Middle East Forum has released its 2015-16 “Islamist Money In Politics” list, charting the top ten recipients of contributions from Islamic organizations — and Hillary Clinton is at the top of the list.

According to the Middle East Forum, their list tracks political donations from “from individuals who subscribe to the same Islamic supremacism as Khomeini, Bin Laden, and ISIS.”

Clinton has received a total of $41,165 from individuals that the Middle East Forum describes as “prominent Islamists,” including $19,249 from senior officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates on November 15, 2014.

Republican Party candidate Donald Trump and Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson took no money from Islamists, according to the report.

Green Party candidate Jill Stein has reportedly accepted $250, while defeated Democratic Party candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders accepted $9,285

Other top recent recipients of money from the enemy include Rep. Keith Ellison ($17,370) and Rep. Andre Carson ($13,225). The top-ten list includes nine Democrats, one independent (Sanders), and no Republicans.

Hillary Clinton has been a fierce critic of Donald Trump’s proposal for a freeze on Muslim immigration to the United States. “We are a country founded on religious freedom and liberty. How do we do what [Trump] has advocated without causing great distress within our country?” Clinton said earlier this month. “Are we going to have religious tests when people fly into our country?”

Beyond political donations, the Clinton Foundation has received millions from Islamic countries. Saudi Arabia, dominated by radical Sunni fundamentalists and ruled by Sharia law, donated up to $50 million to the Clinton Foundation, while the Emirate of Qatar has donated between $1 million and $5 million.

According to Clinton’s own State Department, Qatar’s human rights violations include “trafficking in persons … legal, institutional, and cultural discrimination against women limited their participation in society.”

You can follow Allum Bokhari on Twitter, add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to abokhari@breitbart.com.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka: Hillary Clinton’s Disclosure of Nuclear Response Times During Debate Was ‘Unconscionable’

hc-640x480Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 21, 2016:

On Friday’s Breitbart News Daily, Breitbart News National Security editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, author of the best-selling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, talked about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s clash over Russia at the third presidential debate.

“As I’ve said repeatedly, if there is anybody who’s been in the pocket of Vladimir Putin, it is Hillary Clinton. Everybody needs to have out there, the millennials that they know, their nephews, their nieces, just watch Clinton Cash on YouTube,” Gorka said. “The fact that 20 percent of our uranium was sold to Kremlin front companies, in a deal that was signed off by Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, means if there’s anybody who can be bought by the Kremlin, it’s Hillary Clinton.”

“That happened when her husband was receiving $120 million speaking fee from the same companies that bought the uranium,” Gorka noted.

“I have to give great credit to your callers,” he told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow. “Your show is really about the callers. They see through this. They understand that there’s the mainstream media spin, and most often, it is 180 degrees out of phase with reality. If Trump were some kind of puppet for Moscow, wouldn’t this man have casinos in Kaliningrad? Wouldn’t he have giant Trump Towers in Moscow? He doesn’t. That tells you everything you need to know. Reality is completely the reverse of what anybody else inside the mainstream media would have you believe.”

One of those callers joined the conversation at that point to observe that audiences for mainstream media outlets like CNN were given a very different perspective on the debate than people who watched it without such a media filter.

“I think that the real story will be that there is, perhaps, a majority of people out there who simply have had enough,” said Gorka. “Look at the viewing figures for stations like CNN. I think it tells you everything. Look at the figures for Breitbart, the viewers and clicks. I think that’s the hidden story of this election – that the mainstream media believes they still dominate, but I think in two weeks’ time, two-and-a-half weeks’ time, there’s going to be potentially a very big surprise for those people who think they still speak for America and can control what America sees, whether it’s the debates, whether it’s any kind of reporting on any issue, whether it’s the border, or the economy.”

“Just the polls themselves – look at the poll figures, and then look at the Trump rallies,” he suggested. “Again, spin versus reality. Look at the fact that Hillary seems to be leading everywhere, if you listen to the polls, and then just watch the turnout for her campaign events. I think that tells you everything you need to know.”

Gorka was pleased that national security has been such an important theme in the 2016 presidential debates, pausing to issue a disclaimer that he has provided national security advice to Donald Trump in the past, “long before anybody took him seriously.”

“I’m not part of his campaign, but I’ve spoken to this man on more than one occasion about the big issues, such as ISIS, North Korea, Russia, and Iran,” he clarified.

With that disclosure made, Gorka faulted Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and theiradvisers for clumsy handling of major foreign policy issues, agreeing with Donald Trump’s criticism that Clinton and Obama constantly telegraph their moves to the enemy.

“It’s not just Hillary. It’s her coterie. It is the liberal elite. The Obama administration has done exactly the same,” he noted. “Every major deployment in Iraq, every major operation, has been announced in advance, which is anathema to just the most basic principles of warfare. And it’s fascinating. This isn’t a new thing. Her husband did exactlythe same thing, during the Balkan wars. Your callers may not recall, but he actually announced before our engagement in the Balkans, he said, ‘I refuse, and I will never put boots on the ground in Yugoslavia.’ Doesn’t that sound familiar? Haven’t you heard somebody else say that, in this current presidential campaign?”

“Telegraphing in advance what you’re going to do is dynamite for the opposition, for your enemy, because then they will prepare to exploit that against you,” Gorka explained. “Look, even after the WikiLeaks became more and more uncomfortable for Hillary, what did we have the vice president do on national television? Announce that, well, they’ve decided Russia is behind all of this, and we’re going to launch a cyber-attack against them, at a time of our choosing. If you read that in a Tom Clancy novel, you’d say, ‘Has Tom lost it?’ Nobody does this.”

“Mr. Trump’s point that he understands we are at war – I can assure your listeners, he knows we are at war, and he wants to win this war, but he’s not going to tell the enemy what we’re going to do. It’s a very, very, valid point,” he said.

Marlow brought up an overlooked moment from the third debate, when Clinton inadvertently revealed some sensitive information about U.S. response times to nuclear attack. Gorka said he wanted to address this issue “in a certain way, if you’ll permit me, as somebody who actually cares for the security of the Republic and who lives in the national security arena.”

From that perspective, he declined to comment on “the veracity, or lack thereof, of what she said.”

“Just one thing has to be drawn, one conclusion has to be drawn: the whole platform of the Hillary campaign, that Mr. Trump is not fit to serve as commander-in-chief, he’s not stable, he can’t be trusted – all of that applies to her, and solely to her,” Gorka said. “Anybody who puts Top Secret/SCI super-classified information on a private homebrew server, and then talks about our nuclear reaction times on live television, in front of tens of millions of people – that woman should not be allowed – I know this is a line Mr. Trump has borrowed from me, but I have to use it – that individual should not be allowed to run for local dog catcher, let alone the most powerful person in the world. It is unconscionablewhat she did on national television, and the fact the liberal media is giving her heat on that tells you everything you need to know.”

Gorka turned to the chaos currently engulfing two key cities in the Middle East, Iraq’s Mosul and Syria’s Aleppo.

“What we have is this group of – a very heterogenous military force has deployed to Mosul. Again, this was announced weeks in advance by the current administration. We have the Sunni elements of the standing Iraqi army. We have elements of the Kurdish Peshmerga. And, on top of that – this is perhaps the most problematic – we have so-called ‘mobilization forces,’ which are made up Shia former militias, working together, hopefully, to take Mosul with our brave men, and some of our women, as well, as advisers providing training, providing intelligence, and also bombing capabilities for those forces,” Gorka explained.

“The idea is to recapture the second-biggest city in Iraq, which isn’t just important for the size of the city, but because this is the location where, in June 2014, the head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared formally the re-establishment of the Caliphate, the new empire of Islam,” he noted. “So Mosul is very, very important. The problem with this operation is the very mixed nature of who’s fighting. They have very, very different interests in terms of the future of Iraq.”

“And the biggest problem of all: you can launch an attack to capture a city – but what happens if you capture it?” he asked. “Are you going to stay there? Are the local Sunnis going to allow Shia or Kurds to stay in the region? And what happens when the fighters come back? It’s like squeezing a balloon. You can push the fighters out, but sooner or later, if you haven’t killed all of them, they will be back.”

As for Aleppo, Gorka called it a “tragedy,” saying that “the last five years in Syria are truly a humanitarian disaster.”

“Here again, we have reality, and we have spin,” he said. “The idea that somehow, we’re going to have a cooperative Russia assist us in stopping the killing and bring stability to that nation is a fantasy. The whole Obama administration’s policy is based on an article of faith that is, again, just phantasmagorical – the idea that Assad must go.”

“Whatever the desperate situation in Aleppo, Assad is not going anywhere,” Gorka noted regretfully. “As long as that man enjoys the support not only of Russia, but Iran and even China, this is a head of state that isn’t going anywhere – unless, of course, America wishes to go to war with Russia, China, and Iran, which is not advisable right now.”

“So we have to stabilize the region. We have to realize that only a political resolution is realistic. And unfortunately, the current powers-that-be in Washington simply do not understand that,” he said.

Dr. Gorka’s parting thought was to “reinforce that November the 8th is primarily about one issue, as far as I’m concerned, and I think most Americans agree with me: it’s about which person do you think is going to keep you and your family safe.”

“So when you’re going to the polling booth, and please bring as many people with you as you can, remember it’s a choice between Hillary – Servergate, Benghazi, nuclear launch times – and a man who believes we are at war with the jihadists and wishes to win. It really is quite that simple, Alex,” he said.



Top 5 Clinton scandals you’re missing due to media bias



Warning: rough language:

Also see:

REWIND: Clinton Foundation Subsidized Now-Imprisoned Senior Muslim Brotherhood Official

gehad-el-haddad-clinton-foundation-sized-770x415xtPJ Media, by Patrick Poole, October 20, 2016:

Gehad El-Haddad, the now-imprisoned former spokesman for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s so-called “Freedom and Justice Party,” was effectively the “Baghdad Bob” of the Arab Spring.

Educated in the UK and the son of a top Muslim Brotherhood leader, Essam El-Haddad, the special advisor on foreign policy to deposed Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi, Gehad incited violence, justified the torture of protesters, recycled fake news stories, and staged fake scenes of confrontation during the 2013 Rabaa protests.

Gehad was arrested in September 2013 after the fall of Morsi and the bloody confrontations during the breakup of the Muslim Brotherhood’s protest camps in Rabaa Square and around Cairo.

And during his ascendancy in 2011 and 2012, at which time he served on the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Nahda” (Renaissance) Project to revive the caliphate and reinstitute Islamic law and also served as Morsi’s campaign spokesman, he was being paid by the Clinton Foundation, having been employed for five years as the Cairo director of the foundation until August 2012, according tohis own LinkedIn page.

This shows that the Clinton Foundation effectively subsidized one of the senior Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood officials in his rapid rise to power.

His LinkedIn shows he was employed by the Clinton Foundation from August 2007 through August 2012, during which time he served in several positions within the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party.


From the early days of the Arab Spring beginning in May 2011, when he was serving as the Muslim Brotherhood’s party foreign affairs advisor, he was being paid by the Clinton Foundation.

He was still on the Clinton’s payroll when he became spokesman for Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate for president of Egypt, and throughout the entirety of his campaign.


What his LinkedIn shows is that he held multiple senior roles with the Muslim Brotherhood while continuing to be in the employ of the Clinton Foundation.

It didn’t take long for Gehad to become a brazen apologist for the worst abuses of the Morsi regime.


So the Clinton Foundation subsidized Gehad El-Haddad’s rise to power within the Muslim Brotherhood, only to see him become a full-throated apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood’s power grabs, violence against protesters, threatening non-compliant branches of the Egyptian government, and pushing false propaganda as Egyptians rose up to stop the madness.

Having served five years in the Clinton family’s employ, the “Baghdad Bob” of the Arab Spring undoubtedly felt right at home.

Previous installments of the Clinton Chronicles:

Hillary Clinton Obstructed Boko Haram Terror Designation as Her Donors Cashed In

How Hillary Clinton Mainstreamed Al-Qaeda Fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi

REWIND: FBI Shuts Down Russian Spy Ring For Getting Too Cozy with Hillary Clinton

Read more


No, Hillary, 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies Did Not Say Russia Hacked Dem E-mails

524204248Center for Security Policy, by Fred Fleitz, October 20, 2016:

Hillary Clinton in last night’s presidential debate tried to avoid talking about the substance of the damaging WikiLeaks disclosures of DNC and Clinton campaign officials by claiming 17 U.S. intelligence agencies determined that Russia was responsible for this. After Clinton made this claim, she scolded Trump for challenging U.S. intelligence professionals who have taken an oath to help defend this country.

What Clinton said was false and misleading. First of all, only two intelligence entities – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies. And what they said was ambiguous about Russian involvement. An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks

. . . are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

Saying we think the hacks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” is far short of saying we have evidence that Russia has been responsible for the hacks. Maybe high-level officials would have authorized them if Russian hackers were responsible, but the DNI and DHS statement did NOT say there was evidence Russia was responsible.

My problem with the DNI/DHS unclassified statement is that it appeared to be another effort by the Obama administration to politicize U.S. intelligence. Make no mistake, U.S. intelligence agencies issued this unprecedented unclassified statement a month before a presidential election that was so useful to one party because the Clinton campaign asked for it. The Obama administration was happy to comply.

Clinton tried to defend the DNI/DHS statement by repeating the myth that U.S. intelligence officers are completely insulated from politics. She must think Americans will forget how the CIA crafted the politicized Benghazi talking points in 2011 and how SOUTHCOM intelligence analysts were pressured to distort their analysis of ISIS and Syria to support Obama foreign policy. And that’s just under the Obama administration. Politicization of intelligence goes back decades, including such blatant efforts by CIA officers to interfere in the 2004 presidential election that the Wall Street Journal referred to it as “The CIA Insurgency” in an August 2004 editorial. I discussed the problem of the politicization of U.S. intelligence and the enormous challenge a Trump administration will have in combating it in an August 18, 2016 National Review article.

Maybe the Russians are behind the WikiLeak hacks of Democrat e-mails, possibly to influence the 2016 presidential election. I’m not convinced of this. I’m more concerned that these constant leaks of Democratic e-mails demonstrate that Democratic officials appear to have no understanding of the need for Internet security. This makes me wonder if John Podesta’s e-mail password is “password.” These are the people Clinton will be giving senior jobs with high-level security clearances. That is the real security scandal that no one is talking about.

Make America Victorious Again

FOREIGN POLICYClaremont, by Angelo M. Codevilla, October 18, 2016:

At the 2016 elections our bipartisan foreign policy class is near-unanimous, not so much behind Hillary Clinton nor even against Donald Trump. Rather, it circles its wagons around its own identities, ideas, practices, and, yes, livelihoods. Clinton represents the ruling class’s people and priorities in foreign affairs as in domestic ones, though she seems to care even less about the former’s substance. Trump, a stranger to most of the foreign policy class (though not to its current epitome, Henry Kissinger) has voiced views on foreign affairs that are within the establishment’s variances in substance if not in tone. Chastise and threaten NATO for its lack of contributions? Senate majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) offered an amendment to that effect in 1970. Cozy up to Putin? Hillary Clinton brought him a bright red “reset” button in 2009.

Nevertheless, the foreign policy class does not merely reject Trump; it detests him. Why? Because Trump, in tone even more than substance, expresses the subversive thought that U.S. foreign policy has failed to “put America first,” causing the nation to suffer defeat after defeat. Hence, the entire foreign policy class—in the bureaucracies, think tanks, academe, and the media—are a bunch of losers. Millions of Americans consider these two thoughts to be common sense. But the above-mentioned class takes the first as the root of heresies, and the second as a demagogic insult. Consequently, the 2016 election is not so much about any particular plank in any foreign policy platform. It is about who defines and what constitutes common sense.

Who and what

Why the fuss? Obviously, foreign policy’s formulators and executors are their country’s fiduciaries. Though it follows logically that they should mind no interest before their country’s, nevertheless our foreign policy class’s defining characteristic for a hundred years has been to subsume America’s interest into considerations they deem worthier. The following is our foreign policy class’s common sense, which it hopes the 2016 elections will affirm.

Since Woodrow Wilson, Progressive Democratic and Republican statesmen have confused America’s interest with mankind’s. In practice, they have taken upon themselves the role of mankind’s stewards (or sheriffs, leaders, pillars of order, or whatever) and acted as if, in Wilson’s words, America has “no reason for being” except to “stand for the right of men,” to be “champions of humanity.” Accordingly, a series of statesmen has forsaken war and diplomacy for strictly American ends and with means adequate to achieve them, and adopted foredoomed schemes pursued halfheartedly—Charles Evans Hughes (commitment to China’s integrity and renunciation of the means to uphold it), Franklin Roosevelt (seeking world co-domination with Stalin and the U.N. to banish “ancient evils, ancient ills”), Harry Truman (pursuing peace through no-win war in Korea), Nixon/Kissinger (scuttling Vietnam to help entice the Soviets into a grand detente), George W. Bush (democratizing the Middle East because America can’t be free unless and until the whole world is free).

Instead of Theodore Roosevelt’s maxim “Speak softly and carry a big stick,” these Progressives’ maxim seems to have been: speak grandly while brandishing twigs. The pattern has been consistent: Think global order, make political-military commitments if not in secret then certainly without the American people’s affirmative consent, commit military forces while avoiding declarations of war or specifying how success is to be achieved, and refuse to calibrate American military commitments to what opponents might do to thwart our forces. Then, when the enterprise falls apart, seek scapegoats.


Inexorably, Progressive foreign policy is gravitating in the direction of foreign Progressive forces. For Progressives, the benevolence of “the Arab Street” and even of organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood is an article of faith. From government, the media, and the universities, Progressives indict as racists anyone who imputes responsibility for terrorism to Arabs, Muslims, or Islam. America’s Muslims vote Democrat. Any Progressive president would find it hard to depart from this part of his tribal identity, least of all Hillary Clinton, whose top aide, Huma Abedin, is deeply connected to the Muslim world. The Democratic Party, along with its bench in academe, has identified increasingly with Israel’s enemies as fellow Progressives. Surely and not so slowly, our foreign policy class has acted more and more as if Israel’s refusal to accede to Arab demands were the chief cause of the Middle East’s troubles.

Imagine, then, what effects the intensification of U.S. foreign policy’s trends would produce in the not so distant future. Then, considering how these effects would manifest themselves on America’s streets, ask how the American people are likely to react.

The 2016 election is about whether that pattern should change. How much, if at all, it would change under Trump matters much less than the mere possibility it might change. Trump’s virtue in foreign policy lies in having voiced this simple, vital thought: U.S. foreign policy must put America first, and deliver victories rather than defeats. Whether Trump really believes that, whether he would act on it, or even whether he understands past mistakes, is secondary.

Read more

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more

How Hillary’s lawyers ran roughshod over the FBI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An FBI staffer believed the State Department was shielding Clinton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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