Obama Frees Manning the Traitor

manning

Front Page Magazine, by Matthew Vadum, January 18, 2017:

To the Left the highest form of service to America is to betray it.

This is why President Obama yesterday ordered that the 35-year sentence of convicted traitor U.S. Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning be commuted. Manning, who leaked vast quantities of classified materials, was born male with the given name Bradley but now identifies as female.

Bradley’s transgender status, which has made the prisoner a cause célèbre among left-wingers, almost certainly played a huge role in the commutation. Manning, who has tried to commit suicide in prison, has not had sex-reassignment surgery but has been campaigning for it for years.

As a consequence of our Marxist, identity politics-obsessed president’s order, Manning is now scheduled to be released from military prison on May 17 of this year, instead of 2045. This means that upon release Manning will have served about seven years behind bars.

Manning was convicted by court-martial on July 30, 2013, of 20 counts, including six violations of the Espionage Act, along with theft and computer fraud. An acquittal was registered on the most serious charge, aiding the enemy, which can result in a sentence of life imprisonment.

As a clemency-sweetener, on Jan. 12 WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange offered to allow himself to be extradited to the U.S. if President Obama ordered the release of Manning.

Will Assange honor his promise? We’ll see.

Read more

***

Tucker Carlson and Ben Collins discuss:

Was Friday’s declassified report claiming Russian hacking of the 2016 election rigged?

943352721

Center for Security Policy, by Fred Fleitz, January  9, 2016:

Friday night, during her last show on Fox News, Megyn Kelly asked former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra whether he accepted the conclusion by 17 intelligence agencies in a recently released declassified report that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and that this interference came at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Hoekstra gave an answer Kelly did not anticipate.  He noted that the declassified report represents the views of only three intelligence agencies, not seventeen. Hoekstra also questioned why the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not co-author or clear the report and why it lacked dissenting views.

The declassified report issued on January 6 is an abridged version of a longer report ordered by President Obama that concluded Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a campaign to undermine the 2016 president election, hurt Hillary’s candidacy and promote Donald Trump through cyber warfare, social media and the state-owned Russia cable channel RT. Although the report’s authors said they have high confidence in most of these conclusions, they were unable to include any evidence for classification reasons.

As someone who worked in the intelligence field for 25 years, I share Congressman Hoekstra’s concerns about Friday’s declassified Russia report and a similar Joint DHS and ODNI Election Security Statement released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and DHS on October 7, 2016.

I also suspect the entire purpose of this report and its timing was to provide President Obama with a supposedly objective intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 election that the president could release before he left office to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election.

I am concerned both intelligence assessments were rigged for political purposes.

You may remember when Hillary Clinton claimed during the final presidential debate on October 19 that based on the October 7 ODNI/DHS statement, all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had determined the WikiLeaks disclosures of Democratic emails were an effort by Russia to interfere with the election.

Clinton’s remark was not accurate. Although the October memo said “the U.S. Intelligence Community” was confident that the Russian government was behind the alleged hacking, the October memo was drafted by only two intelligence organizations – ODNI and DHS.

Since it came out only a month before the presidential election and was co-authored by only two intelligence agencies, the October memo looked like a clumsy attempt by the Obama White House to produce a document to boost Clinton’s reelection chances.  Its argumentation was very weak since it said the alleged hacking of Democratic emails was “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” but did not say there was any evidence of Russian involvement.

Friday’s declassified intelligence report on Russia hacking is even more suspicious.  As Congressman Hoekstra noted, this report was drafted and cleared by only three intelligence agencies, not 17.  DHS, which co-authored the October statement, added a brief tick to the new report, but did not clear it.  The Office of Director of National Intelligence, which co-authored the October memo, did not draft or clear Friday’s report, nor did other members of the U.S Intelligence Community with important equities in this issue such as DIA and the State Department’s Intelligence and Research Bureau (INR).

The declassified Russian report also lacks standard boilerplate language that it was coordinated within the U.S. Intelligence Community. This language usually reads: “This memorandum was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was coordinated with the US Intelligence Community” or “this is an IC-coordinated assessment.”

Given how politically radioactive the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election has become, why wasn’t the January 6 Russia report an intelligence community-coordinated assessment?  Why were several important intelligence agencies and their experts excluded?

It also is important, as Hoekstra indicated in his Fox interview, that intelligence community assessments on extremely controversial issues include dissenting views, such as those added by INR to the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD program.  A declassified version of this estimate was released in 2002 that included INR’s dissent.

The content of the declassified report was underwhelming. Although the report made serious accusations of Russian interference in the election, it did not back them up with evidence.  And, as Hoekstra also noted in his Fox News interview, the report made some dubious arguments that Russia succeeded in influencing the election using its RT cable channel, a Russian propaganda tool that is only taken seriously in the United States by the far left.

It’s also troubling that the unclassified report does not mention the extremely weak internet security of Clinton’s private email server, the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chief John Podesta.  This makes it impossible to determine whether the alleged hacking and leaking of Democratic emails was more Russia and other hostile actors exploiting this carelessness rather than a deliberate and robust Russian operation to interfere with the election.

This is not to say the new CIA/NSA/FBI report is without value.  I believe the classified report probably includes solid evidence on the intensive and broad-based cyber warfare efforts that Russia, China and other states have been conducting against the United States for the last eight years that President Obama has ignored.

I am encouraged that President-elect Trump responded to this report by stating that will take aggressive action against cyber warfare against the United States in the early days of his administration.

At the same time, I believe President-elect Trump and his team are justified in questioning the January 6 report as politically motivated.

I am concerned that the exclusion of key intelligence players and the lack of dissenting views give the appearance that the conclusions of this report were pre-cooked.

I also suspect the entire purpose of this report and its timing was to provide President Obama with a supposedly objective intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 election that the president could release before he left office to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election.

Adding to the Trump team’s concerns that intelligence agencies were playing political games over possible Russian interference in the election, is the fact that at the same time these agencies were refusing to brief Congress about their findings on this issue, they were constantly being leaked to the news media. The most recent press leaks, some by intelligence officials, occurred this week on the classified contents of the new Russia report before they were briefed to Mr. Trump.

The new intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election broke so radically with the way objective and authoritative intelligence community assessments are supposed to be produced that it appears to have been rigged to support a pre-ordained set of conclusions to undermine President-elect Trump.   I believe the October 2016 memo and related developments support this unfortunate conclusion.

It is vital that the Trump administration and U.S. intelligence agencies move beyond this situation by working together to forge new policies to protect our nation against the many serious threats it faces, including radical Islam, cyber warfare, nuclear proliferation, Russia, China and other threats.

Intelligence agencies were led astray by the Obama administration’s partisanship and national security incompetence.

I am confident that over time, the outstanding men and women Trump has named to top national security posts will ensure that America’s intelligence agencies have Trump’s confidence and produce the hard hitting and objective intelligence he will need to defend our nation.

***

Also see:

Gertz: ‘America Is Extremely Vulnerable’ to Cyber Threats

iwarBY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
January 3, 2017

Washington Free Beacon senior editor Bill Gertz said that the United States is “extremely vulnerable” to cyber attacks during a radio interview with Sean Hannity on Tuesday evening. Gertz appeared on Hannity’s radio show to discuss his newly released book, iWar: War and Peace in the Information Age.

To begin the interview, Hannity asked Gertz what he thought of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s assertion that he did not receive hacked emails of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign from Russian sources.

“We’re going to have to wait to see what the [Obama] administration’s investigation of the Russian influence operation is,” Gertz responded.

Hannity then referenced his previous interview with Assange in which the WikiLeaks founder claimed to have hacked into NASA at the age of sixteen, prompting Gertz to explain how vulnerable the U.S. is to what he described as information attacks.

“America is extremely vulnerable, and I think that’s the bottom line of this book, iWar. We’re getting killed in the information space,” Gertz said.

Gertz defined the information space as twofold: one part encompasses the use of cyber and technical attacks and the other involves information and content.

In the second chapter of his book, Gertz details the sophistication of North Korean cyber attacks, including the 2014 Sony breach after the entertainment company released a comedic movie that made fun of the North Korean regime. Gertz described an interview with a North Korean defector who “issued a dire warning” that the American government needs to do something to “counterattack North Korean information warfare operations.”

Continuing on this point, Gertz asserted that the CIA needs “dire reform.” Under the leadership of current CIA Director John Brennan, the organization, Gertz noted, has focused too heavily on drone strikes instead of clandestine information operations.

Hannity then played a brief snippet of his interview with Assange in which he repeatedly denied that the Russian government was behind the leaked Clinton and DNC emails during the 2016 election. Hannity asked Gertz what he thought of Assange’s adamant denials of receiving the hacked emails from Russian sources.

“On Assange I think it’s clear until he reveals where he obtained the information that he leaked, then I think the onus is going to be on him,” Gertz said. “And if he doesn’t reveal it, that’s going to be a problem.”

Later discussing America’s relationship with Russia and the country’s president, Vladimir Putin, Gertz declared that “we are definitely entering a new Cold War.” Gertz explained that in his new book he lays out Putin’s strategy to “reestablish the Soviet Union without communism.”

Hannity then asked Gertz what the new Trump administration can do to confront Iran after what he described as President Obama’s capitulation to Tehran with the Iran nuclear deal and the $1.7 billion payment early last year to the Iranian regime to free American hostages.

“We’ve got to use an information warfare campaign against Iran,” Gertz said, adding that the Obama administration missed a golden opportunity to do so during the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009.

Gertz suggested that the American government could establish a new institution to combat foreign enemies and administrations by using information and political warfare to spread American messages of freedom and democracy.

iWar can be purchased today in print or as an e-book from Amazon and a variety of other booksellers. It can be downloaded as an audiobook through iTunes and Audible.

Gertz is the author of seven books, including the New York Times best-selling Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security.

***

Bill Gertz’s ‘iWar’ Now Available as Audio Book

The new book by Free Beacon Senior Editor Bill Gertz, iWar: War and Peace in the Information Age, is now available in print and as an audio book.

Gertz is a long-time national security correspondent and columnist for the Free Beacon and Washington Times. He is the author of seven books, including the New York Times best-selling Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security.

Gertz published iWar to explain the digital battle being waged between the United States and foreign adversaries like Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.

A five-minute excerpt of the audio book is embedded below.

***

The following is an excerpt from the book

Chinese Information Warfare: The Panda That Eats, Shoots, and Leaves

John Podesta To Hillary Aide: ‘We Are Going To Have To Dump All Those Emails’

Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Daily Wire, by Hank Berrien, November 1, 2016:

Wow.

A new release from  the Wikileaks trove of emails involving Hillary Clinton and her cohorts shows  Clinton campaign Chair John Podesta emailing Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, “On another matter….and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have to dump all those emails.”

The exchange came on March 2, 2015, only days before The New York Times revealed Clinton’s private email server. Mills answered Podesta,  “Think you just got your new nick name.” The “Lanny” Podesta referred to could be former DOJ staffer Lanny Breuer, who left the DOJ in January 2013, or Lanny Davis, who was special counsel to President Bill Clinton, and spokesman for the President and the White House regarding campaign-finance investigations and other legal issues.

The text of the email leaves it unclear which emails Podesta refers to, though he adds, “better to do so sooner than later.”

What is critical is whether the email hints that Clinton’s claim that she only deleted “personal” emails was false, and that in fact she intended to block the State Department and FBI from pursuing the matter.

Tyler Durden of ZeroHedge points out, “And in a separate email sent out just days laterby Clinton campaign communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, we get yet another confirmation that the president actively mislead the public when he said he didn’t know Hillary was using a private email address”:

Suggest Philippe talk to Josh or Eric. They know POTUS and HRC emailed. Josh has been asked about that. Standard practice is not to confirm anything about his email, so his answer to press was that he would not comment/confirm. I recollect that Josh was also asked if POTUS ever noticed her personal email account and he said something like POTUS likely had better things to do than focus on his Cabinet’s email addresses.

Clinton’s State Department: A RICO Enterprise

Clinton is sworn in as secretary of state, February 2, 2009. (Reuters photo: Jonathan Ernst)

Clinton is sworn in as secretary of state, February 2, 2009. (Reuters photo: Jonathan Ernst)

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, October 29, 2016:

Felony mishandling of classified information, including our nation’s most closely guarded intelligence secrets; the misappropriation and destruction of tens of thousands of government records — these are serious criminal offenses. To this point, the Justice Department and FBI have found creative ways not to charge Hillary Clinton for them. Whether this will remain the case has yet to be seen. As we go to press, the stunning news has broken that the FBI’s investigation is being reopened. It appears, based on early reports, that in the course of examining communications devices in a separate “sexting” investigation of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner, the bureau stumbled on relevant e-mails — no doubt connected to Huma Abedin, Mr. Weiner’s wife and, more significantly, Mrs. Clinton’s closest confidant. According to the New York Times, the FBI has seized at least one electronic device belonging to Ms. Abedin as well. New e-mails, never before reviewed by the FBI, have been recovered.

The news is still emerging, and there will be many questions — particularly if it turns out that the bureau failed to obtain Ms. Abedin’s communications devices earlier in the investigation, a seemingly obvious step. As we await answers, we can only observe that, whatever the FBI has found, it was significant enough for director James Comey to sense the need to notify Congress, despite knowing what a bombshell this would be just days before the presidential election.

One thing, however, is already clear. Whatever the relevance of the new e-mails to the probe of Clinton’s classified-information transgressions and attempt to destroy thousands of emails, these offenses may pale in comparison with Hillary Clinton’s most audacious violations of law: Crimes that should still be under investigation; crimes that will, in fitting Watergate parlance, be a cancer on the presidency if she manages to win on November 8.

Mrs. Clinton appears to have converted the office of secretary of state into a racketeering enterprise. This would be a violation of the RICO law — the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971 (codified in the U.S. penal code at sections 1961 et seq.).

Hillary and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, operated the Clinton Foundation. Ostensibly a charity, the foundation was a de facto fraud scheme to monetize Hillary’s power as secretary of state (among other aspects of the Clintons’ political influence). The scheme involved (a) the exchange of political favors, access, and influence for millions of dollars in donations; (b) the circumvention of campaign-finance laws that prohibit political donations by foreign sources; (c) a vehicle for Mrs. Clinton to shield her State Department e-mail communications from public and congressional scrutiny while she and her husband exploited the fundraising potential of her position; and (d) a means for Clinton insiders to receive private-sector compensation and explore lucrative employment opportunities while drawing taxpayer-funded government salaries.

While the foundation did perform some charitable work, this camouflaged the fact that contributions were substantially diverted to pay lavish salaries and underwrite luxury travel for Clinton insiders. Contributions skyrocketed to $126 million in 2009, the year Mrs. Clinton arrived at Foggy Bottom. Breathtaking sums were “donated” by high-rollers and foreign governments that had crucial business before the State Department. Along with those staggering donations came a spike in speaking opportunities and fees for Bill Clinton. Of course, disproportionate payments and gifts to a spouse are common ways of bribing public officials — which is why, for example, high-ranking government officeholders must reveal their spouses’ income and other asset information on their financial-disclosure forms.

While there are other egregious transactions, the most notorious corruption episode of Secretary Clinton’s tenure involves the State Department’s approval of a deal that surrendered fully one-fifth of the United States’ uranium-mining capacity to Vladimir Putin’s anti-American thugocracy in Russia.

The story, significant background of which predates Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, has been recounted in ground-breaking reporting by the Hoover Institution’s Peter Schweizer (in his remarkable book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich) and the New York Times. In a nutshell, in 2005, under the guise of addressing the incidence of HIV/AIDS in Kazakhstan (where the disease is nearly nonexistent), Bill Clinton helped his Canadian billionaire pal Frank Giustra to convince the ruling despot, Nursultan Nazarbayev (an infamous torturer and human-rights violator), to grant coveted uranium-mining rights to Giustra’s company, Ur-Asia Energy (notwithstanding that it had no background in the highly competitive uranium business). Uranium is a key component of nuclear power, from which the United States derives 20 percent of its total electrical power.

In the months that followed, Giustra gave an astonishing $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation and pledged $100 million more. With the Kazakh rights secured, Ur-Asia was able to expand its holdings and attract new investors, like Ian Telfer, who also donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Ur-Asia merged with Uranium One, a South African company, in a $3.5 billion deal — with Telfer becoming Uranium One’s chairman. The new company proceeded to buy up major uranium assets in the United States.

Meanwhile, as tends to happen in dictatorships, Nazarbayev (the Kazakh dictator) turned on the head of his state-controlled uranium agency (Kazatomprom), who was arrested for selling valuable mining rights to foreign entities like Ur-Asia/Uranium One. This was likely done at the urging of Putin, the neighborhood bully whose state-controlled atomic-energy company (Rosatom) was hoping to grab the Kazakh mines — whether by taking them outright or by taking over Uranium One.

The arrest, which happened a few months after Obama took office, sent Uranium One stock into free fall, as investors fretted that the Kazakh mining rights would be lost. Uranium One turned to Secretary Clinton’s State Department for help. As State Department cables disclosed by WikiLeaks show, Uranium One officials wanted more than a U.S. statement to the media; they pressed for written confirmation that their mining licenses were valid. Secretary Clinton’s State Department leapt into action: An energy officer from the U.S. embassy immediately held meetings with the Kazakh regime. A few days later, it was announced that Russia’s Rosatom had purchased 17 percent of Uranium One. Problem solved.

Except it became a bigger problem when the Russian company sought to acquire a controlling interest in Uranium One. That would mean a takeover not only of the Kazakh mines but of the U.S. uranium assets as well. Such a foreign grab requires approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a powerful government tribunal that the secretary of state sits on and heavily influences. Though she had historically postured as a hawk against foreign acquisitions of American assets with critical national-security implications, Secretary Clinton approved the Russian takeover of Uranium One. During and right after the big-bucks Russian acquisition, Telfer contributed $1.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Other people with ties to Uranium One appear to have ponied up as much as $5.6 million in donations.

In 2009, the incoming Obama administration had been deeply concerned about the potential for corruption were Hillary to run the State Department while Bill and their family foundation were hauling in huge payments from foreign governments, businesses, and entrepreneurs. For precisely this reason, the White House required Mrs. Clinton to agree in writing that the Clinton Foundation would annually disclose its major donors and seek pre-approval from the White House before the foundation accepted foreign contributions. This agreement was repeated flouted — for example, by concealing the contributions from Telfer. Indeed, the foundation was recently forced to refile its tax returns for the years that Secretary Clinton ran the State Department after media reports that it failed to disclose foreign donations — approximately $20 million worth.

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.

Significantly for present purposes, the listed felonies include bribery, fraud, and obstruction of justice. Fraud encompasses both schemes to raise money on misleading pretexts (e.g., a charitable foundation that camouflages illegal political payoffs) and schemes to deprive Americans of their right to the honest services of a public official (e.g., quid pro quo arrangements in which official acts are performed in exchange for money). Both fraud and obstruction can be proved by false statements — whether they are public proclamations (e.g., “I turned over all work-related e-mails to the State Department”) or lies to government officials (e.g., concealing “charitable” donations from foreign sources after promising to disclose them, or claiming not to know that the “(C)” symbol in a government document means it is classified at the confidential level).

The WikiLeaks disclosures of e-mails hacked from Clinton presidential-campaign chairman John Podesta provide mounting confirmation that the Clinton Foundation was orchestrated for the purpose of enriching the Clintons personally and leveraging then-Secretary Clinton’s power to do it. Hillary and her underlings pulled this off by making access to her contingent on Clinton Foundation ties; by having top staff service Clinton Foundation donors and work on Clinton Foundation business; by systematically conducting her e-mail communications outside the government server system; by making false statements to the public, the White House, Congress, the courts, and the FBI; and by destroying thousands of e-mails — despite congressional inquiries and Freedom of Information Act demands — in order to cover up (among other things) the shocking interplay between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.

Under federal law, that can amount to running an enterprise by a pattern of fraud, bribery, and obstruction. If so, it is a major crime. Like the major crimes involving the mishandling of classified information and destruction of government files, it cries out for a thorough and credible criminal investigation. More important, wholly apart from whether there is sufficient evidence for criminal convictions, there is overwhelming evidence of a major breach of trust that renders Mrs. Clinton unfit for any public office, let along the nation’s highest public office.

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

26 WikiLeaks bombshells on Hillary you need to know

Hillary Clinton with top aide Huma Abedin.

Hillary Clinton with top aide Huma Abedin.

Most explosive revelations that could keep Clinton out of White House

WND, by Leo Hohmann, October 27, 2016:

WikiLeaks has provided a treasure trove of inside information on what Hillary Clinton really thinks about important issues such as trade and immigration, but Clinton herself has chosen not to answer questions about the revelations.

She has focused instead on criticizing the Russians as the source of the hacks, despite the fact there is no proof of Russian involvement.

The emails also shed light on how the Clinton campaign interacts with Wall Street banks, with friendly media, and how it worked to undermine the candidacy of Democratic rival Bernie Sanders with the help of the DNC.

WikiLeaks says it has about 50,000 emails from the private Gmail account of John Podesta, a senior Democratic Party official who has served as White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton and a senior adviser to President Obama. He was the author of Obama’s climate change policy.

In February Podesta moved seamlessly from the White House to become chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Here are some of the most explosive revelations from the WikiLeaks email dumps featuring Podesta’s account and others.

Preference for Muslim Americans

  • In 2008, when Podesta served as co-chair of President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team, Michael Froman, a former Citibank executive, sent Podesta a “list of African American, Latino and Asian American candidates, broken down by Cabinet/Deputy and Under/Assistant/Deputy Assistant level, plus a list of Native American, Arab/Muslim American and Disabled American candidates.” The Arab American list came with a special note to exclude Arab Christians – they had to be both Arab and Muslim.As New Republic reports, Obama’s eventual cabinet appointments ended up almost entirely as Froman recommended.Froman ultimately became the recipient of the largest bailout from the federal government during the financial crisis.

Shielding Obama

  • In a March 4, 2015, email to Hillary Clinton’s lawyer Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s eventual campaign chairman Podesta asks if they should withhold email exchanges between Clinton and President Obama that were sent over Clinton’s private server.The day before Podesta sent his email to Mills, the House Benghazi Committee privately told Clinton to preserve and hand over all her emails.The email from Podesta to Mills says: “Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That’s the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I(t) seems like they will.”
  • An email exchange between Podesta, Paul Begala, and Clinton pollster GQRR shows the Clinton campaign was pushing the Muslim Obama narrative back in January 2008. Included was a survey of Obama “negative facts” such as this one: “Obama (owe-BAHM-uh)’s father was a Muslim and Obama grew up among Muslims in the world’s most populous Islamic country.” The pollster writes “we have reworked the Obama message into the survey, as requested.”

Secret speeches to Wall Street

  • Hillary Clinton was so enraged that Bill Clinton was forced to cancel a paid speech at Wall Street bank Morgan Stanley in 2015 that she “needed a cool down period.” The email chain, on March 11, 2015, before she formally launched her campaign, includes top aides to both Hillary Clinton and former President Clinton, and reveals that Hillary’s future campaign aides were concerned about the political impact of Bill giving a speech to a Wall Street bank. “Morgan Stanley is coming down,” wrote Robby Mook in an email to top Clinton aides.Top aide Huma Abedin explained that Hillary would not be happy about it, writing: “HRC very strongly did not want him to cancel that particular speech. I will have to tell her that [Bill] chose to cancel it, not that we asked.”
  • Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and other financial firms, a point of contention during this year’s primary, were the subject of an email to Podesta. Excerpts from some of the speeches had been flagged by Clinton’s research team, including the necessity of having “both a public and a private position” on issues. It was just part of “making sausage” in the political arena, she said, that certain positions on issues needed to be kept hidden from the public.
  • Some “flags” in Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches were noted in a Jan. 25 email from campaign research director Tony Carrk to top Clinton advisers, including Clinton’s declaration that “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” Countless establishment media outlets parlaying themselves as “fact checkers” tried to downplay this email by saying it was “mostly about trade,” not immigration, as if the words “open borders” were never mentioned. But the email exchange also shows how Hillary’s about-face on the TPP trade deal was mere pandering to Bernie Sanders’ voters and had no basis in reality in terms of how she really feels about trade deals.
  • In a speech at Goldman-Black Rock on Feb. 4, 2014, Carrk pointed out, Clinton admitted she’s “Kind Of Far Removed” from middle-class struggles due to “The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy.” Clinton, in other speeches, boasted of her ties to Wall Street, an issue primary opponent Bernie Sanders continually raised. Clinton still has refused to release transcripts of her paid speeches while blasting Donald Trump for not releasing his tax returns.
  • Clinton also told Goldman Sachs bankers that Americans who want to limit immigration are “fundamentally un-American.”

Working in tandem with ‘friendly’ media

  • WND reported Tuesday emails showing reporters, editors and contributors not just advocating for Hillary Clinton but apparently colluding with the campaign.
  • Univision Chairman Haim Saban urged the Clinton campaign to hit Donald Trump harder over immigration.
  • The New York Times giving the campaign veto power over which interview quotes could be used in a profile of the candidate.
  • The Boston Globe tried to time a Clinton opinion piece to do the most good in New Hampshire.
  • CNBC’s John Harwood urged Clinton campaign chairman Podesta to watch out for then-GOP candidate Dr. Ben Carson.
  • Democratic National Committee official and CNN contributor Donna Brazile apparently tipped off the Clinton campaign to a potentially difficult CNN town-hall question on capital punishment during the Democratic Party primary season. Brazile adamantly denies it.
  • In a July 2015 email, New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich appeared to ask permission from Hillary Clinton’s communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, to use certain quotes of the presidential candidate in an article. Palmieri replied, suggesting he remove a reference Clinton made to Sarah Palin and delete Clinton’s statement, “And gay rights has moved much faster than women’s rights or civil rights, which is an interesting phenomenon.”
  • CNBC correspondent John Harwood, who was widely criticized for posing biased questions to Donald Trump as a primary debate moderator, effectively served as an adviser to the Clinton campaign, emailing Podesta with the subject line “Watch out.” The warning was regarding GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson, who “could give you real trouble in a general (election).”
  • Maggie Haberman, a former Politico reporter who now works for the New York Times, was described in a January 2015 memo as having “a very good relationship” with the Clinton campaign. “We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed,” the memo said.

Demeaning Catholics

  • Podesta discussed fomenting “revolution” in the Catholic Church with a progressive activist while Hillary’s now-communications director Jennifer Palmieri mocked Catholics who speak out against the liberal social causes of the Democratic Party.
  • “There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church,” Sandy Newman, president and founder of the nonprofit Voices for Progress, wrote Podesta in February 2012. The email, among the third batch released by WikiLeaks, was titled “opening for a Catholic Spring? just musing.” Podesta tells Newman of progressive organizations he and his colleagues created to recruit members of the church who can lead a revolution when the time is right.“We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this,” the Clinton campaign chairman writes. “But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.”
  • Clinton, who has accused Trump of praising Putin, called the Russian leader in a 2014 speech “engaging” and “a very interesting conversationalist.” Excerpts from Clinton’s speeches were contained in a document emailed to Podesta to point out quotes that could harm the campaign.

Collusion with DOJ

  • Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon alerted staffers that the Justice Department was proposing to publish Clinton’s work-related emails, contending it showed collusion between the Obama administration and Clinton’s campaign. Fallon wrote that “DOJ folks” told him a court hearing in the case had been planned.
  • The day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October, Podesta met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends, including Peter Kadzik, a top official at the Justice Department.  Lawyers also told the Clinton campaign in emails that Hillary’s private email scandal “smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I’ve either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.”

Entanglements with foreign governments

  • King Muhammad IV of Morocco made a $12 million pledge to fund the Clinton Global Initiative conference, but only if the likely presidential candidate attended the event as a speaker. Hillary’s top aide, Huma Abedin, wrote in a January 2015 email that “if HRC was not part of it, meeting was a non-starter.” Then she warned: “She created this mess and she knows it.” Hillary ended up not attending but her husband Bill did.
  • An email from Hillary Clinton’s account to Podesta on Aug. 17, 2014, said Saudi Arabia and Qatar were “providing clandestine financial and logistic support to [ISIS] and other radical Sunni groups in the region.” Critics have pointed out that the Clinton Foundation has received considerable funding from the two Middle East nations.
  • In a leaked 2013 paid speech to the Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago, Hillary said Jordan and Turkey “can’t possibly vet all those refugees so they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees.” Two years later she called for a 550 percent increase in the number of Syrian refugees coming to the U.S. largely from United Nations refugee camps in Jordan.

Insider’s insider had sway over DNC

  • A WikiLeaks email dump on July 22 revealed that Debbie Wasserman Schultz used her position as head of the DNC to work in concert with the Clinton campaign to undermine the candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt. Schultz was forced to resign over the emails. Issues used to undermine Sanders’ campaign included his faith, or lack thereof.
  • The Clinton campaign tried to reschedule the Illinois presidential primary to lower the chances a moderate Republican would get a boost following the Super Tuesday primaries. “The Clintons won’t forget what their friends have done for them,” wrote Robby Mook, who later became Clinton’s campaign manager, in the November 2014 email to Podesta.

Sign the precedent-setting petition supporting Trump’s call for an independent prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton!

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Exclusive: O’Keefe Video Sting Exposes ‘Bird-Dogging’ — Democrats’ Effort to Incite Violence at Trump Rallies

Ross D. Franklin / Associated Press

Ross D. Franklin / Associated Press

Breitbart, by Joel B. Pollack, October 17, 2016:

Democrats have used trained provocateurs to instigate violence at Republican events nationwide throughout the 2016 election cycle, including at several Donald Trump rallies, using a tactic called “bird-dogging,” according to a new video investigation released Monday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas.

The goal of “bird-dogging”: to create a sense of “anarchy” around Donald Trump that would undermine his political support. Often, the tactic uses the most vulnerable people — including the elderly and disabled — to maximize shock value.

O’Keefe’s extensive video investigation reveals that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are involved in “bird-dogging” and other provocative tactics through a web of consultants led by Robert Creamer, a veteran Chicago activist and convicted felon who is thought to have planned Democrats’ political strategy during the push for Obamacare in 2009 and 2010.

Creamer is also the co-founder of Democracy Partners, a consulting group that, according to Project Veritas videos, apparently contracts directly with the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, and that works with an array of super PACs and consultants to organize, film and publicize their provocations.

Robert Creamer (Screenshot / Project Veritas)

Robert Creamer (Screenshot / Project Veritas)

Creamer affirms on one video that Clinton is aware of “all” of his work, and that Democracy Partners has a daily telephone call with the Clinton campaign to coordinate efforts.

O’Keefe and his team also obtained hidden camera videos showing one of Creamer’s consultants, Scott Foval, describing “bird-dogging,” among other tactics, and taking credit for having instigated violence at several Republican events during the 2016 election cycle.

Foval — who praises Creamer as “diabolical” — explains how “bird-dogging” works: how they plan confrontations in advance, choose particular individuals to provoke, and maximize media coverage.

FOVAL: So one of the things we do is we stage very authentic grassroots protests right in their faces at their own events. Like, we infiltrate. And then we get it on tape. And then, when our guys get beat up —

Project Veritas: You mean authentic-seeming grassroots?

FOVAL: No, authentic.

PV: You mean —

FOVAL: Protesters.

PV: So like — progressive, what we saw in Madison.

FOVAL: We train up our people, wherever they are, to — and I work with a network of groups, we train them up on how to get themselves into a situation on tape, on camera, that we can use later.

PV: So some of this, so I probably know your work.

FOVAL: I know you do. Everybody does. But —

PV: You mean like a situation where it’s sort of like a —

FOVAL: You remember the Iowa State Fair thing where Scott Walker grabbed the sign out of the dude’s hand and then the dude gets kind of roughed up right in front of the stage right there on camera?

PV: Yeah.

FOVAL: That was all us. The guy that got roughed up is my counterpart, who works for Bob [Creamer].

PV: And that was like, storyboarded? Him getting roughed up like that?

FOVAL: We scenarioed it.

PV: And so you, like leant yourselves to that situation and it happened. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

FOVAL: We not only leant ourselves, we planted multiple people in that front area around him and in the back to make sure there wasn’t just a action that happened up front, there was also a reaction that happened out back. So the cameras, when they saw it, saw double angles of stuff like, they saw what happened up front, and they saw the reaction of people out back.

PV: That’s fucking brilliant. That’s brilliant.

FOVAL: And then the reporters had people to talk to.

Foval also tells Project Veritas’s undercover journalist that Republicans are less adept at such tactics because they obey rules: “They have fewer guys willing to step out on the line for what they believe in. … There is a level of adherence to rules on the other side that only when you’re at the very highest level, do you get over.”

In another video, Foval admits that his organization is responsible for an incident in Asheville, North Carolina in September, where an elderly woman was allegedly assaulted outside a Trump rally.

In that incident, the 69-year-old woman, wearing an oxygen tank, heckled a visually impaired 73-year-old Trump supporter, then pursued him. She claimed he then punched her in the jaw, though she had no visible injury; his attorney claims she touched him on the shoulder first, and then fell to the ground as he turned around. The national media covered her claims widely, while largely ignoring his. Foval explains that the woman had been “trained” as a part of his operation.

Foval also explains how the operation is set up to allow the DNC and the Clinton campaign “plausible deniability” in the event that the true nature of the deliberate violence is discovered: “The thing that we have to watch is making sure there’s a double-blind between the actual campaign and the actual DNC and what we’re doing. There’s a double-blind there, so that they can plausibly deny that they heard anything about it.”

He explains the flow of money in “rapid response” operations: “The campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, the Foval Group goes and executes the shit on the ground.”

And Foval emphasizes that the goal of “bird-dogging” is to create a sense of “anarchy” around Trump: ”The bird-dogging. The aggressive bird-dogging. What I call it is ‘conflict engagement.’ … Conflict engagement in the lines at Trump rallies? We’re starting anarchy. And he needs to understand that we’re starting anarchy.”

Scott Foval (Project Veritas / Screenshot)

Scott Foval (Project Veritas / Screenshot)

In another video, Foval notes that the Clinton campaign and the DNC are involved, through a chain of contracts: “We are contracted directly with the DNC and the campaign. I am contracted to [Robert Creamer] but I answer to the head of special events for the DNC and the head of special events and political for the campaign. Through Bob. We have certain people who do not get to talk to them, at all.”

He explains that Democracy Partners then provides material from the field to the campaign, the DNC, and a wide array of left-wing super PACs and organizations involved in the 2016 election effort:

We have a clip deliverable that we have to deliver every day for our groups of clients who are involved in this project: AUFC; A4C, which is Alliance for Change; Alliance for Retired Americans, which is part of AFL-CIO — they’re one of our partners on the AUFC stuff … Depends on the issue. And then there’s the DNC, and the campaigns, and Priorities [USA]. Priorities is a big part of this, too. The campaigns and DNC cannot coordinate with Priorities, but I guaran-damn-tee you that the people who run the Super PACs all talk to each other, and we and a few other people are the hubs of that communication.

He also explains how the campaign and the super PACs use consultants as intermediaries for communication, since federal law prevents them from coordinating directly. He calls the system the “Pony Express,” linking the DNC through Robert Creamer, through Robert Creamer to Foval, and through Foval to Brad Woodhouse’s super-PAC, Americans United for Change:

FOVAL: We’re consultants, so we’re not the official entity. And so those conversations can be had between consultants who are working for different parts. That’s why there’s Bob, who’s the primary there, and I’m a sub to him. And I’m also a primary to AUFC separately, that’s why.

PV: So there’s like a Morse code between the DNC and that Super PACs.And you guys —

FOVAL: It’s less of a Morse code than it is a text conversation that never ends. It’s like that. It’s kind of like an ongoing “Pony Express.” It’s not as official as it could be, but that’s because the law doesn’t allow it to be.

The videos obtained by O’Keefe and Project Veritas corroborate earlier evidence of a Democratic plan to use violent imagery against the Trump campaign. A DNC PowerPoint presentation from April released by Wikileaks includes a plan to cite “incidents of violence” to create the “desired perception” that “Trump is dangerous and divisive, undermining our values and putting our security at risk.”

The “bird-dogging” carried out by Creamer and others would appear to be part of that effort.

In one hidden camera video, filmed at Creamer’s Washington, D.C. office, Creamer explains that Hillary Clinton is aware of “all” of his activities, directly or indirectly, and that Democracy Partners has a daily conference call with the Clinton campaign, as well as frequent calls with the White House.

Wikileaks reveals that at least one “bird-dogging” operation was approved directly by Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager. In an email dated July 4, 2015, Mook approved a plan “to bird dog” Donald Trump, meaning specifically to infiltrate volunteers into his campaign events and ask him questions about immigration.

Mook e-mail (Wikileaks)

Mook e-mail (Wikileaks)

Trump supporters have frequently been the victims of real, as opposed to staged, violence.

In June, for instance, Trump supporters leaving a rally in San Jose were attacked, beaten and chased by left-wing mobs. One woman was pelted with eggs in full view of the national media. The mayor of San Jose blamed Trump for the violence.

Last week, Hillary Clinton supporters attacked a man carrying a sign that read “Bill Clinton is a Rapist” at rally in Las Vegas hosted by the Carpenters Union.

Creamer, who is married to Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), is a Saul Alinsky acolyte who trained many of the key political figures in the Chicago clique that surrounds Barack Obama. He went to prison in 2006-7 for a check-kiting scheme, but was hired by Obama to train volunteers for his 2008 presidential campaign.

In 2011, Creamer opened Democracy Partners together with other veteran left-wing organizers, including Heather Booth. Creamer’s occasional columns at the Huffington Post also provide talking points to left-wing activists throughout the country, and are circulated among key Democratic staff.

Also see:

A deep dive into the WikiLeaks revelations

hillary-clinton-wikileaks-getty-1-640x480On ‘Special Report,’ Ed Henry takes an in-depth look into the website’s prominent role in the 2016 race

***

WikiLeaks roundup: Most damning Clinton revelations so far

***

Five Major Foreign Policy Reveals from the Wikileaks Clinton Email Dump

Kobi Gideon/GPO via Getty

Kobi Gideon/GPO via Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 17, 2016:

As emails hacked from the account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta continue to trickle into the public eye, major revelations regarding Hillary Clinton’s policy preferences on handling foreign policy, particularly rogue states, have come to the fore.

Below, five of the biggest reveals from the Wikileaks email dumps so far:

5. Clinton on Israeli-Palestinian talks says “A Potemkin process is better than nothing”: As with almost every major Democratic figure, Clinton thinks the “solution” to the Palestinian problem involves manipulating and pressuring Israel. However, emails produced by WikiLeaks suggest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu feels Clinton is “more instinctively sympathetic to Israel than the White House,” and the worst moment in his relationship with her came when she was “heavily scripted and reading from points prepared by the White House.” That’s funny, because President Obama and his defenders have been loudly insisting they were the best friends Israel ever had.

4. Clinton hearts Cuba: It is clear that Clinton will be useful to special interests that want to make money in Cuba, and enrich the dictatorship in return. Clinton’s team was also very happy to use Cuba as a political prop, in part because, as one special interest contact put it, “it would drive Rubio, Cruz, and others nuts.” The brutality and repression of the Castro regime mean absolutely nothing to these people, and yet they portray themselves as morally superior proponents of human rights. To read anything from the WikiLeaks dump referencing Cuba, you’d think the horrors of totalitarian communist repression were carried out by distant ancestors of the Castros, and it’s faintly amusing that anyone would still be hung up on it.

3. The project for “progressive Islam”: The most interesting thing about this leaked email is that Clinton’s inner circle and their connections in the Islamic world think “progressive Islam” is necessary, because on the record, Clinton claims Islam is already pretty darn progressive. Everything bad associated with Islam is supposedly the work of people who aren’t true Muslims. The interesting conclusion to be reached from following these discussions is that global Islam is much more complicated, and messy, than the official pronouncements of Democrats would indicate. As long as Democrats are single-mindedly determined to pander to Muslim-Americans, convinced the “anti-Muslim backlash” is a graver threat than terrorism, and above all else clubbing political opponents with accusations of anti-Muslim bigotry, they’ll remain dangerous on both national security, and the more subtle clash of civilizations.

2“Foreign govt donors: all the money is in”: Does anyone really doubt all that foreign money pouring into the Clinton Foundation is going to have a profound impact on American foreign policy, if Hillary Clinton gets into the White House? We’ll be lucky if the new Clinton Administration steering lucrative overseas contracts to Foundation donors is the worst of it.

1. Clinton said Iran could only be contained by bombing their nuclear facilities: Hillary Clinton’s conversation with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein in 2013 included her suggestion that Iran should be made to feel more “pain” by “not in any way occupying or invading them but by bombing their facilities.” Painless aerial bombardment is the Democrats’ favorite foreign policy tool, along with supplying weapons to local fighters who will serve as America’s deniable, easily abandoned boots on the ground. Neither of those strategies works very well, as Blankfein observed to his credit… and Clinton agreed with his assertion that bombing-only campaigns have never “worked in the history of war.” It’s as muddled as everything else Hillary Clinton says on foreign policy, but it’s arguably a more aggressive stance than Obama doctrine.

Clinton’s Allies Polled Voters on Obama’s Islamic Ties

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008 / AP

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008 / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Cameron Cawthorne, October 14, 2016:

New emails released by Wikileaks show that allies of Hillary Clinton received polling information about Barack Obama’s ties to Islam during the 2008 Democratic primary.

The poll was discovered in the hacked emails of John Podesta, Clinton’s confidant and her current presidential campaign chairman. The January 2008 email chain—titled “McCain Survey”—included a poll question about Obama’s Muslim father and time spent in Indonesia, the New York Post reported. Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) was the eventual Republican presidential nominee in 2008. Obama was Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic primary.

“Obama (owe-BAHM-uh)’s father was a Muslim and Obama grew up among Muslims in the world’s most populous Islamic country,” the polling script states.

Podesta did not reply to the email thread, but he was included on the email with other Clinton allies, including Paul Begala and Democratic pollsters with the Washington, D.C.-based firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.

Begala, a Clinton surrogate and former adviser to President Bill Clinton, denied that the poll was commissioned by the Clinton campaign, despite being prepared in January 2008 when Clinton was still running against Obama. He said that it was commissioned by a Democratic super PAC to test weaknesses of both Democratic candidates.

“That was a draft poll questionnaire that tested potential right-wing attacks on Obama, to help prepare to defend him,” Begala, who helped Bill Clinton be elected in 1992 and is working toward getting Hillary Clinton elected now, said in an email to The Post.

“I was part of a Super PAC called Progressive Media, which brought together Clinton and Obama supporters to prepare for the general election and support whoever won the nomination. I had no role in the 2008 Clinton campaign,” he added.

At least one of the email’s recipients, Tom Matzzie, was an Obama supporter during the 2008 primary.

The polling group also tested Obama’s cocaine use and support for gay adoption.

“Obama (owe-BAHM-uh) described his former use of cocaine as using ‘a little blow,’” read one statement.

“Obama (owe-BAHM-uh) is ranked as one of the ten most liberal members of the Senate because of his support of issues like gay adoption,” read another statement.

Clinton ended up losing to Obama in the Democratic primary, but later served in his administration as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

After Obama won the Democratic nomination, Begala said the unity super PAC disbanded.

“We came together to plan for the general election out of concern that the long, difficult primary would damage the eventual nominee. After Sen. Obama won the nomination, his campaign issued a public statement calling on us and other independent groups to disband, so we did,” he said.

Obama’s ties to Islam and Islamic countries has been an issue during the 2016 presidential campaign because the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump started calling for Obama to release his birth certificate in 2011. The media and politicians from both sides of the aisle have criticized Trump for it, but he has made it an issue by accusing Clinton’s campaign of starting the rumor back in 2008 when Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal spread around pictures of Obama in Arab garb.

A Republican Party spokesman told the Post that the email showed the Clinton campaign was willing to play dirty against its political opponents.

“Hillary Clinton may mimic the Obamas ‘when they go low, we go high’ line, but it turns out it was her campaign that first questioned President Obama’s childhood, faith and family in the ugliest of ways, and years before others,” said Raj Shah, Republican National Committee deputy communications director.

“This is just the latest in her pattern of hypocritical attacks and dishonesty,” Shah added.

HERE IT IS=> Detailed List of Top Wikileaks Podesta Emails (Update 2)

hillary-wikileaks-2

Update by Joe Hoft

Below is a detailed list of noteworthy Podesta emails recently released by WikiLeaks –

Hillary Policies –

Hillary Clinton Dreams of ‘Open Trade and Open Borders’
Hillary Admits Saudi Arabia and Qatar Fund ISIS – But Took Their Money Anyway
Hillary sat on Board that funded ISIS
Hillary’s own advisor blamed Hillary for Benghazi
Hillary bragged about being invited to Russia’s Putin’s ‘Inner Sanctum’
Clinton Campaign Fudged Climate Change Data – Inflated Emission Numbers
Hillary team picked Tim Kaine as VP in July 2015
Clinton Camp worried as Chelsea hosts “fundraiser” aka Cash payment for Radical Islamic Group that wants to end Israel

Hillary and the Media –

CNBC Crank John Harwood Abused GOP Candidates at Debate – Then Trashed Them in Email to Hillary Camp
DNC Chief Donna Brazile Conspired with Hillary to Defeat Bernie; Media Assisted Hillary
The List of Reporters Were Taking Marching Orders from Hillary
Bill Clinton sex “allegations are hurting both Clintons”
Hillary Campaign thanking Univision’s owner Haim Saban for its moderators handling of Hillary against Sanders.
Hillary reads script during interview
CNN refers to Hillary as ‘Madre’
Hacks Have Exposed Journalists In Clinton’s Corner…
WASH POST bureau chief protected Podesta…
NYT Gave Hillary Veto Power On Quotes…
BRAZILE BUSTED: DNC Chief Shared CNN Town Hall Questions…
TRUMP: Hillary Wants World Government; Unlimited immigration; Rule by corporations…
FOX News Mole Leaked Town Hall Question to Clinton Campaign

(from Conservative Treehouse the emails the media won’t cover)

Corrupt Hillary and Obama –

Hillary team discussed deleting emails knowing it was against the law
Hillary Campaign Was in Touch with Obama DOJ on Email Investigation
Hillary trying to
get in front of email issue
Hillary’s attorney David Kendall did not turn over
thumb drive and server
Hillary
accepting foreign money
Hillary’s team doesn’t
know what’s in her emails and is nervous about it
Hillary
gave special attention to ‘Friends of Bill’ after Haiti quake
Hillary’s 2009 Catholic liaison
arrested for prostitution ring
Top Clinton donor
paid $250 million for tax evasion
Clinton Staffers Discussed Which Emails To Release…
And Which to DELETE!
CROOKS:
Clinton Campaign Chief Owned 75,000 Shares of Putin-Connected Energy Company
Podesta Documents Suggest
Scalia Assassination
Hillary and Dept of Justice appeared to have colluded
Hillary’s own campaign doesn’t understand why she deleted 33,000 emails
Hillary sends intel to Podesta on unsecured server
Hillary’s Podesta and Soros are working together
Hillary’s people worried Chelsea Clinton sharing information with Bush daughter about Clinton’s corruption
Robby Mook: “it’s a little troubling” that meeting of Clinton Foundation was held at Goldman Sachs HQ
Bill Clinton receives a million dollar birthday check from Qatar
Huma admits Foreign Interests own HRC
Chelsea Clinton (CVC) Busted Stealing from Clinton Foundation!!!

Racist, Elitist, Bernie Fan Hating Hillary –

Hillary Advisors Admit She “HATES EVERYDAY AMERICANS
Racist Hillary Trashes African Americans – Calls Them Losers
Hillary Calls Bernie Fans and Millennials “Bucket of Losers” in Goldman Sachs Speech
Hillary Clinton: “I’m Kind of Far Removed from Struggles of Middle Class
Hillary should stop attacking Bernie, especially when she says things that are untrue, which candidly she often does.
Hillary too afraid to ask for Bernie’s medical records. Knowing Hillary’s medical records are much worse
Massive Clinton ‘hits’ file on Bernie
Hillary says ignorant voters are the key to the win
Hillary wants unaware and compliant citizenry
Dems planned to fool Sanders supporters at convention…
‘His people will think they’ve won something’…

‘Bitching’ Bernie Voters…
Biden Aide Sabotaged His Presidential Aspirations?
Hillary didn’t like ‘bitch’ in the interview

Hillary and Catholics

Podesta and Left-Wing Activist Plot ‘Catholic Spring’
Hillary’s Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri TRASHES CATHOLICS…

WikiLeaks – Podesta emails –

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?q=&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=6

Other –

DC Leaks Website Releases Hacked Clinton State Department Documents

Also see below link where many of these items were identified –https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/56s7ag/new_wikileaks_podesta_emails_part_two_2000_more/

***

WIKILEAKS: Hillary Staff Discussed Hiding Obama-Hillary Emails from Investigators – Then Deleted Them (VIDEO)

***

 

WikiLeaks: Qatar Gave Clinton Foundation A Million Dollar Check For Bill’s Birth

REUTERS/Naseem Zeitoon

REUTERS/Naseem Zeitoon

Daily Caller, by Kevin Daley, October 13, 2016

New emails released by WikiLeaks in connection with its dump of John Podesta’s email server indicate that Qatar, an Islamist state in the Persian gulf, gave former President Bill Clinton a check for $1 million for his birthday.

The email indicates foundation officials also met with representatives from Brazil, Peru, Malawi and Rwanda to discuss donations and philanthropic strategies for the Foundation.

“[Qatar] Would like to see WJC ‘for five minutes’ in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC’s birthday in 2011,” Ami Desai, director of foreign policy for the Clinton Foundation, wrote in 2012.

The thread also indicates that Qatar allocated $20 million for development in Haiti, after a massive earthquake devastated the impoverished Caribbean nation and left nearly a quarter million dead. Desai indicated the Qataris “would welcome our suggestions” as regards investment priorities.

The foundation’s activities in Haiti have been the subject of press scrutiny in recent days.

Jake Johnston, analyst at the nonpartisan Center for Economic and Policy Research, criticized what he describes as a “pay to play” environment in Haiti, allegedly facilitated by officials at the U.S. Deartment of State during Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary.

“I think when you look at both the State Department and the Clinton Foundation in Haiti, that line was pretty faint between the two,” Johnston said. “You had a lot of coordination and connection between the two, obviously. And I think that raises significant questions about how they were both operating.”

The email thread also indicates foundation officials attempted to schedule a meeting with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. “I pitched CGI, again, and will continue to do so,” Desai wrote.

Rouseff has since been impeached for corruption, though the allegations concerning her administration had not surfaced during the time the email was written.

Trump Campaign: ‘Deeply Disturbing’ Hillary Clinton May Have Revealed Classified Information in a Paid Speech

gettyimages-610932666-e1475584336874-640x480

Breitbart, by Alex Swoyer, October 12, 2016:

Donald Trump’s campaign is responding to a report that Hillary Clinton may have revealed classified information about Osama bin Laden during one of her paid speeches.

WikiLeaks revealed the allegation.

“The revelation that Hillary Clinton may have revealed classified information about the Bin Laden raid in a private, paid speech is deeply disturbing,” stated Trump’s senior communications adviser Jason Miller.

He continued: “Coupled with Clinton keeping classified information on an easily hacked secret server with a subsequent cover-up, shows Clinton has such a disregard for classified information that one has to wonder if she would even be able to receive a security clearance should she be elected president.”

Miller was responding to a recent report in The New York Post suggesting that Clinton potentially disclosed classified details relating to bin Laden’s raid.

“I was in the small group that recommended to the president that he go after bin Laden,” Clinton stated in a speech to a Toronto organization in 2013, adding:

The amount of work that was required to get a strong-enough basis of information on which to plan took more than a decade . . . and then all of a sudden putting this matrix together and saying, ‘This guy used to protect bin Laden — he has just made a phone call. He said this in the phone call. We need to figure out where he is. Then we need to follow him.

“‘And that is how we found this compound in Abbottabad [Pakistan]’ — where a team of Navy SEALs took out bin Laden in May 2011,” The New York Post’s report notes. “WikiLeaks asked in a tweet if Clinton’s comments revealed too much about the bin Laden hunt by mentioning the phone calls.”

“It’s unclear whether Clinton’s story was classified,” The New York Post clarifies, adding, “But what she said in Toronto varies from other accounts of how the United States determined bin Laden’s whereabouts.”

***

***