Top 7 Charges Hillary Clinton Could Face While President

head-of-hillary-ap-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 31, 2016:

What scandals might the American people find themselves dealing with in Hillary Clinton’s Administration if she slides into the presidential home plate, trailing a cloud of controversy?

Let us be honest about who suffers from presidential misbehavior—it’s the American people who pay the price, including the literal price of the expensive investigations. The odds of justice actually catching up with Hillary Clinton dwindle to almost zero if she gains the White House. She might have to sacrifice an aide here and there, but if the political system of 1998 couldn’t remove her husband from office for blatant perjury, it’s hard to imagine what could possibly bring The First Woman President down in the even more corrupt and confused political system of 2017.

That being said, here are a few lingering legal headaches Clinton could face:

1. Perjury: Why not start with a blast from the Clinton past? Hillary Clinton signed documents testifying that she turned over all work-related emails to the State Department, on orders from a federal judge, under penalty of perjury. We already have indisputable proof she violated this sworn statement… thousands of times.

The cloud of false statements under oath surrounding Hillary Clinton is thousands of times thicker than the one around Bill. Democrats seem to have found a hidden clause in the Constitution that says Clintons can never be prosecuted for perjury, but Madame Secretary is really stress-testing that particular privilege of Clintonhood. One would think the federal judiciary had some interest in establishing that sworn documents must be taken seriously.

2. Obstruction of Justice: Bill Clinton’s primary motive for committing perjury was to obstruct justice—it was the second count in his impeachment. (The justice he was obstructing was a sexual harassment suit from Paula Jones, at a time when liberals insisted sexual harassment was the most overlooked, under-prosecuted crime in the legal code.)

Hillary’s thousands of perjury counts are also related to the obstruction of justice. She held back documents she didn’t want Congress to see. She subverted the Freedom of Information Act, which is a law, not a lovely suggestion.

Most media timelines of the Clinton email scandal are either incomplete or deliberately obtuse, because they almost never accurately relate how her secret server was discovered. For example, these timelines from USA Today, CNN, and ABC News all get it wrong.

Sharyl Attkisson, who was a participant in the story, has an accurate timeline that makes the important point Clinton-friendly media outlets don’t want to talk about: we know about the secret server because the State Department was sued for failing to respond to FOIA requests. The State Department’s official story is that they were surprised to discover Clinton was withholding thousands of documents on her private computer.

That’s straight-up obstruction of justice, in cases involving multiple federal courts, as surely as Bill Clinton’s impeachable offense of obstructing the Paula Jones suit. Clinton may become untouchable if the American people allow her into the White House, but the lawsuits don’t evaporate, and neither do the angry judges.

3. Bribery: After the FBI set off a headline earthquake by re-opening the Clinton email investigation, we learned that several other FBI investigations of Clintonworld have been quietly in progress for some time. One of those investigations is digging into bribery allegations against the Clinton Foundation. The FBI agents working on these cases were reportedly very angry that top Bureau and Justice Department officials were pressuring them to drop their investigations.

The most attention-grabbing of these suspicions concerns an FBI official, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife received an inexplicably huge political donation from Clinton bagman Terry McAuliffe, currently the governor of Virginia. The timing of this donation was so convenient that even the Left side of the blogosphere has produced some uneasy speculation that McCabe probably should have recused himself from all things Clinton-related.

Well, he didn’t recuse himself, and the conflicts of interest are so apparent that the lack of a chiseled-in-stone quid pro quo might not be enough to kill this case off. After all, corrupt officials aren’t usually dumb enough to write down their quid pro quo agreements, or repeat them into microphones. The McCabe controversy already has longer legs than most observers expected, when the news first broke.

4. Pay for Play: There has also been recent confirmation that the FBI has investigated influence-peddling allegations against the Clinton Foundation, which was so obviously used for that purpose that it’s funny to watch Clinton apologists insist nothing can be proven in a court of law. Some of the most vigorous infighting within the Bureau reportedly concerns whether pay-for-play investigations should move forward.

WikiLeaks has exposed emails from Clinton insiders that openly discuss how the Foundation was part of a network that steered millions of dollars to “Bill Clinton Inc.” Even longtime members of the Clinton syndicate professed themselves troubled by these operations. They were also unhappy with arrangements like Hillary Clinton’s agreement tospeak in Morocco after a $12 million donation to the Clinton Global Initiative.

It’s entirely possible that more documentation about these suspicious Clinton Foundation dealings will come to light after the election, especially if some of the people Clinton took money from grow upset with her. It’s downright dangerous to have a President with so many strings attached.

5. Illegal Use of a Nonprofit Organization: There are many laws governing the management of charitable organizations, generally intended to prevent them from becoming money-laundering operations, ripoff operations, and vehicles for political influence peddling. The Clinton Foundation and its galaxy of related operations may eventually find itself answering some questions about compliance with those laws, assuming the IRS decides to stop focusing its efforts on hassling mom-and-pop pro-life groups and kitchen-table Tea Party outfits. If the Foundation is ever held to account for any other impropriety, charges of abusing a nonprofit should be part of the legal package as well.

6. Racketeering: Former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has recently observed that Hillary Clinton’s abuse of the State Department looks an awful lot like a “racketeering enterprise,” which could trigger the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971, more widely known as RICO. McCarthy explained:

Under RICO, an “enterprise” can be any association of people, informal or formal, illegitimate or legitimate – it could be a Mafia family, an ostensibly charitable foundation, or a department of government. It is a racketeering enterprise if its affairs are conducted through “a pattern of racketeering activity.” A “pattern” means merely two or more violations of federal or state law; these violations constitute “racketeering activity” if they are included among the extensive list of felonies laid out in the statute.

7. Fraud: Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel has been building a case that the “Clinton Charity Network,” as he calls the complete system of Clinton operations, has committed “charity fraud of epic proportions.” In part, he refers to discrepancies between donor accounts and the Clinton Foundation’s books.

Others have pointed out how the Clinton Health Access Initiative has essentially ignoredNew York state law for years, without a peep from Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (who just happens to be part of the Clinton campaign’s “leadership council.”) There are some interesting differences between the paperwork CHAI submitted to the IRS and what it submitted to the state of New York, which has more specific requirements about identifying foreign donors.

In addition to getting a free pass on perjury, the Clintons are traditionally allowed to violate tax laws without penalty, eventually refiling paperwork when “errors” are discovered years after the fact. Another round of whoops-my-bad, no-harm-no-foul “refiling” during a Hillary Clinton presidency would be embarrassing, especially if she’s busy trying to ratchet up taxes on everyone else.

John Guandolo: Anti-Muslim ‘Hate Speech’ Prosecutions in Europe Portend the ‘Destruction of Liberty in the West’

Matt Cardy/Getty

Matt Cardy/Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 26, 2016:

Former FBI agent and counter-terrorism expert John Guandolo, founder of UnderstandingTheThreat.com, joined Breitbart News Dailyon SiriusXM Wednesday to talk about the cultural impact of mass immigration from Middle Eastern conflict zones into Europe.

Breitbart Editor-in-Chief and SiriusXM host Alex Marlow began the discussion with a story from Austria about an Iraqi asylum-seeker who confessed to raping a ten-year-old boy, but saw his rape conviction overturned because he said he was dealing with a “sexual emergency.”

LISTEN:

“What you described, and what the individual describes in this story, what the Muslim describes, that is actually lawful under sharia,” Guandolo said, referring to the Islamic legal code.

He continued:

It’s the reason that, according to sharia, a Muslim male can have sexual relations with an animal, with a woman, with a boy, is because of exactly what he said – from the Islamic perspective legally, sexual urges are things that can be released as the Muslim man needs to. It’s literally that simple. And it’s just a part of Islam that’s not talked about because of it’s crudity, how crass and crude this discussion can turn, but the reality is, that’s something that needs to be understood by your listeners.

Marlow mentioned another headline from Austria about the editor of the country’s largest paper being charged with hate speech for an article on the assaults and property damage caused by Syrian migrants.

Guandolo said this concept of “hate speech” has already reached the United States:

You have got Hamas doing business as the Council on American-Islamic Relations. My organization, Understanding the Threat, UTT, everywhere we go, you have Hamas doing business as CAIR, literally putting a massive amount of pressure on whoever is hosting our programs – whether it’s a three-day law enforcement program, or any other program.

I mean, right now, they teach classes on, literally when I come to town, how to shut my programs down. I put out an article a couple of weeks ago, we have them on video saying when John Guandolo comes to town, this guy’s gotta be shut down, here’s what you do.

“What is that all about? It is about shutting down the free exchange of ideas, that in this particular case is, because of my FBI background, a factual presentation based in evidence on the fact that CAIR is a Hamas organization,” Guandolo maintained.

He offered a timely story drawn from his own recent experience to illustrate how hate-speech accusations can obscure certain messages, even if they cannot (yet) be censored outright in the United States.

“I’m in Oklahoma right now. Yesterday Chris Gaubatz and I testified before the Oklahoma State Judiciary Committee about the Islamic movement in the nation and specifically in Oklahoma, and the two organizations we focused on that are Muslim Brotherhood were — I mean, we focused on a lot that I laid out — but they have a mosque here called the Grand Mosque in Oklahoma City, and the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, both Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas supporters. The Islamic Society here is a subsidiary of ISNA, which as you all know, because you’re reported it before, is a Muslim Brotherhood organization,” Guandolo recalled.

“But I laid out the evidence, I laid out the property records showing that it’s owned by the Muslim Brotherhood’s bank, laid out all kinds of stuff, their financial reportings, all that,” he continued.

“Well, the imam for that organization, who I identified as being Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood was sitting seven feet away from me, as was the director of CAIR Oklahoma, which is Hamas, and I identified them as Hamas. We laid it out. This was a three-hour interim study at the state level. We went into the next room after it was over and had a press conference, and the state legislator that invited us in brought me to the podium, and we said, ‘Are there any questions?’ There were at least fifteen people in the media. Nobody had a question,” he said.

“Soon as we were done, they flocked around the Hamas guys, and it was like ducks eating bread from a park bench. It was amazing to watch right in front of us. I literally interjected into what CAIR was saying when they were talking to me, I said, ‘This is exactly what I just testified to in there.’ They were like, ‘Hey, don’t interrupt!’ I said, ‘These men are Hamas terrorists that you’re talking to, and you just heard the evidence in the other room.’ And yet, what did they report all over Oklahoma, was that it was just ‘hateful,’ just hateful speech,” Guandolo reported.

“As we’ve learned from the WikiLeaks, the media is so in the bag. What you’re describing as going on in Europe is happening right here in America, and it is the complete shutting down of the free exchange of ideas, and free speech,” he warned.

“We already have people in the West, as you just noted, in Europe who have had handcuffs put on them because of Facebook posts, and free speech on the street corner. It is the destruction of liberty in the West, and I don’t see people in Europe fighting it. I am seeing some in America fight it, but we’re in a really bad way,” he said.

Marlow asked Guandolo for his estimate of how many mosques have been radicalized in the U.S., and how many are susceptible to radicalization.

“Well, we have over three thousand now, is the best number that exist. It looks like over three thousand. The number is increasing pretty rapidly, and has over the last couple of years,” Guandolo replied.

“Of those, the percentage that UTT usually looks at is a number between 75 and 85 percent, and that’s based on three things,” he explained. “It’s based on property records, it’s based on leadership of the mosque, and it’s based on the mosque’s study – which Chris Gaubatz, who’s a part of UTT, went undercover at CAIR, and the book Muslim Mafia is written about that experience, at least in part.”

“He also took part in a mosque survey where he went around the country, he and a few others, and went into a hundred random mosques, and they looked at what was being taught, and the sharia adherence there,” Guandolo continued. “We saw that sharia adherence, strict sharia adherence and extreme sharia adherence, is in about 81 percent of mosques in the United States. And where you have a high level of sharia adherence, you have violent jihad being taught and encouraged in these places.”

He explained:

So that number 80 percent that people throw around is not just kind of something that somebody pulled out of the air. There’s been testimony on Capitol Hill. There’s evidence of the studies that we’ve done, and we know that this is a number that puts it very close to the mark. So 80 percent of 3,000 is a big number. And of course we see, across the United States, that number is very close when we look at the number of organizations that are Muslim Brotherhood that are these mosques.

So you not only have kind of an independent look at it, when you look at the Muslim Brotherhood mosques and Islamic centers in this country, that number is right about 80 percent. That’s a massive number. And so we know that if they’re Muslim Brotherhood, they’re the kind of mosques, like the one we spoke about yesterday in front of the Oklahoma Judiciary Committee, the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City. These are Muslim Brotherhood mosques, and they teach jihad.

In the case of that one, that’s the mosque where Alton Nolen attended, and he ended up being on top of a woman in the office space in Oklahoma, screaming “Allahu akbar!” and sawing her head off. These are the kinds of things that come out of places like that. We can tie jihadi attacks, whether it’s the Boston bombing, the San Bernardino, Orlando, the shootings in Chattanooga, the killing of Private Andy Long in Little Rock, Arkansas – all these attacks that we’ve seen in the United States, we can almost always tie to a Muslim Brotherhood Islamic center or Islamic society.

Wikileaks: Bill Clinton Boasts of Hillary’s ‘Working Relationship’ with Muslim Brotherhood

clinton-and-morsi-brendan-smialowskiap-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 18, 2016:

In a speech Bill Clinton gave at the home of Mehul and Hema Sanghani in October 2015, revealed to the public for the first time by WikiLeaks, former President Bill Clinton touted Hillary Clinton’s “working relationship” with the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi in Egypt as an example of her diplomatic skills.

President Clinton also gave his wife a lot of credit for negotiating the Iran nuclear deal, in a passage that began with the standard Democrat “stuff happens” shrugging defense for foreign policy failures:

Finally, we live in a world, as I said, that’s full of good news and bad news. The United States cannot control it all, but we need a president who’s most likely to make as many good things happen as possible, and most likely to prevent big, bad things from happening. You can’t keep every bad thing from happening; who’s most likely to be able to get people involved in a positive way. Even the people who don’t like the Iran nuclear agreement concede it never would have happened if it hadn’t been for the sanctions. Hillary negotiated those sanctions and got China and Russia to sign off – something I thought she’d never be able to do. I confess. I’m never surprised by anything she does, but that surprised me. I didn’t think she could do it. The Chinese and the Russians to see past their short-term self-interest to their long-term interest and not sparking another nuclear arms race.

And when the Muslim Brotherhood took over in Egypt, in spite of the fact that we were (inaudible), she developed a working relationship with the then-president and went there and brokered a ceasefire to stop a full-scale shooting war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, which on top of what was going on in Syria and the (inaudible) Jordan would have been a calamity for the world.

And when we were trying to reset our relations with Russia under President Medvedev, she and her team negotiated a New START Treaty, which limits warheads and missiles. And she lobbied it through the Senate. She had to get 67 votes, which means a lot of these Republicans who say that they don’t like her now are just kidding for election season. They trusted her, and she got it passed. You can’t get 67 votes in the Senate without a lot of Republican support. And I don’t know about you, but with all this tension and Mr. Putin trying to affect the outcome of the conflict in Syria, I think it’s a very good thing that we’re in a lower risk of any kind of accidental nuclear conflict with the Russians. She did that.

You’ll rarely find a more tortured political framing of the Iran debacle than Bill Clinton boasting that the sanctions Barack Obama lifted were super-awesome, as even those who don’t think those sanctions should have been lifted agree.

Mr. Clinton’s version of the Iran sanctions leaves out a few details, such as Russia’s keen financial interest in keeping Iranian energy out of the European market, and China’s desire to use Iran sanctions as a geopolitical bargaining chip.

But the part about the Muslim Brotherhood is most interesting. If anything, he is selling Hillary Clinton’s “working relationship” with Egyptian Islamists short, because she used American diplomatic leverage for Morsi’s benefit even before he got elected, warning Egyptians about “backtracking” to a military regime at a key moment of the post-Mubarak campaign, when Morsi was running against a former member of Hosni Mubarak’s military. There have long been rumors that more subtle forms of U.S. “pressure” were used to secure Morsi’s office, as well.

Then again, in public pronouncements, Clinton called Hosni Mubarak’s tottering regime “stable” and cautioned her Obama Administration colleagues against “pushing a longtime partner out the door.”

A few days ago, declassified State Department documents revealed Clinton’s talking points for a 2012 meeting with Morsi hailed his election as a “milestone in Egypt’s transition to democracy,” and stated that she was to offer the Muslim Brotherhood leader “technical expertise and assistance from both the U.S. government and private sector to support his economic and social programs.”

Clinton was also supposed to privately offer Morsi assistance with his police and security forces, which would be conducted “quite discreetly.”

After Morsi was gone, she declared herself exasperated with Egyptian political culture and declared herself a cynical “realist.” That is pretty much the opposite of what everyone in the Obama Administration was saying while the “Arab Spring” was in the midst of springing its little surprises on autocratic but America-aligned (or at least America-fearing) regimes, which we were all supposed to feel guilty about selfishly supporting for so long.

As for Clinton’s superb working relationship with Morsi, that eventually ended with Morsi’s wife railing against Clinton for supposedly dismissing him as “a simpleton who was unfit for the presidency,” and threatening to publish letters from Clinton to Morsi that would damage the former U.S. Secretary of State. Meanwhile, Mohammed Morsi is developing a solid working relationship with the Egyptian penitentiary system.

Egypt has one of those icky military governments again, and while it won’t have fond memories of Hillary Clinton’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood regime, it will most likely work with whoever wins the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Therefore, a prospective President Hillary Clinton probably won’t suffer too much from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s appalling lapses in judgment.

Bolton on WikiLeaks Revelations: Hillary Clinton Thinks the World Must ‘Get Ready for Open Borders’

Jeff J Mitchell/Getty

Jeff J Mitchell/Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 13, 2016:

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton discussed the latest WikiLeaks revelations of favors done for “FOBs” (Friends of Bill Clinton) in Haiti on Thursday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM.

“Just to start with, Haiti, it is a series of violations of AIDs, typical procurement practices,” Bolton pointed out. “Not that I would hold them up as the best in the world, but there arerules about competitive bidding, and rules against the directed award of contracts.” (AID is the United States Agency for International Development, also commonly referred to as USAID.)

“I can speak as an alumnus of AID, having been general counsel, the chief lawyer in the agency in the Reagan Administration, and also later being in charge of policy and budget. Things have changed, obviously, since then, but the main lines of competitive bidding have never changed,” he said.

“I just this morning, in fact, in the wake of all these emails, heard from a friend who was a former senior official at AID, that he was told by a career AID person that they had been told specifically by Cheryl Mills that they should direct contracts to some company that she had never heard of. And I think that’s the sort of favors being indicated in all these emails,” Bolton added.

“It’s just extraordinary that this kind of corruption – and that’s what it is. That’s what competitive bidding is designed to protect against, to get the best value for our tax dollars obviously, but to prevent this kind of political favor,” he explained. “And when the mainstream media finally talk about it, they don’t know we’ve moved toward objective reporting in America. I don’t see much sign of it, I must say.”

 Breitbart’s Washington Political Editor and SiriusXM host Matthew Boyle observed that the mainstream media and political class are “really stopping at nothing to try to keep Donald Trump from winning.”

Bolton responded:

Well, I think within the mainstream media, the Wall Street Journal editorial page some weeks back pointed out very well, they called the media – and really it’s true both with respect to the Obama Administration and the Clinton campaign – they called the mainstream media their stenographers. Whatever they put out, they write.

They’ve just abandoned all pretense of objectivity, and so it really comes down to whether the American voter can withstand this barrage of misinformation, and still make a clear choice about who they want for President and Senate and House, in all the various elections we’re going to see in less than a month now.

Bolton thought it was a little too early to draw comparisons between the 2016 presidential race and the Brexit vote, but added:

I think what was uncovered there has been something that’s happened in various American elections over the years as well. When people know what the politically correct answer is to a pollster – whether they’re doing it over the phone, whether they’re doing it automatically on a touch-tone phone, or whether it’s a real person interviewing them – they understand that their answers are gonna be seen by other people, and so they will tend, for their own protection, to give the politically correct answer, whether it’s what they really believe or not.

“So in the case of Brexit, there were undoubtedly people who didn’t want to say that they were going to vote to leave, so they either said Remain or undecided,” he continued. “It turned out to be a substantial number of people, and they prevailed on the referendum day, June 23. Now, whether that’s the case here, we don’t know, but I don’t think there’s any doubt people know what the politically correct answer is.”

Bolton said another WikiLeaks document revealing Hillary Clinton’s support for “open borders” was “not that different really, in fact it’s the same phrase that John Kerry used just a few months ago, to say that the world had to get ready for open borders.”

“It’s going to be very interesting, for example, to see if the new U.N. Secretary-General, who has held essentially that same position, pushes for that when he takes office on January the 1st,” Bolton said.

“And it ties into another statement in one of Podesta’s emails that was leaked, that it’s increasingly necessary for candidates, at least on his side, to have one public position and one private position. So, you know, if you like organized hypocrisy, if you like flat-out deceit, then that’s the campaign that’s taking it to new heights. Seems to me if this is something that matters still to the American people, they ought to reflect that in how they vote on Election Day,” he concluded.

 

Clinton Speech Wikileaks: Libya’s Institutions ‘Destroyed’, Benghazi ‘My Biggest Regret’

AFP/Getty

AFP/Getty


Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 11, 2016:

The WikiLeaks dump of those very expensive speeches Hillary Clinton fought to keep secret from the public for so long include some remarkable comments on Libya and Benghazi.

These comments offer a damning indictment of Clinton’s leadership, because it is clear that she and Barack Obama were completely wrong about what would happen to Libya after they toppled dictator Moammar Qaddafi.

For example, she told the Boston Consulting Group in 2013:

So what happened? Well, Khadafy is gone. They start to organize. They had one of the best elections that any of these new countries had. They did not elect extremists. They had a very good outcome of people representing the various factions, but they didn’t – they don’t have a military. They can’t provide security as we found much to, you know, our terrible experience in Benghazi, but we see it all over the country. So the jury is out but it is not for lack of trying by the people who have inherited the positions of responsibility.

The jury wasn’t “out” then, and it is not out today. Clinton and Obama caused a horrific global crisis with their Libyan adventure, and they were completely unprepared for what happened in Benghazi. It’s clear from Clinton’s remarks that she completely misunderstood the security situation.

In the same speech, she explained that now she understands how thoroughly Libya’s “institutions” were “destroyed” by Qaddafi’s rule, and violent overthrow, but sadly for Ambassador Chris Stevens and those who died with him, Clinton did not listen to anyone who tried to warn her about the danger prior to 9/11/2012:

You have a country that had been under the thumb of Khadafy and his henchmen for 42 years. All institutions were destroyed. There was not even a military because he didn’t trust anybody since he had been a Colonel who had done a coup, so he had mercenaries, there were African mercenaries and some European mercenaries that were in his direct pay. They had really just conducted themselves as if the entire Libyan oil fortune was personally theirs.

In a Cisco speech in August 2014, she called the Benghazi attack her “biggest regret,” and repeated her observations about how inadequate the security situation was, as if someone else had been Secretary of State at the time:

Of course it was just devastating that there was this attack on our post and on our CIA annex, which I can talk about now, because it’s all been made public. And that the kind of reliability that governments have to count on from the governments in which they operate, like we’re responsible for the security ultimately of every embassy in Washington.

Well, the Libyan government has no capacity to deliver and the people that we had contracted with were incapable or unwilling to do it.  So that was a deep regret.

And you learn from these events, just as we have over the last 30-plus years, where embassies have been attacked or taken over, or the terrible events in Beirut in 1983-84.  You learn from them, but it always comes down to this very hard choice, should American civilians be in dangerous places?

What’s especially galling about Clinton’s 20/20 hindsight is that Democrats have long made the same argument about Iraq, and Clinton claims to have accepted those arguments after mistakenly voting to authorize the invasion.

In the later years of the Bush presidency, Democrats claimed it was patently obvious, in retrospect, that Iraq wasn’t ready to deal with the savage post-Saddam era, because decades of brutal personality-cult dictatorship had destroyed the institutions upon which democracy depends. Supposedly everyone outside of the Bush Administration could plainly see that nation-building was a doomed enterprise.

But here’s Clinton asking us to pardon her while she learns the same horrible lesson from her own nation-building project. Why should anyone give President Obama and his Secretary of State a total pass for not understanding what would happen after Qaddafi was gone, when so many people outside the Administration were yelling those warnings from the rooftops? Who was responsible for understanding that security situation and taking appropriate precautions, if not the Secretary of State?

Clinton boasted about the wonderful Libyan elections in several of her speeches – “one of the best elections in the whole region after the fall of Qaddafi,” as she put it to Hamilton College in October 2013 – but such arguments cut no ice with Democrats after the liberation of Iraq. It wasn’t long before they were waving off those “purple finger” photos of Iraqi voters as irrelevant.

“You try to help, you try to create relationships, and, you know, the hard guys with the guns have a different idea. So if you don’t have overwhelming force, it’s difficult,” Clinton observed to General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting in 2014.

How can anyone be surprised that “the hard guys with guns” have undue influence in the Middle East? How can anyone with even a cursory understanding of the Middle East in general, and Libya in particular, reinforced by the grim lessons of Iraq, have imagined anything less than “overwhelming force” would be required?

Clinton told the Global Business Travelers Association in 2013 that it was “just a terrible crime” Ambassador Stevens was killed “doing what was really in the best interests of both the United States and Libya.”

On that, we can all agree, but that’s not how Clinton talked during the crucial days after the Benghazi attack revealed she and Obama had no idea what they had done to Libya, and no contingency plan for coping with a terrorist strike on the anniversary of 9/11.

During those vital days of Obama’s re-election campaign, Clinton and Obama pretended Benghazi was a bolt from the blue, a stunning “video protest.” She blamed the man who created the video, not these militia groups and terrorist gangs she now claims to be a keen student of. There’s no way to honestly square what Clinton said in these speeches with the Obama Administration’s conduct in September and October 2012.

Clinton’s speeches in 2013 and 2014 are further evidence, if any were needed, that she and President Obama lied to the American people, and to the Benghazi families, about the attack. They were disastrously wrong about Libya, from the minute Clinton talked Obama into toppling Qaddafi.

Also see:

Islamist Ties and Security Clearances: An Urgent National Security Debate

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 7, 2016:

In a lengthy article at CounterJihad.com, Christine Brim asks, “Should Family Affiliation With Foreign Islamist Movements Prevent a Security Clearance?”

While the article concerns an official in the office of the Defense Department Inspector General named John Crane, an even more urgent example would be longtime Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who has similar family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, and might be just a few months away from access to the Oval Office.

John Crane rose to the position of Assistant Inspector General after 25 years with the Defense Department, even though his father Robert Crane converted to Islam in 1980 and became “a high-level official in multiple Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-affiliated organizations in the U.S. and Qatar.” Crane told Brim he was never once asked about his father’s affiliations during his long DoD career.

The younger Crane has a position in the battle over Edward Snowden, who has lately been the beneficiary of a massive left-wing effort to rehabilitate his reputation as a “whistleblower” and secure a pardon for his offenses. As Brim explains:

Crane has recently been the subject of numerous media interviews as “The Third Man” in the new book Bravehearts: Whistleblowing in the Age of Snowden, a defense of Edward Snowden’s theft of classified documents from the U.S., UK and Australia. John Crane was quietly removed from his Inspector General and whistleblower office positions in February 2013, four months before the Edward Snowden case became public knowledge.  He immediately became a consultant for the General Accountability Project (GAP), the legal counsel for Snowden. GAP was founded in 1977 by the extreme far left Institute for Policy Studies.

[…] Crane’s allegations against the DoD in Bravehearts have been cited as a vindication of Snowden’s acts by the Intercept, the website of Snowden advocate Glenn Greenwald (“Vindication for Edward Snowden From a New Player in NSA Whistleblowing Saga”).

He was suspended from his job as Defense Department Assistant Inspector General in 2013, accompanied by the loss of his security clearances, but is now appealing for reinstatement. This means Crane will have to complete a new security clearance questionnaire, Form SF 86, which now asks about the affiliation of relatives with any “foreign government, military, security, defense industry, foreign movement, or intelligence service.” This is where the elder Crane’s relationship with Islamist groups could enter the picture.

The problem is that the Muslim Brotherhood might not be as problematic as it should be. The Obama Administration has labored mightily to rehabilitate the group’s image, but Brim lays out a convincing case that it is exactly the kind of “foreign movement” our guardians of national security should worry about. It is already been designated a terrorist organization by a number of U.S. allies (plus Russia), and will obtain that designation in the United States if the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015 is enacted.

Brim recalls the Muslim Brotherhood’s motto – “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope” – and notes their determination to “impose strict Islamic law in Muslim-majority countries and the world, using a mix of politics and violence.” They have ideological ties to some of America’s worst non-state enemies, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, and by extension, the Islamic State.

And yet, there does not seem to have been any effort made by this Administration, or its predecessors, to explore Robert Crane’s Muslim Brotherhood ties, or the possibility that they might compromise his son. CounterJihad’s exhaustive investigation ended with picking up the phone, calling John Crane, and asking if his father was that Robert Crane. He answered in the affirmative, but based on Brim’s report, no one in the U.S. government bothered to ask.

Robert Crane, who did not respond to an interview request from CounterJihad, has a lively resume, explored in detail by CounterJihad. He was, for example, appointed Deputy Director for National Security Planning by Richard Nixon, and then fired by Henry Kissinger; his connections in the Gulf Arab states made him Ronald Reagan’s choice for ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, but his appointment was scuttled by Secretary of State Alexander Haig.

Brim writes of Robert Crane’s conversion to Islam:

In 1980 Crane “became Muslim after seeing Sudanese leader Hasan al-Turabi preach and pray at an Islamic affairs conference in New Hampshire” (a variation on the conversion anecdote here). That Robert Crane would credit Hasan al-Turabi for his conversion is both surprising and concerning. Hasan al-Turabi became a leader of the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood starting in the 1960s, was best known for inviting Osama Bin Laden to shelter his entire operation in Sudan from 1991-1996 and according to Human Rights Watch, imposed brutal sharia law as head of the National Islamic Front (the Muslim Brotherhood party) and in high office as Minister of Justice starting in 1979.

Brim relates many disturbing activities conducted by the organizations on Robert Crane’s resume, but the central question would be how much any of it reflects on his son John Crane. Brim’s antennae went up when the authors of the Bravehearts book about Snowden devoted a paragraph to Robert Crane, without naming him, or saying a single word about what he did after his spell with the Nixon Administration. Crane told Brim the authors did not ask about his father’s conversion to Islam or ties to extremist groups, and he did not volunteer the information – which seems to be a fair summary of his relationship with U.S. intelligence as well.

“If Crane undergoes a new background investigation, what answer will he give regarding his father’s affiliations to a foreign movement? Will it be the factual one, or the whitewashed one he provided for Bravehearts: Whistleblowing in the Age of Snowden?Would a factual answer bar a return to his old position – or facilitate it, in a future administration that may actively support the Muslim Brotherhood?” Brim asks.

Similar questions could be asked about Huma Abedin, whose family journal, where she is listed as an assistant editor, has advocated some disturbing interpretations of Islamic law, as well as accusing the United States of inviting the 9/11 attack by heaping “various kinds of injustices and sanctions” upon the Muslim world.

Her mother is an official in a group chaired by the Muslim Brotherhood’s leader, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Her father founded an institute supported by a major Muslim Brotherhood splinter group.

Questions about Abedin are never answered. They are deflected by furious allegations of conspiracy-mongering and anti-Muslim bigotry. Hillary Clinton and her top aides are clearly above the law, and above all reasonable national security scrutiny.

Crane does not have the magical Clinton immunity, but as Brim pointed out, the Muslim Brotherhood certainly has not been shunned by the Obama Administration, and it is poised to do even better in Washington if Hillary Clinton becomes President. The current climate of political correctness treats very few Islamic organizations as security risks, unless they’ve been directly classified as terrorist organizations under American law.

The web of connections between hardcore Islamists and more “mainstream” groups is complicated, making it easy to caricature discussion of those links as “conspiracy-mongering.” The groups cluttering these complex flowcharts tend to have the word “Muslim” in their benevolent-sounding names, and that’s all the dominant political culture in Washington needs to see before averting its eyes.

It’s fair to ask whether someone like John Crane has been unduly influenced by his father, or might compromise sensitive information by talking to him. The answer to that question could be “no.” It is terrifying beyond belief to consider that no one at the Defense Department had the desire, or maybe the courage, to ask.

Frank Gaffney: Hillary Clinton’s Iran Policy Is ‘Obama Bomb Fraud, Now Under New Management’

AP/Brendan Smialowski

AP/Brendan Smialowski

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 5 2016:

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney reviewed the national security segments of Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate on Wednesday morning’s Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Alex Marlow.

Marlow kicked off the discussion with “this insane notion that Iran has abandoned its nuclear armaments, the pursuit of a nuclear weapon, and Hillary Clinton did that single-handedly, without firing a shot.”

“Well, it’s fraud, is what it is,” Gaffney said. “This is Obama bomb fraud, now under new management.”

He picked apart the dual falsehoods in Tim Kaine’s statement, arguing that Hillary Clinton was not the architect of the Iran nuclear deal, and the deal does not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, by the admission of those who were its architects:

I think the American people have awakened, Alex, to the reality that not only was she not responsible for the deplorable outcome here – I mean, she started it off, and I guess in that sense is implicated – but this is Barack Obama and John Kerry’s doing. But anybody who has a lick of sense knows that what John Kerry and Barack Obama wrought is a fraud, in the sense that it does not put Iran out of the nuclear weapons business, with or without firing a shot.

And in fact, I’d go beyond what Mike Pence said in rebuttal, which is, you know, they’re ten years away from having whatever they want because the thing allows them to, at the end of its duration, go for it full-bore.

The real problem, Alex, as you know – and Breitbart’s done a wonderful job of reporting on this – is they’re allowed to have everything they need for a nuclear weapon now, and essentially at will, they can pop out of that agreement. They keep threatening to do it, and we keep making concessions, including ransoming hostages and sending planeloads of cash in the dark of night, and so on, to try to prevent them from exercising that very real option.

This is a case where, I think this is actually an indictment of the people who are saying, “Hey, this is going splendidly, and let’s just have four more years of it,” far from being a credit to those folks.

Gaffney described Pence’s comments on the destabilization of the world under Obama-Clinton foreign policy, from Russia’s adventurism in Ukraine to Iran’s ascendancy, as “one of the high points of the evening”:

It was as succinct and as devastating a takedown of the myth of Hillary Clinton’s fabulous success as secretary of state, and her principal bona fide, as she claims it to be, that she’ll be a great commander-in-chief.

She has made a hash-up of everything she’s touched. And whether it’s Russia, a “reset” that, in fact, has set the stage for infinitely worse behavior from the Russians – let me give you one example: A colleague of mine, Roger Robinson, and I had a conversation earlier this week on our show, Secure Freedom Radio, about the fact that what the Russians have put themselves in a position to do by seizing Crimea, Alex – and most people don’t have a clue about this – is, they’ve got their hands now on perhaps as much as $1 trillion of oil and gas reserves off the coast of Crimea. They’re using Ukrainian rigs that they’ve stolen to go begin tapping into that oil revenue that should otherwise have gone to Ukraine.

And, by the way, it looks as though they’re setting up to go after the oil that Romania has in a neighboring area of the Black Sea.

These are the sorts of things that are a direct legacy of the misbegotten notions about how they could deal with Vladimir Putin, that was all part of Hillary and Barack Obama’s “reset” policy.

And we talked a little bit about Iran; this is an unmitigated disaster. Just one data point: I’m afraid we’re beginning to see the Iranians translating the enormous wealth that we’ve given them not only into further action on their so-called “capped” nuclear weapons program, but on all of the other horrible things they do, from subversion in their own region and beyond, to threatening our forces, to supporting terrorism, and much more.

This is a disaster. It should be disqualifying, not a credential for higher office. And I thought Mike Pence nailed it in this quote and others.

Gaffney found Tim Kaine’s insistence that “we killed bin Laden” – something for which Hillary Clinton is now apparently responsible, although President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign portrayed it as a “gutsy call” he alone had the unique courage to make – both outrageous and dangerous:

Two quick points: In addition to al-Qaeda still being very much a force to reckon with, and of course, the Islamic State, there’s Boko Haram, there’s al-Shabaab, the Nusra Front, on and on.

But most especially, there’s the Muslim Brotherhood. This didn’t come up last night. Neither did Huma Abedin, who I consider to really be a Muslim Brotherhood influence operator at the very least, if not actually one of their own, who’s been working for Hillary Clinton all these years. And that didn’t get the attention it needs to, it has to, in the remaining days of this debate because the Brotherhood and enabling them to pursue jihad in our own country, as well as elsewhere, is one of Hillary’s worst legacies.

The other thing is, yesterday the Justice Department dropped its prosecution of a man that shouldn’t have been indicted in the first place, for running guns to Libya. That’s something Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were doing, and they decided they didn’t want Marc Turi’s discovery to expose Hillary Clinton’s terrible record on Libya, so they dropped the case just in time to prevent that from coming to light, in the course of the remaining days of this election.

These are the sorts of things that I hope we’ll get into, in the next two debates with the presidential candidates.

Gaffney said it was “a mistake, a strategic mistake of the first order, to remove Qaddafi, because he was helping to fight all of these jihadists – both the violent kind and the more stealthy kind of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“We now have them at our throats, Alex, in part because Libya has gone literally to the jihadis,” he argued, adding:

I think it’s a blight on Hillary’s record. It’s, I think, evidence of Huma Abedin’s insidious influence. It’s a mistake, of course, Barack Obama’s ultimately responsible for, but Hillary must be held accountable for it because I fear there’s going to be a lot more of that kind of mistake – that kind of belief, as you say, that the Muslim Brotherhood, if there is a good guy/bad guy division, they’re on the side of the good guys.”

“They’re anything but. They practice the same totalitarian ideology masquerading as a religion,” Gaffney stressed. Elaborating, he said:

They call it sharia. They seek to impose it, just like al-Qaeda, just like the Islamic State and others, although with techniques that are more insidious, more dangerous for democratic countries like ours, namely by stealth. But the goal is the same: the domination worldwide of sharia. Hillary doesn’t get that – or worse, she has actually been an enabler of it, in important ways. That’s gotta come out, in the final days of this campaign.

LISTEN:

Also see: