Are US Intelligence Agencies Withholding Intelligence From President Trump?

Trump leaving the CIA headquarters with Michael Flynn after delivering remarks during a visit in Langley, Virginia, on January 21. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Trump leaving the CIA headquarters with Michael Flynn after delivering remarks during a visit in Langley, Virginia, on January 21. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Center for Security Policy, by Fred Fleitz, February 16, 2017:

According to a front page Wall Street Journal article today, U.S. intelligence officials have withheld sensitive intelligence from President Donald Trump because they are concerned it could be leaked or compromised.  The Journal story cited former and current intelligence officials.  If true, this would be a dangerous and unprecedented act of defiance by unelected intelligence officers.  The acting Director of National Intelligence denied this report.

I suspect this story is only partly true for several reasons.  While I believe there are a handful of Obama appointees who are making such claims, most intelligence officers would  never do this because they know they work for the president and such behavior would cost them their jobs.  I also question whether any intelligence officials who have had actual contact with the White House did this.  I believe this story is being driven by a blogger and former intelligence officer who, although he has a wide following, has a history of making far-fetched and conspiratorial claims.

What this story does represent is the urgency that the Trump administration get its appointees in place in intelligence agencies to ensure they perform their mission to provide the president with the intelligence he needs to keep our nation safe.  Trump officials also are urgently needed at State and the Pentagon.

Once Trump officials are in place and assert control over the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, CIA, DIA, State and DOD, there should be a sharp reduction in leaks and anti-Trump press stories like today’s Wall Street Journal article.

***

LISTEN TO TODAY’S SECURE FREEDOM PODCAST ON THE DEEP STATE

***

***

***

FAKE NEWS: MEDIA LIES ABOUT STATE DEPT OFFICIALS “FLEEING” TRUMP

dan-rather-document-investigation

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, January 26, 2016:

There are a bunch of media pieces like this. I picked this one because its headline and opening push a narrative that is completely discredited by its closing paragraphs. The narrative is that State Department officials are “fleeing” Trump. The reality is that political appointees were asked to resign.

Here we go.

There’s an ‘ongoing mass exodus’ at the State Department of people who don’t want to work for Trump

Senior officials are fleeing the State Department in the first days of President Donald Trump’s administration, according to The Washington Post.

Patrick Kennedy, the State Department’s undersecretary for management, and three of his top officials resigned abruptly recently, The Post reported. All are career diplomats who have served under presidents from both parties.

Two other senior leaders in the State Department left earlier this month. Post columnist Josh Rogin characterized it as an “ongoing mass exodus of senior foreign service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.”

David Wade, who was the State Department’s chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry, told The Post that it’s “the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember.”

…cut to the ending

State Department spokesman Mark Toner responded to the Post story with a statement characterizing resignations during a transition in administration as normal.

“As is standard with every transition, the outgoing administration, in coordination with the incoming one, requested all politically appointed officers submit letters of resignation,” he said in the stateme

“While this appears to be a large turnover in a short period of time, a change of administration always brings personnel changes, and there is nothing unusual about rotations or retirements in the Foreign Service,” the statement said. “Indeed, both are essential to the development of a steady stream of experienced leaders ready to assume critical roles at State.”

Here’s Matt Lee trying his best to educate the media:

Don’t worry. FactCheck will still rate it as Mostly True. Snopes will make assorted noises that sound like they mean something. Because our media is all Fake News, all the time.

Remember all that stuff we said at the beginning. It’s a bunch of fake news.

Instead of a “mass exodus” of desperate State refugees fleeing Trump, a handful of political appointees were told to resign. Patrick Kennedy, one of the more prominent of the bunch, had lobbied to keep his job.

Also see:

TRUMP FIRES HILLARY’S BENGHAZI FIXER

benghazi-master1050

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, January 26, 2017:

The mainstream media’s fake news operation is predictably spinning this as principled resignations by public officials who couldn’t stand the idea of working under Trump. Except that Patrick Kennedy, the biggest fish being forced out, had reportedly been begging to keep his job. These were resignations in name only. They were actually firings.

Thomas Shannon remains the United States’ acting secretary of state, but Foggy Bottom has lost its entire senior management team. President Donald Trump reportedly ordered these moves in an effort to “clean house.”

CNN reports the administration told four senior State Department officials that their services were no longer needed. The Washington Post characterized the departures as “sudden.”

Among those who are out include State’s long-serving undersecretary of management, Patrick Kennedy. He is reported to have been lobbying to keep his job. Other top officials who are no longer working at State include: Joyce Anne Barr, Gentry O. Smith and Michelle Bond. All three are career foreign service officers who have served under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Lydia Muniz, director of the bureau of overseas building operations, was asked to depart as well, CNN reports.

“It’s the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate,” said David Wade, who served as Secretary John Kerry’s chief of staff.

Good and good riddance. Here’s a refresher on Patrick Kennedy from Paul Mirengoff at Powerline.

Patrick Kennedy, the State Department official who tried to get the FBI to change email classifications in exchange for helping the FBI meet its staffing needs in Bagdhad, is what they used to call a “fixer.” ..

Kennedy was at fault for the poor security at Benghazi. Gregory Hicks, the State Department’s charge d’affaires in Libya, testified before Congress that “given the decision-making that Under Secretary Pat Kennedy was making with respect to Embassy Tripoli and Consulate Benghazi operations, he has to bear some responsibility” for the Benghazi terror attack.

As Clinton’s fixer, it was only natural that Kennedy assist the Clinton Foundation. The Washington Examiner reports that Kennedy was involved in pushing plans for a new $177.9 million embassy in Norway in 2011 over the apparent objections of diplomatic officials in Oslo. Norway’s government has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, donor records show.

Kennedy also helped fix it so that Brian Pagliano, the man in charge of Hillary’s home-brew email server, got a job at the State Department

And then there was this outrageous moment.

According to FBI interview summaries set to be released in the coming days. Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, discussed providing additional overseas slots for the FBI in exchange for revisions to classifications of the sensitive emails.

One email in particular concerned Kennedy and, according to the FBI summary, providing a B9 exemption “would allow him to archive the document in the basement of the department of state never to be seen again.” The FBI official told Kennedy that he would look into the email if Kennedy would authorize a pending request for additional FBI personnel in Iraq.

A summary of an interview with the section chief of the FBI records management division provides further evidence of Kennedy’s attempts to have the classification of some sensitive emails changed. The FBI records official, whose job includes making determinations on classification, told investigators that he was approached by his colleague in international operations after the initial discussion with Kennedy. The FBI records official says that his colleague “pressured” him to declassify an email “in exchange for a quid pro quo,” according to the interview summary. “In exchange for making the email unclassified State would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more agents in countries where they are presently forbidden.” The request was denied.

In the days that followed, the FBI records official attended an “all-agency” meeting at the State Department to discuss the ongoing “classification review of pending Clinton FOIA materials.” One of the participants at the meeting asked Kennedy whether any of the emails were classified. Kennedy purposely looked at the FBI records chief and then replied: “Well, we’ll see.”

Kennedy shouldn’t just be fired. He should be on trial. But hopefully the investigation of Hillary’s actions will continue.

 

State Department freezes Obama’s $221m gift to Palestinians

President-elect Donald Trump smiles as he arrives to speak at an election night rally, Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2016, in New York. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)

President-elect Donald Trump smiles as he arrives to speak at an election night rally, Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2016, in New York. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)

WIN, January 25, 2017:

The Trump administration has frozen Obama’s parting gift to the the Palestinians.

Former US President Barack Obama, in his waning hours, quietly released $221 million to the Palestinian Authority (PA), which Congress had been blocking.

The Trump administration announced it is freezing the move.

The State Department is reviewing the last-minute decision by former Secretary of State John Kerry to send $221 million dollars to the Palestinians.

Kerry formally notified Congress that State would release the money Friday morning, just hours before President Donald Trump took the oath of office.

The funds — supposedly intended for reconstruction in Gaza and good governance programs for the Palestinian Authority — were being blocked by at least two Republican lawmakers— Ed Royce (R-CA), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Kay Granger (R-TX), who sits on the House Appropriations Committee — in response to Palestinian attempts to join international organizations, from which it intended to launch more international campaigns against Israel and before a peace deal with Israel.

Such holds are generally respected but are not legally binding.

When asked about the transfer by a reporter during Tuesday’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that “[Trump] is very concerned about how taxpayer money is spent, whether it’s sent overseas and what we get for it in terms of the relationship or our support for a democracy or aid to another country for their defenses. But he’s going to be examining all aspects of the budget… He’s going to make sure that every deal, every dollar that is spent by the government is done in a way that respects the American taxpayer.”

By: AP and World Israel News Staff

Bin Laden’s Millennial Son Designated a Terrorist by U.S.

Osama bin Laden and Hamza bin Laden

Osama bin Laden and Hamza bin Laden

PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson, January 5, 2017:

WASHINGTON — The State Department has designated and sanctioned Osama bin Laden’s son Hamza as a global terrorist.

Hamza, who is in his mid-20s and bin Laden’s eleventh son, has been rallying millennials to jihad in audio messages over the past several months.

“The followers of the thought of Sheikh Osama, may Allah have mercy on him, which is represented by targeting the head of global disbelief that supports the Jews, have increased in number within a decade and a half, and became double in number,” Hamza bin Laden said in a July message.

“If you think that your sinful crime that you committed in Abbottabad has passed without punishment, then you thought wrong,” he added, referring to the U.S. raid in which his father was killed. “What is correct is coming to you, and its punishment is severe.”

Al-Qaeda senior leader Ayman al-Zawahiri announced on Aug. 14, 2015, that Hamza was an official member of the terror group.

Since then, bin Laden has called for “open-source jihad,” as al-Qaeda calls lone jihad, attacks against Washington, Paris and Israel. This year Hamza has also called on Saudi tribes to unite with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to wage war against Saudi Arabia.

“Today’s action notifies the U.S. public and the international community that Hamza bin Laden is actively engaged in terrorism,” the State Department said. “Designations of terrorist individuals and groups expose and isolate organizations and individuals, and result in denial of access to the U.S. financial system. Moreover, designations can assist or complement the law enforcement actions of other U.S. agencies and other governments.”

The department also issued a terrorist designation against Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian AQAP leader who previously led Islamic Jihad in Yemen before becoming AQAP’s security chief. A $5 million reward is on his head.

Also see:

IPT EXCLUSIVE: DHS Hires CAIR to Train French Officials

cair31

by Steven Emerson
IPT News
December 14, 2016

The Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) facilitated a training session last week for a French police delegation, in conjunction with the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s Community Engagement Office in Tampa, the Investigative Project on Terrorism has confirmed with DHS officials and other agencies.

This session stands in contrast with the FBI’s 2009 policy not to engage with CAIR outside of criminal investigations due to questions about the Hamas ties of its top executives. An FBI official wrote that “until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner.” That FBI policy toward CAIR remains in effect, and was publicly reaffirmed in 2013.

CAIR-Florida issued a press release Dec. 8 giving details of the event, and posted numerous photos of the French delegation on its Facebook page. The training session was devoted to showing the French officials “how to effectively challenge violent extremist individuals of all backgrounds and prevent hate crimes, while protecting civil rights and challenging profiling and discrimination,” the release said.

Several French counter-terror officials received this training, including a representative of France’s Ministry of the Interior and many police chiefs.

1915They presented Nezar Hamze, CAIR-Florida’s regional operations director, with a medallion bearing the French national colors and inscribed: “Public Safety Departmental Directorate at Bouches-du-Rhone / Discipline – Valor – Devotion.”

“We appreciated the opportunity to communicate how restricting liberty encourages hate crimes and violence and that preserving liberty and civil rights is key to preserving peace and security,” CAIR-Florida Executive Director Hassan Shibly said in the release.

This indicates that the thrust of this training was devoted to discouraging counter-terror activities within Muslim communities, which CAIR often has falsely represented as infringing upon the civil liberties of Muslims. CAIR officials repeatedly urge Muslim Americans not to cooperate with the FBI.

DHS and the State Department participated in this CAIR training of French officials despite the well-documented record of CAIR’s ties to terrorists. Internal Muslim Brotherhood records obtained by the FBI place CAIR and its founders at the core of a Brotherhood-created Hamas support network in the United States known as the Palestine Committee.

CAIR’s Powerful Ties

CAIR officials enjoyed close relations with the Obama administration despite the FBI’s evidence linking it to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Hamas. DHS/State Department coordination with CAIR is nothing new. The State Department sent CAIR officialsabroad to conduct foreign outreach.

The State Department hosted CAIR officials in October 2015 to discuss Syria and “the need … to challenge [alleged] aggressive Israeli actions targeting the Al Aqsa mosque compound, one of the holiest sites in Islam.”

Top CAIR officials repeatedly received White House invitations and participated in White House conference calls. DHS collaborates with CAIR on numerous non-public projects, and funnels anti-terrorism funds allocated by Congress.

CAIR received a sub-grant of $70, 324 from DHS in 2015, records show.

Hassan Shibly: Terrorist Apologist

Considering Shibly’s statements that Islamist ideology has nothing to do with terrorism and the rash of jihadist attacks that have rocked France since January 2015, his involvement in the training should be cause for alarm.

In an April 21, 2013 interview with OnIslam, Shibly said that, “American political scientists have made it very clear that those who commit acts of terrorism have nothing to do with religion and are often motivated by political, not religious, reasons. Actually, such attacks can never be justified and truly are nothing more than the result of having a twisted and sick mind.”

In a June 2014 blog post, Shibly argued that the purported “FBI entrapment program targeting the Muslim community” was an example of tyranny that strayed away from the “great ideals of liberty, equality and justice.”

In his view, the FBI manufactures terrorists through sting operations such as that against Sami Osmakac, convicted in 2014 on charges of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and possession of a fully automatic firearm.

“I’m concerned that the government’s own tactics turned him into a greater threat than he could have been on his own,” Shibly told the Tampa Tribune in a June 3, 2014 article. “There’s no need to enable a Hollywood-style plot … Would Osmakac have had the ideas and the means to do this crime but for the government informant?”

Shibly also is helping a family sue the FBI, alleging an agent unjustly shot and killed a friend of Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev after hours of questioning in his Orlando home in 2013.

Independent investigations, requested by CAIR, completed by the Justice Department and a Florida state attorney found that Ibragim Todashev, a “skilled mixed-martial arts fighter,” attacked the agent shortly after acknowledging involvement in a separate triple-murder case in Massachusetts. Todashev continued charging after being shot, prompting the agent to fire more.

Shibly rejected the findings, saying only Todashev could “contradict the government’s narrative,” but he was dead.

Kareem Shora: CAIR’s Ally at DHS

CAIR-Florida posted this image of Hassan Shibly and Kareem Shora at the French delegation program.

CAIR-Florida posted this image of Hassan Shibly and Kareem Shora at the French delegation program.

According to a source, Kareem Shora played a key role in organizing the French delegation’s CAIR training. Shora serves with the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) and a Community Liaison Council with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

He has a long record of denying the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. Last July, for example, Shora claimed that it was an “unfortunate reality” that Muslims were portrayed as “more vulnerable” to “potential recruitment to terrorist activities…including those represented by Daesh.” Instead of devising ways to counter this “unfortunate reality,” Shora said that the DHS was trying to “promote the notion” that Muslims were no more likely than anyone else to be recruited into terror organizations:

“It’s not because they’re Muslims. They represent nothing of Islam. Daesh represents nothing of Islam or a state for that matter, quote unquote. So I think our position, as U.S. government, is to advocate that point every opportunity we get. And from a Homeland Security perspective, in order to build a society that’s resilient to all threats, regardless of the nature of that threat, our job is to make sure that these communities don’t end up being categorized as being vulnerable, because they are in fact the ones most suffering as a result of those attacks.”

Shora helped leading Islamist figures attend DHS meetings, including Salam al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council and, Ingrid Mattson of the Islamic Society of North America, records obtained by the IPT through the Freedom of Information Act show.

DHS could have turned to any number of organizations and people to work with the French delegation. Choosing an Islamist group whose ties to a terrorist group rendered it persona non grata with the FBI is either a sign of dangerous incompetence or institutional arrogance.

Why secretary of state contender John Bolton strikes fear in the hearts of establishmentarians

Christopher Halloran | Shutterstock

Christopher Halloran | Shutterstock

Conservative Review, by Jordan Schachtel, December 2, 2016:

John Bolton has again emerged as a contender for secretary of state in the Trump administration. He is set to meet with President-elect Donald Trump in Trump Tower Friday afternoon, reports have confirmed.

The former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. now joins former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn (F, 45%), retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, and former CIA Director David Petraeus as reported “finalists” for the available Cabinet position.

The Critics

As a veteran of the Reagan and both Bush administrations, Bolton has served extensively in the State Department and Department of Justice. A mere mention of the man on Capitol Hill is sure to stoke strong opinions.

He will undoubtedly strike fear in the hearts of the Washington, D.C., foreign policy establishment, which has endorsed the same policy guidelines on many crucial issues for decades.

Establishmentarians fear Bolton won’t go along with their agenda. When he was ambassador to the United Nations, Bolton broke the status quo and demanded to see change on the institution’s much-maligned record and progress on human rights. He rebuked the authority of the U.N.’s so-called Human Rights Council, which is, in reality, an institution for the world’s dictators to shield themselves from repercussion.

“The United Nations was founded on the principle that nations must cooperate with each other to alleviate human suffering. In the coming years, it would be judged on whether it created a United Nations machinery that was strong and capable of doing that effectively. That no longer characterized the United Nations Commission on Human Rights,” Bolton said in 2006, explaining America’s decision not to seek a members’ seat in the council.

For Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. (A, 92%), who promotes a much more anti-interventionist stance on foreign affairs, Bolton is too hawkish to be trusted. Paul has promised to vote against Bolton, should he be nominated by Mr. Trump. Sen. Paul prefers one of his colleagues, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. (F, 45%), who helped President Obama clinch a nuclear deal with the radical regime in Iran.

The Supporters

Supporters of the former U.N. ambassador say that first and foremost, he’s a truth-teller. Recognized for decades as one of the nation’s top foreign policy minds, Ambassador Bolton comes with perhaps the most impressive resume of all the candidates for the position.

Having served three presidential administrations, John Bolton comes with a plethora of experience in the world of foreign affairs — a claim that cannot be made by Romney or Giuliani.

His unapologetic support for American exceptionalism is sure to provide a direct contrast to the current leadership at the State Department.

This week, the influential conservative pundit Cal Thomas threw his hat in for Bolton. That followed Bolton’s endorsement for the position from the National Review editorial board.

The former U.N. ambassador “does not engage in wishful thinking, or project American morals on those who don’t share them in the vain hope they might be contagious,” Thomas wrote, expressing that Bolton holds a realist worldview.

Critics often harangue him as a supposed “architect” of the second Iraq War. But Bolton was not involved in the planning of the war. He did support the war, as an administration official, but so did almost every other Republican. The Iraq War Resolution was supported by over 97 percent of congressional Republicans in 2002.

As former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz recently explained, Bolton was simply “not involved in any decision-making or planning for the Iraq War.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage refused to share information with Bolton in the run-up to the war, and effectively “froze” him out of the planning process, Fleitz claims.

The Philosophy

John Bolton’s realist tendencies also emerge when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict. He has taken a stance far varied from his eventual predecessors. Republican and Democrat administrations alike have, for decades, held onto the proposal for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians. Bolton, though, has advocated for an American foreign policy that supports Israel and its security, calling the two-state proposal a “non-starter” and a “delusion.” He argues it “would inevitably lead to a terror state on the other side of … Israel.”

The once-rumored GOP presidential candidate adamantly opposed the nuclear deal with Iran, recently arguing that the only suitable policy for the U.S. is to support regime change in Tehran. This position has led some of his critics, such as Sen. Paul, to make unsubstantiated claims that Bolton advocates direct military intervention to force regime change.

While Bolton has previously endorsed the military targeting of Iran’s nuclear installations, he has also advised that regime change does not need to come as a result of direct conflict.

We live in a world where a newly emboldened Iran is racing toward nuclear weapon capabilities, ISIS and the global jihad proliferates worldwide, and the great-power nations of Russia and China continue their aggressive power projection and anti-American posture.

With his experience, supporters say John Bolton would be uniquely ready on Day 1 to battle on all fronts.

***

Frank Gaffney believes John Bolton is the best choice for SOS:

Donald Trump has begun fleshing out his Cabinet and has made a series of tough choices that will not only help determine his success, but the future of the country. So far, so good.

One candidate for Secretary of State stands out as singularly capable of helping President Trump make America great again: former UN Ambassador John Bolton.

He is an experienced and principled public servant and diplomat – a brilliant advocate for freedom, with a proven record of putting America first as it leads the world.

John Bolton also knows how to compel the State Department bureaucracy to carry out presidential direction. Absent that, its denizens will sabotage Mr. Trump at every turn. [emphasis added]

Consequently, they and their allies will make a Bolton confirmation process difficult. But it is far better to fight them now, than under some less-capable Secretary throughout a Trump presidency.

***

This video is from the American Freedom Alliance conference “Islam and Western Civilization: Can they Coexist?” held August 21st in Los Angeles, California. AmericanFreedomAlliance.org

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

patrick-kennedy-state-department-quid-pro-quo-fbi-not-bribery-just-corruption

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.

See Hillary’s Libyan jihadi atrocities

A rebel fighter shouts "Allahu Akbar!" (God is the greatest!) in front of a burning vehicle belonging to forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi after an air strike by coalition forces, along a road between Benghazi and Ajdabiyah March 20, 2011. REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic (LIBYA - Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST)

A rebel fighter shouts “Allahu Akbar!” (God is the greatest!) in front of a burning vehicle belonging to forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi after an air strike by coalition forces, along a road between Benghazi and Ajdabiyah March 20, 2011. REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic (LIBYA – Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST)

WND, by Jerome R. Corsi, October5, 2016:

NEW YORK – The extreme brutality unleashed by the mercenaries and Islamic fighters who joined Libyan-based jihadists to oust leader Moammar Gadhafi with the backing of Hillary Clinton’s State Department and NATO is demonstrated in three videos released to WND.

The videos, obtained through a trusted source, were vetted by Libyan tribal parliamentary leaders who spoke to WND. The Libyans verified the videos were taken in Libya in the weeks after the U.S.-backed NATO bombing that began in 2011.

As WND has reported, Clinton’s State Department had decided to rebuff offers Gadhafi had made to abdicate peacefully and avoid a war. And, meanwhile, Politico reported Tuesday the Obama administration is moving to drop charges against an arms dealer who had threatened to expose Hillary Clinton’s determination to arm anti-Gadhafi rebels.

The Libyan tribal parliamentary leaders, in an exclusive Skype interview published by WND on Sept. 21, characterized Clinton as the “Butcher of Libya.” They contended her State Department was “behind the terrorist groups controlling Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, behind the militia in Misurata who destroyed a great part of Libya and displaced 2 million people from their lands because they were accused of being loyal to Gadhafi.”

Readers are cautioned that the three videos published here are shockingly graphic.

The first video shows a group of unidentified foreign mercenaries and terrorists interrogating a half-naked soldier from Gadhafi’s army, who is lying prone on his stomach, with his arms and legs spread, while his interrogators simulate sodomy with a weapon and a boot.

Read more

State Dept Focused on ‘Reintegrating’ Traveling Jihadis Back into US, Says Muslim Director

Creeping Sharia, 

That is actually a recommendation from the Muslim directing the State Department’s efforts to “counter” so-called violent extremism (a distorted euphamism for Islamic jihad)!

After stints abroad enslaving, selling, raping and dismembering young girls, beheading Christians and other non-Muslims, burning and boiling Muslims and destroying another country – the Muslim in charge wants to offer known jihadists who left the U.S. “something as simple as offers or alternatives to prosecution.” Infiltration at the highest levels.

Source: State Dept.: U.S. Should ‘Rehabilitate’ and ‘Reintegrate’ Foreign Fighters Back into Society

The director of the Office of Countering Violent Extremism at the State Department outlined some of the department’s strategic planning Wednesday to counter “violent extremism.”

Irfan Saeed praised Denmark’s strategy of rehabilitating and reintegrating foreign extremist fighters into society, asking, “What happens when they come back? You have to be able to rehabilitate them and then re-integrate them back into society.”

Speaking at a National Academy of Sciences’ panel on “Ideologically Motivated Violence,” Saeed described rehabilitation and integration as a strategy area of focus for the State Department.

“We’ve seen a large number of individuals travel overseas to foreign conflict zones, places like Iraq and Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan,” Saeed said. “So what happens when they come back? You have to be able to rehabilitate them and then re-integrate them back into society.”

He cited the program in Aurhus, Denmark, “where they’ve really struggled with this issue, but they’ve come up with a comprehensive way to try to rehabilitate these individuals once they come back and then reintegrate them into society.”

Saeed discussed other strategies to counter violent extremism during the panel including intervention which he described as “something as simple as offers or alternatives to prosecution.”

“It’s one thing to throw everybody in jail and figure it out later,” he said, but officials “understand that we can’t arrest our way out of this problem.”

He also emphasized the importance of “strategic messaging,” arguing that “we figure if we can put some good messages on the internet, we can stop radicalization violence.”

He cited the work of the State Department’s new Global Engagement Center, which is charged with “coordinating U.S. counterterrorism messaging to foreign audiences” and was established by Executive Order in March.


Pretty much every Muslim group in the U.S. has rejected the so-called CVE approach (although they probably take the money). Read:  Obama’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Program Collapses Into Absurdity.
 
Here’s Saeed’s limited bio from a 2014 Johns Hopkins event:

Irfan Saeed is a Senior Policy Advisor at the US Department of Homeland Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Mr. Saeed advises DHS leadership on policy isues at the intersection of civil rights and homeland security, developing and coordinating activities relating to countering violent extremism. Prior to joining Homeland Security, Mr. Saeed worked as a Criminal Prosecutor, at the state and federal levels. Mr. Saeed worked as an Assistant United States Attorney, US Department of Justice, in the Eastern District of Louisiana, as well as an Assistant District Attorney, in New Orleans, Louisiana. He served as Resident Legal Advisor at US Embassies in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. While deployed to the US Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, he was tasked to develop the Community Engagement Office, the first of its kind in U.S. Embassies worldwide, to use traditional public diplomacy tools to counter violent extremism (CVE) in Pakistan.


Based on the continuing violence against women and non-Muslims in Pakistan, that effort could be classified as an utter failure.

pakistan-terror-deaths

click for details

Yet, that got Saeed promoted to the State Dept.

Based on the growing number of jihadis and deadly jihad attacks in the U.S., he clearly isn’t generating a return on investment in the U.S. either.

Irfan’s name popped up in the Creeping Sharia archives back in 2010 when he attended Obama’s White House Ramadan feast (i.e., Month of Jihad) with many Muslim Brotherhood luminaries including Huma Abedin’s mother.

U.S. Offers $3M Reward for U.S.-Trained Tajik Commander Who Joined ISIS

Tajik Colonel Gulmurod Khalimov, second from right, in an ISIS video.

Tajik Colonel Gulmurod Khalimov, second from right, in an ISIS video.

PJ MEDIA, BY BRIDGET JOHNSON, AUGUST 30, 2016:

WASHINGTON — The State Department announced a $3 million reward in the U.S. effort to nab an American-trained Tajik special forces commander who now lends his skills to ISIS.

Colonel Gulmurod Khalimov, a sniper who led a special paramilitary unit in Tajikistan’s Ministry of Interior, was named a specially designated terrorist by the State Department in September 2015 after appearing in an ISIS propaganda video — and a few months after the U.S. government acknowledged Khalimov was trained in part by the United States.

“From 2003-2014 Colonel Khalimov participated in five counterterrorism training courses in the United States and in Tajikistan, through the Department of State’s Diplomatic Security/Anti-Terrorism Assistance program,” spokeswoman Pooja Jhunjhunwala told CNN in May 2015.

The Tajik vowed in an ISIS video released that month, “God willing, we will find your towns, we will come to your homes, and we will kill you.” The commander of the elite police unit OMON (Special Purpose Mobility Unit) defected to the Islamic State in April 2015.

“Listen, you American pigs: I’ve been to America three times. I saw how you train soldiers to kill Muslims,” he said in Russian. “You taught your soldiers how to surround and attack, in order to exterminate Islam and Muslims.”

Khalimov said he took a U.S. course with contractor Blackwater. He also received training in Russia.

Interpol issued a red notice for Khalimov in June 2015, noting that the 41-year-old speaks English in addition to Russian and Tajik.

The State Department encouraged anyone with information on the Tajik’s whereabouts to contact the Rewards for Justice office via the website,info@rewardsforjustice.net, or at 1-800-877-3927.

According to the department’s 2015 terrorism report, 700 Tajiks had joined ISIS by the end of the year. That statistic pulls from Tajik government estimates.

“In addition, the government remained concerned that instability in neighboring Afghanistan would push violent extremist groups across the border into Tajikistan. In response, the Government of Tajikistan worked to strengthen its efforts to fight terrorism and radicalization, although its focus was almost entirely on law enforcement measures, with little attention given to countering violent extremism. Tajikistan sought to increase military and law enforcement capacity to conduct tactical operations through bilateral and multilateral assistance programs, including programs funded by the United States. The United States, Russia, Japan, and the EU also provided funding for border security programs,” said the report.

Tajikistan crafted a strategy to counter “violent extremism” by the end of last year, the State Department noted, but “some previous government measures designed to reduce the threat of violent extremism had a negative impact on religious and political freedoms.”

The country offered amnesty last year to terrorists who wanted to return home from Iraq and Syria. A few have taken Tajikistan up on the offer, including Farrukh Sharifov, who has since hit the lecture circuit to spread the message about the horrors of ISIS.

Fighters who want to return have been first screened through a Tajik government hotline called the Trust Line, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported. “When a Tajik fighter calls from abroad and asks for help to come home, our officers and psychologists talk to them to identify the fighter and their intentions,” an operator said.

Aiding and Abedin

Credit: Dave Clegg

Credit: Dave Clegg

Weekly Standard, THE MAGAZINE: From the September 5 Issue by Stephen F. Hayes:

As Bill Clinton entered the final year of his presidency, his aides put together a legacy-building trip to South Asia—the first visit to the region by a U.S. president since Jimmy Carter’s in 1978. Early drafts of the itinerary featured a notable exclusion: The president would visit India, an emerging ally, but had no plans to stop in neighboring Pakistan.

There were good reasons for this. Pervez Musharraf had seized power there in a military coup six months earlier. His regime was regarded as tolerant of Islamic radicals, perhaps even complicit in their attacks, and unhelpful on nuclear talks with India. Whatever the potential benefits to regional stability, a visit would be seen as legitimizing a troublemaker. Clinton had the support of many in the foreign policy establishment and his decision was popular among liberals in his party. In an editorial published February 18, 2000, the New York Times noted, “Pakistan has been lobbying hard in Washington”; the paper urged Clinton to stand firm, absent a return to civilian rule in the country and “concrete progress” on nukes and terror.

Four days later, Hillary Clinton weighed in. At a gathering in a private home on Staten Island, Clinton said she hoped her husband would be able to find time to visit Pakistan on his trip. That she spoke up on a matter of public controversy was interesting; where she did it was noteworthy.

Clinton was the guest of honor at a $1,000-per-plate fundraiser hosted by a group of prominent Pakistani doctors in New York, who acknowledged holding the dinner as part of that lobbying effort. The immediate beneficiary? Hillary Clinton, candidate for U.S. Senate. Organizers were told they’d need to raise at least $50,000 for her to show up. They did. The secondary beneficiary? Pakistan. Two weeks after Clinton told her hosts that she hoped her husband would do what they wanted him to do, the White House announced that Bill Clinton would, indeed, include Pakistan on his trip to South Asia.

Win, win, and win.

The White House naturally insisted that Hillary Clinton’s views had no bearing on her husband’s decision to change his itinerary. And a subsequent New York Times article about the curious sequence of events found “no evidence” she had prevailed upon the president to alter his plans. But that same article, published under the headline “Donating to the First Lady, Hoping the President Notices,” noted the “unique aspect” of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy: “While her husband still occupies the White House, people may seek to influence his policies by making donations to her Senate campaign.”

In fact, people did. The hosts of the event moved it up so that it might take place before a final decision had been made on the South Asian schedule. Suhail Muzaffar, one of two primary organizers of the fundraiser, told the paper: “‘We thought it went very well, in terms of the message and the timeliness of it, especially in terms of the president’s going to the region.” His co­host, Dr. Asim Malik, added: “I cannot deny that the fact that she’s the president’s wife makes a difference.”

A similar dynamic is at play in the growing controversy over Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation: People sought to influence her decisions as secretary of state by making donations to his foundation. And while we cannot yet offer definitive conclusions about the extent to which those efforts were successful, disclosures over the past several weeks make clear that Clinton and her top aides eagerly provided special access to Clinton Foundation donors—and, in some cases, provided that special access because they were Clinton Foundation donors.

Such conflicts of interest—perceived and real—should come as no surprise. They were the focus of Clinton’s cabinet nomination. “The main issue related to Senator Clinton’s nomination that has occupied the committee has been the review of how her service as secretary of state can be reconciled with the sweeping global activities of President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation,” said Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, moments after her nomination hearing was gaveled to order on January 13, 2009. “The core of the problem is that foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state, although neither Senator Clinton nor President Clinton has a personal financial stake in the foundation.” The keys, Lugar said, will be transparency and preventing overlap between the work of the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. Large chunks of the hearing were devoted to an extended discussion about whether a Memorandum of Understanding drafted to make clear the lines between State and the foundation went far enough. Republicans wanted more assurances and a more detailed statement of the rules. Democrats, for the most part, were happy to leave things vague. Democrats won.

The recent revelations leave in tatters Clinton’s unequivocal claim from July: “There is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation.”

There are, in fact, many connections.

In June 2009, Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, the crown prince of Bahrain, sought a meeting with Secretary Clinton. He initially made requests through normal diplomatic channels but they went unfulfilled. Khalifa, a Clinton Foundation donor, got creative. Doug Band, a longtime aide to Bill Clinton who helped create the Clinton Foundation, emailed Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary Clinton. Band noted that Khalifa, “a good friend of ours,” would be visiting Washington and was seeking a meeting with Secretary Clinton. Abedin responded, noting that she was aware of Khalifa’s requests made “through normal channels.” She told Band that her boss didn’t want to commit to a meeting.

Two days later, the situation had changed. Abedin emailed Band to inform him that Khalifa was on the schedule and would be seeing Secretary Clinton in Washington. “If u see him, let him know,” she emailed. “We have reached out thru official channels.”

Another email, this one from Dennis Cheng, a fundraiser at the Clinton Foundation, to Abedin at the State Department, reveals that Clinton invited Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, a high-dollar Clinton Foundation donor, to a reception at her home in 2012. When Clinton’s team was asked about her involvement with Pinchuk in 2014, her spokesman, Nick Merrill, told the New York Times that Clinton had never met Pinchuk and the Ukrainian “was never on her schedule” during her tenure at the State Department. (Cheng had been a colleague of Abedin at the State Department before moving to the Clinton Foundation.)

That same month, in June 2012, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, traveled to New York City to interview two candidates to lead the Clinton Foundation. Mills, Clinton’s top aide, appears to have had significant involvement with those at the highest levels of the Clinton Foundation. Laura Graham, chief operating officer of the Clinton Foundation, left 148 telephone messages for Mills between 2010 and 2012, according to State Department records obtained by Citizens United via Freedom of Information Act requests and first reported by James Rosen of Fox News. The tally covers only half of Clinton’s tenure at the State Department and does not include calls in which Graham and Mills connected. Still, the 148 messages from Graham were exponentially more than any other individual left for Clinton’s top aide.

Many of these recent revelations have come despite efforts by Clinton defenders to keep them from the public. The FBI last week turned over to the State Department nearly 15,000 emails it recovered during its investigation of Clinton’s private server. Many of them—”thousands,” according to FBI director James Comey—were “work-related” emails that Clinton claimed she had turned over to the State Department. On August 8, 2015, Clinton signed a declaration submitted to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., swearing “under penalty of perjury” that she’d directed all emails that “were or potentially were” work-related turned over to the State Department.

That plainly didn’t happen. Why not? Comey offered several explanations in his July 5 press conference announcing he wouldn’t be charging anyone in connection with the scandal. Perhaps they were lost in routine system purges of the kind that any email user might perform. Or maybe her lawyers mistook these thousands of “work-related” emails as “personal” because their search techniques weren’t as sophisticated as those used by the FBI.

While the FBI recovered thousands of work-related emails that Clinton failed to turn over, Comey reported that many others had been deleted. The FBI director acknowledged that while the FBI did not have “complete visibility” as to the contents of these emails or a thorough understanding of how they were permanently erased, he nonetheless offered his assurances that “there was no intentional misconduct” in the sorting of the emails.

If Comey’s explanations seemed generous when he made them, they seem even more charitable today. In his telling, Clinton’s failure to turn over thousands of work-related emails—at least some of which include evidence of coordination between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department that Clinton World was eager to keep secret—was merely the result of incompetence or bad luck. And the efforts her lawyers undertook to delete the others were unremarkable, benign. “We found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them,” Comey said at his press conference. Yet moments later, Comey acknowledged: “They deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

There may be a simple reason the FBI didn’t find evidence of intent: They didn’t ask. That’s the explanation Representative Trey Gowdy offered in an interview with Fox News on August 24. “I didn’t see any questions on the issue of intent,” Gowdy said, referring to the FBI’s notes from its interview with Secretary Clinton.

And the evidence the FBI collected, particularly with respect to how some of Clinton’s “personal” emails were deleted, indicates that questions about intent ought to have been among the first ones asked. FBI interviews with the techs responsible for erasing Clinton’s emails suggest that her team went to great lengths to ensure the messages would never be seen again. The Clinton team used a technology called “BleachBit” to permanently delete those emails. BleachBit, according to its website, allows users to “shred files to hide their contents and prevent data recovery” and “overwrite free disk space to hide previously deleted files.” The techs used additional tools to ensure those emails would be unrecoverable.

So Clinton, who took virtually no precautions to safeguard her emails—”personal” or “work-related”—while they sat on her server, went to great lengths to ensure that the emails she withheld from the State Department could never again be seen by anyone. She did this nearly two years following her departure from the State Department and only after she understood that the government was interested in seeing her emails. Seems like a lot to do to protect yoga schedules and emails about the grandkids.

The challenge for Clinton is simple: survive until November 8. So she’s avoiding the media—265 days and counting since her last press conference—and trying to offer reassurances about the Clinton Foundation.

There’s little reason to believe her. This is the same woman, after all, who promised during her nomination hearing seven years ago that she would take extraordinary measures to separate the foundation from her work at the State Department and do her best to “avoid even the appearance of a conflict.”

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.

***

***

***

Also see:

Corruption: The Clinton Foundation and Boko Haram

Michelle-obama-bringbackourgirlsDid the State Department use Boko Haram to subvert Nigeria’s presidential election out of Obama administration policy, or because of the mass donations to the Clinton Foundation from a Nigerian oil billionaire?

CounterJihad, Aug. 24, 2016:

World News has an important story about the State Department’s meddling in Nigeria’s presidential elections using the tool of Boko Haram violence.  C-SPAN has a further interview with the author of that piece here.  Yet there is still an important question to be asked: was the meddling in Nigeria’s Presidential election merely an Obama administration decision to effect regime change by subverting a free election, or was it in service to a major Clinton Foundation donor from the Nigerian oil fields?

Evidence that Obama intended to subvert the election is strong.  Obama’s own former chief strategist for his Presidential campaigns, David Axelrod, had his consulting firm AKPD was brought in to run Presidential competitor Buhari’s campaign.  The campaign was largely based on allegations of then-President Goodluck Jonathan’s corruption, and inability to fight Boko Haram successfully.  Of course, President Obama as Commander in Chief had the ability to support Nigeria with American forces, and President Jonathan had been begging for such forces to come to his aid.  Indeed, Jonathan ultimately accomplished a significant military victory just a few weeks before the election with the use of South African private military contractors providing training, advice, and helicopter transport.  These were all things denied to the Nigerians by the State Department. And almost immediately upon Buhari’s victory, the Obama administration announced it was open to expanding cooperation to fight Boko Haram.

This suggests that had the State Department not opposed the designation and blocked counter terrorism cooperation, Boko Haram could have been militarily suppressed during the Jonathan Administration.  Combined with the aid given to the political opposition by the President’s own political operatives, the picture is one of a democratic election intentionally subverted by allowing a terrorist organization to flourish until the election could be won.

But there may be more to the story.  From 2009 through 2013, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had refused to designate Boko Haram as an official Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in spite of intense bipartisan pressure to do so.  Why?  Both Citizens United and Senator David Vitter have sought FOIA releases of documents explaining State’s thought process at this time. However, there is a major Clinton Foundation donor who had a clear interest:  a Nigerian oilfield billionaire named Gilbert Chagoury.

Gilbert Chagoury has substantial oil exploration interests in Nigeria. He also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in 2009, the same year Hilary Clinton took office as Secretary of State. Gilbert Chagoury is part of a small Nigerian clique that includes President Muhamadu Buhari.  He was interested in seeing Buhari elected, and is reportedly the one who pushed for Axelrod’s firm to be brought in.

It would have been in the business interests of Chagoury, and Buhari to keep former president Goodluck Jonathan from initiating oil ventures in northern Nigeria until Buhari was able to secure the presidency.  That would make sure that the contracts got into the right hands.

Now, with that in mind, return to the World News story:

Meanwhile, Boko Haram often showed up better equipped than the Nigerian military: “Boko Haram was extorting even government officials in the north, state and local officials, and certainly the military,” said an American working in the area for more than a decade, who spoke to WORLD and is not named for security reasons. “Very wealthy Muslim businessmen totally have been backing Boko Haram. There was huge money involved. Money used to purchase arms—it was crazy.”

Where were the funds and support coming from? In part from a corrupt oil industry and political leaders in the North acting as quasi-warlords. But prominently in the mix are Nigerian billionaires with criminal pasts—plus ties to Clinton political campaigns and the Clinton Foundation, the controversial charity established by Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton in 1997.

The Clintons’ long association with top suspect tycoons—and their refusal to answer questions about those associations—takes on greater significance considering the dramatic rise of Boko Haram violence while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Did some Clinton donors stand to gain from the State Department not taking action against the Islamic terrorist group?…

Critics argue it was Clinton herself who has led the way on U.S. indifference, spurning the standard FTO designation (issued 72 times since 1997) that could have bolstered U.S. efforts against Boko Haram years before the infamous [“#BringBackOurGirls”] kidnappings. [Emphasis added.]

Both Clinton and the Obamas made a big noise about those kidnapped girls.  They didn’t actually do anything to help them, though.  Perhaps now we begin to see why they did not.

Bribery: Clinton Approved Arms Sales After Big Clinton Foundation Donations from THIS Arab Nation

Screen-Shot-2015-12-18-at-4.52.50-PM (1)CounterJihad, Aug. 23, 2016:

Yesterday Judicial Watch released emails showing that a Crown Prince of Bahrain was able to secure a meeting with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton through the Clinton Foundationafter being rejected by official State Department channels.  Today, the International Business Times follows up on that report by revealing that the timing of this meeting lined up with a sudden, and large, increase in arms sales to Bahrain.  Furthermore, this increase came in spite of Bahrain being engaged in massive human rights abuses and suppression of peaceful civilian protests.  Finally, Hillary Clinton’s lawyers destroyed the emails documenting this meeting without turning them over to the State Department.  These were among the emails destroyed as allegedly “personal.

Now, Bahrain is an important regional ally of the United States.  The US 5th Fleet, also called NAVCENT as it is the fleet permanently assigned to US Central Command, is based out of Bahrain’s harbors.  Bahrain would thus ordinarily enjoy some US military arms sales, as well as occasional access to high level State Department officials.  However, in this case the State Department had already turned down the request for a meeting when it came through official channels.  So, Crown Prince Salman contacted the Clinton Foundation to ask them to get him a meeting anyway.

And they did.

Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band personally contacted Hillary Clinton’s right hand woman, Huma Abedin, to request that she arrange the meeting in spite of official refusal.  Band described Crown Prince Salman as a “Good friend of ours,” and he certainly was that.  The Judicial Watch release details that Salman arranged more than thirty million dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation.  From the perspective of the State Department, he was just another Arab prince.  From the perspective of the Clinton Foundation, he was a good friend who needed special treatment.  He got it.

He got more than that, too, according to the Times.

Soon after the correspondence about a meeting, Clinton’s State Department significantly increased arms export authorizations to the country’s autocratic government, even as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests….  As Bahrain money flowed into the Clinton Foundation, State Department documents showed that between 2010 and 2012 the Clinton-led State Department approved $630 million worth of direct commercial arms sales to Salman’s military forces in Bahrain. That was a 187 percent increase from the period 2006 to 2008, and the increase came as Bahrain was violently suppressing uprisings.

During those Arab Spring uprisings of 2011 — when Bahrain was accused of using tear gas on its own people — the Clinton-led State Department approved more than $70,000 worth of arms sales classified as “toxicological agents.”

In addition to that, there were sales of armored vehicles, missiles, ammunition, and more.  The sale faced intense opposition in Congress, especially given Bahrain’s ongoing massacres of its own citizens in its streets merely for peacefully protesting the government.

But the Crown Prince wanted his meeting, and he wanted his arms, and he got both because he was a good friend of the Clinton Foundation.

Not that the public would have known this, but for the FBI investigation.  Clinton’s lawyers deleted these emails without turning them over to the State Department, though it turns out that they are clearly public records that explain just how a momentous decision was made on a major arms deal.

In spite of that, the FBI recommended no prosecution.

Also see: