Entitlements for Dreamers, There is an App for That

Play this short video. Ever wonder about the dreams of Americans who would like to attend schools of higher education that cant because the class size limits are met by foreigners? If these ‘dreamers’ need aid and assistance then how about their home countries paying for it? Rhetorical for sure.

Another rhetorical question….How about home countries provide internal dreamer conditions?

 

Related reading: Facts, numbers and charts

Last year from the White House:

Summary:
The President met with six young “DREAMers” in the Oval Office, all of whom were brought to America by their parents, and — until recently — faced a difficult situation because of their immigration status. The President’s executive action on immigration is changing that.
President Barack Obama shows the Resolute Desk to a group of DREAMers, following their Oval Office meeting in which they talked about how they have benefited from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Feb. 4, 2015.

President Barack Obama shows the Resolute Desk to a group of DREAMers, following their Oval Office meeting in which they talked about how they have benefited from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Feb. 4, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)


“I don’t think there’s anybody in America who’s had a chance to talk to these six young people … who wouldn’t find it in their heart to say these kids are Americans just like us, and they belong here, and we want to do right by them.”

President Barack Obama, 2/4/2015


Each of the young people who stood in the Oval Office yesterday had one thing in common: They were all brought here by parents dreaming of a better life for their children in America.

Some of them arrived when they were simply months old. They were raised in American communities, often not realizing their status was any different from that of their classmates or neighbors. Many of them, as the President noted in remarks at the end of the meeting, didn’t discover that there was something different about them — something that might prevent them from giving back to their community and their country — until they were about to go to college.

There is also a Dreamer Portal.

The DREAM Act

Over three million students graduate from U.S. high schools every year. Most get the opportunity to test their dreams and live their American story. However, a group of approximately 65,000 youth do not get this opportunity; they are smeared with an inherited title, an illegal immigrant. These youth have lived in the United States for most of their lives and want nothing more than to be recognized for what they are, Americans.

The DREAM Act is a bipartisan legislation ‒ pioneered by Sen. Orin Hatch [R-UT] and Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL] ‒ that can solve this hemorrhaging injustice in our society. Under the rigorous provisions of the DREAM Act, qualifying undocumented youth would be eligible for a 6 year long conditional path to citizenship that requires completion of a college degree or two years of military service.

For reference on your tax dollars and foreign aid:

In part by Devex: A number of U.S. agencies specifically target private sector partnerships and reforms to drive economic growth, and each of them received a budget increase — some quite significant — under the president’s proposed plan.

The U.S. Trade and Development Agency would see its budget increase by 22 percent if Obama’s request finds traction, a “plus-up” that comes after USTDA’s budget already jumped 19 percent last year. The relatively small agency, which seeks to connect U.S. companies with infrastructure investments in emerging markets, has been lauded from both sides of the political aisle.

The Millennium Challenge Corp., the Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the Export-Import Bank likewise saw budget increases in the 2015 budget request.

Each of these agencies is involved in the whole-of-government Power Africa initiative, a $7 billion U.S. government commitment to help double access to energy in sub-Saharan Africa.

The accompanying budget justification describes a robust role for using the additional funding provided under the president’s request in support of Power Africa’s goals, although some observers have wondered where the $7 billion will come from, and whether it really represents concrete administration commitments or merely aspirational targets.

Each agency’s specific contribution to the initiative cannot be parsed out of the 2015 numbers. However, the budget — together with the recent congressional vote in favor of the bipartisan “Electrify Africa Act,” which directs the president to create a strategy for alleviating energy poverty in Africa –—suggests Power Africa transactions are poised to represent a substantially larger percentage of the U.S. development portfolio next year.

Climate change

The issue of global climate change has risen in profile since Secretary of State John Kerry took office last year, but funding for the Global Climate Change Initiative remained at a flat $840 million in the 2015 request.

The administration has maintained that a significant portion of Power Africa transactions will target clean energy development on the continent, but attempts to strip OPIC of a controversial cap on carbon power investments has led some observers to question whether Power Africa is truly committed to a balanced blend of clean and conventional fuels.

Just as the President’s budget request does not specify how much it will spend directly on Power Africa, it also sheds little light on what portion of Power Africa’s transactions will focus on non-carbon energy sources.

That could leave climate change advocates wondering what’s in it for them — and whether the funding will ever match the rhetoric — when it comes to foreign affairs spending in 2015 and beyond.

Operating expenses, Middle East democracy

USAID receives a more than 20 percent increase to its operating budget in the president’s request, after a 10 percent reduction to that same account in 2014. While agency officials were confident they could sustain current operations using carry over funding this year, they also maintained that surplus funding will be gone by 2015 and that staffing and programs would suffer if the OE budget was not restored.

The agency will have to wait and see if Congress agrees with Obama’s show of support for investing in the agency’s ability to hire new staff and continue funding the USAID Forward agenda, which seeks procurement system reforms and increased agency capacity.

One past administration request — the Middle East North Africa Incentive Fund — has been scrapped in favor of a new, scaled-back version, the Middle East North Africa Initiative Reforms, which will use $225 million to support ”targeted programs that will advance the transitions under way across the region.”

Such pro-democracy language and overt funding for “locally-led change and emerging reformists” could be read as a response to criticism some have leveled at the administration that it has not done enough to support opposition groups and popular movements against entrenched autocrats.

Next steps

The president’s budget request marks the first step in an appropriations process that will play out for months and ultimately determine how the U.S. government prioritizes spending next year.

The proposal is strong on its message about a “new model of development,” which sees opportunities for partnerships with the private sector in spurring development gains, as well as an obligation for U.S. action to respond effectively when global hot spots ignite.

Some signals — the Electrify Africa Act and USTDA’s continued budget plus-ups, for example — suggest bipartisan support exists for the partnerships model of development, at least in some sectors. But it will be important to watch closely to see if the administration is nearly as successful in defending those priorities within the foreign affairs budget — like new emphases on maternal health and child stunting, and global climate change — that do not appear to lend themselves so easily to the mutual economic benefit argument.

California is real generous: Read the full document here.

California Dream Act AB-130 and AB-131
Allows students eligible for state financial aid to apply for and
receive;
* Institutional scholarships such as the UC
Grant, State University Grant & Educational
Opportunity Program funds;
* California Community College Board of
Governor (BOG) Fee Waivers;
* State financial aid, including Cal Grants and
Chafee Foster Youth for use at qualifying
public and private institutions

Dreamers California

 

 

 

 

Google Runs Full Bore to Protect Hillary on the ‘net’

Earlier this week, this site posted about the limitless help Hillary Clinton is receiving from Google to catapult her into the White House. There is no dollar value that can be applied to this but it should be in fact be considered a campaign donation. Blaming the media is one thing, now we have to go wider to the tech companies….

And so it has already begun….Google is transforming facts and filtering posts on all media. By the way, Google did the same thing for Barack Obama’s election processes. The Clinton crime syndicate creeps through all venues with wild abandon….

Shame on Google….but here goes:

Here Are 10 More Examples of Google Search Results Favorable to Hillary

Tech giant accused of whitewashing autocomplete results

FreeBeacon: “Crime” and “indictment” are not the only terms Google is keeping hidden from searches of Hillary Clinton, a Washington Free Beacon analysis finds.

Common search terms associated with Clinton appear to have been scrubbed from Google as the tech giant has been accused of manipulating its autocomplete results to favor the Democratic presidential candidate.

Matt Lieberman of SourceFed released a video showing examples of Google skewing its autocomplete results for Clinton, while other search engines simply display the most searched terms.

“While researching for a wrap-up on the June 7 Presidential Primaries, we discovered evidence that Google may be manipulating autocomplete recommendations in favor of Hillary Clinton,” SourceFed wrote. “If true, this would mean that Google Searches aren’t objectively reflecting what the majority of Internet searches are actually looking for, possibly violating Google’s algorithm.”

For example, when searching Hillary Clinton “cri,” Google finishes the phrase as “crime reform.” On Yahoo, the result is “criminal charges.” On Google’s own trend website, there were not enough searches for Hillary Clinton and “crime reform” to build a graph of the results.

Typing Hillary Clinton and “ind” gives Google users results on Hillary Clinton and Indiana. On Microsoft’s Bing search engine, a user gets Hillary Clinton and “indictment,” yielding results for the FBI investigation into Clinton’s private email server.

Just putting the name “Hillary Clinton” into Google, you are directed towards searches for her “twitter,” “email,” “age,” and “speech.”

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.08.43 AM

Notably missing is the second top result on Bing, which is of her potential “indictment.”

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.08.51 AM

Here are 10 more examples of questionable Google autocompletes for Clinton:

1. “Hillary Clinton anti…”

Bing gets you antichrist, antisemitic, and anti gay marriage.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.14.37 AM

Google gets you “anti obama ad.”

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.14.56 AM

2. “Hillary Clinton vin…”

Bing gets you vindictive and a variety of searches focusing on the death of Vince Foster.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.09.29 AM

Google recommends a search for a compilation of Vines.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.09.19 AM-2

3. “Hillary Clinton ga…”

Bing thinks the user is looking for her gaffes or maybe her shaky view on gay marriage.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.00.38 AM

Google thinks the user is researching her Gameboy?

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.00.45 AM

4. “Hillary Clinton hum…”

Bing directs you to Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin and whether she is Clinton’s lover.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.10.06 AM

Google directs you towards a look at Clinton’s humor and her status as a humanitarian.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.10.13 AM

5. “Hillary Clinton cro…”

Bing sends you over to crook or crooked.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.01.17 AM

Google sends you to cross-stitch, a common embroidery method.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.01.24 AM

6. “Hillary Clinton un…”

On Bing, unlikable, untrustworthy, and under investigation top the list.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.05.06 AM

On Google, universal health care jumps to the top of the list.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.05.11 AM

7. “Hillary Clinton aff…”

Bing’s top suggestion is a look into Clinton affairs.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.08.18 AM

That suggestion is absent from Google.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.08.24 AM

8. “Hillary Clinton whi…”

Top result on Bing is the Whitewater scandal.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.02.13 AM

This is also absent from Google, leaving just searches for Clinton doing the whip and nae nae, which are dance moves for young people.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.02.19 AM

9. “Hillary Clinton mon…”

Bing guesses that its user is looking into either Monsanto or Monica Lewinsky.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.04.29 AM

No way a Google user could be looking into Monica Lewinsky.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.04.23 AM

10. “Hillary Clinton li…”

Bing goes for lies, Libya, and liar.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.04.42 AM

Google goes for LinkedIn and lipstick.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 11.04.48 AM

Hillary Puts Donor on Intelligence Board

Click here to read in high quality the associated emails.

White House perhaps slipped up, but did say the Hillary investigation was a criminal case the same day that Barack Obama endorsed her.

How Clinton Donor Got on Sensitive Intelligence Board

ABCNews: Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.

The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.

A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.

“We had no idea who he was,” one board member told ABC News.

PHOTO: A State Department photograph shows the 2011 International Security Advisory Board. Rajiv Fernando is seated on the far left of the image.
State Department A State Department photograph shows the 2011 International Security Advisory Board. Rajiv Fernando is seated on the far left of the image.

Fernando’s lack of any known background in nuclear security caught the attention of several board members, and when ABC News first contacted the State Department in August 2011 seeking a copy of his resume, the emails show that confusion ensued among the career government officials who work with the advisory panel.

“I have spoken to [State Department official and ISAB Executive Director Richard Hartman] privately, and it appears there is much more to this story that we’re unaware of,” wrote Jamie Mannina, the press aide who fielded the ABC News request. “We must protect the Secretary’s and Under Secretary’s name, as well as the integrity of the Board. I think it’s important to get down to the bottom of this before there’s any response.

Related reading: Clinton BlackBerry photo led to State official’s query about email account

“As you can see from the attached, it’s natural to ask how he got onto the board when compared to the rest of the esteemed list of members,” Mannina wrote, referring to an attachment that was not included in the recent document release.

Fernando himself would not answer questions from ABC News in 2011 about what qualified him for a seat on the board or led to his appointment. When ABC News finally caught up with Fernando at the 2012 Democratic convention, he became upset and said he was “not at liberty” to speak about it. Security threatened to have the ABC News reporter arrested.

PHOTO: At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, ABC News Brian Ross asks Rajiv Fernando about his 2011 appointment to the State Departments International Security Advisory Board.ABC News
At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, ABC News’ Brian Ross asks Rajiv Fernando about his 2011 appointment to the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board.more +

Fernando’s expertise appeared to be in the arena of high-frequency trading — a form of computer-generated stock trading. At the time of his appointment, he headed a firm, Chopper Trading, that was a leader in that field.

Fernando’s history of campaign giving dated back at least to 2003 and was prolific — and almost exclusively to Democrats. He was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 bid for president, giving maximum contributions to her campaign, and to HillPAC, in 2007 and 2008. He also served as a fundraising bundler for Clinton, gathering more than $100,000 from others for her White House bid. After Barack Obama bested Clinton for the 2008 nomination, Fernando became a major fundraiser for the Obama campaign. Prior to his State Department appointment, Fernando had given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation, and another $30,000 to a political advocacy group, WomenCount, that indirectly helped Hillary Clinton retire her lingering 2008 campaign debts by renting her campaign email list.

The appointment qualified Fernando for one of the highest levels of top secret access, the emails show. Among those with whom Fernando served on the International Security Advisory Board was David A. Kay, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group and United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector; Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a former National Security Advisor to two presidents; two former congressmen; and former Sen. Chuck Robb. William Perry, the former Secretary of Defense, chaired the panel.

“It is certainly a serious, knowledgeable and experienced group of experts,” said Bruce Blair, a Princeton professor whose principal research covers the technical and policy steps on the path toward the verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons. “Much of the focus has been on questions of nuclear stability and the risks of nuclear weapons use by Russia and Pakistan.”

The newly released emails reveal that after ABC News started asking questions in August 2011, a State Department official who worked with the advisory board couldn’t immediately come up with a justification for Fernando serving on the panel. His and other emails make repeated references to “S”; ABC News has been told this is a common way to refer to the Secretary of State.

“The true answer is simply that S staff (Cheryl Mills) added him,” wrote Wade Boese, who was Chief of Staff for the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, in an email to Mannina, the press aide. “Raj was not on the list sent to S; he was added at their insistence.”

Mills, a former deputy White House counsel, was serving as Clinton’s chief of staff at the time, and has been a longtime legal and political advisor.

Four minutes later, Boese wrote to his boss, Richard Hartman, to alert him that Ellen Tauscher, who was then the Undersecretary for State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, would be meeting with Mills to devise a response to the ABC News request.

“Sorry this has become a headache,” he wrote.

Hartman wrote the next morning to say he would “come up and brief you… about where Raj Fernando stands and the ABC News investigative journalist inquiries. You do need to hear about it.” Separately, in an email to another official, Hartman noted that it was “Cheryl Mills, who added Mr. Fernando’s name to the list of ISAB nominees.”

When ABC News sent a follow-up inquiry about the qualifications of another board appointee, Massachusetts state Rep. Harold P. Naughton, Jr., Boese wrote to Hartman to say the department would have a far easier time explaining Naughton’s credentials. “The case for Rep. Naughton is an easy one. We are on solid ground,” he said.

By this point, Fernando himself had been looped into the discussion. He and Hartman exchanged emails, but the entire text of Fernando’s letter was redacted by the State Department prior to its release.

Twice, Mannina was instructed to stall with ABC News, before Mills sent a public statement. It announced Fernando’s abrupt decision to step down.

“Mr. Fernando chose to resign from the Board earlier this month citing additional time needed to devote to his business,” it reads, noting that membership on the board was required to be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee.”

“As President and CEO of Chopper Trading, Mr. Fernando brought a unique perspective to ISAB. He has years of experience in the private sector in implementing sophisticated risk management tools, information technology and international finance,” the statement says.

The statement was emailed to ABC News two days after Fernando’s resignation and four days after the initial ABC News inquiry.

Fernando’s letter of resignation to Clinton says he “intended to devote a substantial amount of time to the work of ISAB in furtherance of its objectives. However, the unique, unexpected, and excessive volatility in the international markets these last few weeks and months require[d him] to focus [his] energy on the operations of [his] company.”

Additional emails collected from Hillary Clinton’s personal server only hint at her possible involvement in Fernando’s selection to the board. The records request for documents about Fernando’s appointment produced a chain of correspondence from 2010 with the subject line “ISAB” — or International Security Advisory Board. In those, Mills writes, “The secretary had two other names she wanted looked at.” The names are redacted. Mills then forwarded the response to “H,” which is the designation for Clinton’s personal account. Three minutes later Clinton forwards the email chain to another State official and says simply, “Pls print.”

The Clinton campaign declined requests from ABC News to make Mills available for an interview. Campaign spokesman Nick Merrill deferred to the U.S. State Department, which issued a statement saying the board’s charter specifically calls for a membership that reflects “a balance of backgrounds and points of view. Furthermore, it is not unusual for the State Department Chief of Staff to be involved in personnel matters.”

PHOTO: Cheryl Mills, former State Department chief of staff under former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, attends a House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing in Washington, Oct. 22, 2015. Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty Images
Cheryl Mills, former State Department chief of staff under former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, attends a House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing in Washington, Oct. 22, 2015. more +

Fernando did not respond to messages left by ABC News at home and mobile numbers listed for Fernando, nor to a letter left at the office of his current business.

As is customary with a new administration, the make-up of the board changed substantially when Clinton took over the State Department, according to Amb. James Woolsey, who served on the panel from 2006 to 2009. But the seriousness of its mission remained the same.

He said the board’s primary purpose was to gather an array of experts on nuclear weapons and arms control to constantly assess and update the nation’s nuclear strategy.

“Most things that involve nuclear weapons and nuclear strategy are dealt with at a pretty sensitive basis — top secret,” he said, noting that participants meet in a secure facility and are restricted in what materials they can discuss.

That is not typically the realm of political donors, Woolsey said. Though, he added, it would not be impossible for someone lacking a security background to make a contribution to the panel. “It would depend on how smart and dedicated this person was… I would think you would have to devote some real time to getting up to speed,” he said.

Fernando is now a board member of a private group called the American Security Project, which describes itself as “a nonpartisan organization created to educate the American public and the world about the changing nature of national security in the 21st Century.” He also identifies himself online as a member of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and says he’s involved with a Washington think tank.

And he continued to donate to Democrats, and to Clinton. He emerged as one of the first “bundlers” to raise money for Clinton’s 2016 bid. And in July 2015, he hosted a fundraiser for Clinton at his Chicago home. Fernando has also continued to donate to the Clinton Foundation. He now is listed on the charity’s website as having given between $1 million and $5 million.

About six months after Fernando resigned from the State Department advisory board, he was invited to attend a White House State Dinner, honoring the British Prime Minister. And this summer Fernando will serve as a super delegate at the Democratic National Convention. According to Chicago media reports, he has committed to supporting Clinton.

ABC News’ Andrea GonzalesPaul contributed to this report.

 

 

Defense Dept Refused Cooperation on Benghazi Witness?

Related reading: The witness was located and interviewed

Rep. Westmoreland: No Democrat Members Attended Yesterday’s Witness Interviews

June 10, 2016
Press Release

Washington, D.C. — Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03), a member of the Select Committee on Benghazi and Chairman of the Subcommittee of the NSA and Cybersecurity on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, released the following statement after none of the five Benghazi Committee Democrats showed up for either of yesterday’s interviews with drone sensor operators from the time of the attacks, including “John from Iowa”:

“It’s a shame none of the Democrat members of the Benghazi Committee showed up to hear what these two service members had to say about their service to our country on the night of the Benghazi attacks.”

After the Select Committee on Benghazi subpoenaed Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Hedger to testify under oath next week, Communications Director Jamal Ware issued the following statement in response to Democrats’ mischaracterizations of the drone sensor operators’ testimonies:

“Democrats belie their own political motivation and lack of interest in conducting a serious investigation when they would rather accept briefings provided by the Pentagon than talk to the actual Air Force operators who were conducting missions over Benghazi that night. Since not a single Democrat member could be bothered to show up to hear what the sensor operators had to say, I find it surprising their spokesman is so willing to mischaracterize the witnesses’ testimony. In fact, the operators were able to tell the committee what they were directed to look for, what information they were focused on gathering, what information was relayed up the chain of command and what capabilities the drones possessed. Video footage the administration refuses to let the American people see and briefers instructed what to say cannot do that.

“Chairman Gowdy wants answers under oath and he wants them quickly—a subpoena accomplishes both. The Democrats and administration incessantly whine about the committee’s length, so they shouldn’t be surprised when the committee cuts to the chase.”

The dishonest Democrats are falsely claiming the Benghazi Committee “waited … 659 days” to specifically request the Department of Defense (DOD) find “John from Iowa.” But the truth – as made clear by the timeline of events the committee released yesterday – is that DOD was unable to comply with the committee’s February 26 request for relevant drone personnel. So on March 24, the committee sent DOD a list of outstanding requests and noted an investigator trying to gather any publicly available information about relevant drone personnel came across a news report about “John from Iowa,” an individual who called into a talk radio show in May 2013 and claimed to be a drone sensor operator on the night of the attacks.

In other words, the committee requested “John from Iowa” as soon as it became aware of him.

The February 26 and March 24 dates are confirmed by an email from DOD staff to the committee acknowledging the timing of the committee’s requests.

 

Select Committee Subpoenas Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Hedger

June 10, 2016
Press Release

Washington, D.C. — Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (SC-04) released the following statement after the committee subpoenaed Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Hedger, a Pentagon political appointee, to testify in private, under oath on Wednesday, June 15:

“This Pentagon political appointee claimed in an official letter to the committee the Department of Defense could not find a requested witness, despite expending ‘significant resources’ searching for him. This witness is still on active duty and confirmed Thursday the Air Force knew exactly who he was – a drone sensor operator who was operating over Benghazi on the night of the attacks. Mr. Hedger will now have the opportunity to detail exactly what ‘resources’ he ‘expended’ and how. I look forward to him explaining the serious questions that have arisen with respect to this matter, including whether they are related to incompetence or deliberate concealment of the witness from a congressional inquiry.”

In his April 28 letter to Chairman Gowdy that was leaked to the press, Hedger stated he “would appreciate a meeting with you at your nearest convenience to discuss these issues[.]”

In response, Gowdy wrote that the “overtly partisan” letter “intentionally mischaracterizes both the nature of the Committee’s investigation and its interaction with the Department of Defense. It is also riddled with factual inaccuracies, which not only does a disservice to the public but also does a disservice to the women and men who work for the Department of Defense.” He stated that Pentagon political staffers are “welcome to waste taxpayer dollars writing partisan, factually deficient letters to our committee, coordinate the language with House Democrats, and then leak it to the media,” but that “will not prevent this committee from interviewing all witnesses who can help us write the final, definitive accounting of what happened before, during, and after the attacks that killed four Americans in Benghazi[.]”

On May 20, three months after the committee’s request, the Department of Defense provided a complete list of names of drone personnel from the time of the attacks. While it is unclear if the Department knew at the time it had finally provided the name of “John from Iowa,” the committee did. Based on this drone sensor operator’s testimony to the committee Thursday, it now appears the Department had knowledge well in advance of who and where John was. In fact, the Department had been in contact with him regarding his public statements prior to the committee’s request. The committee intends to question Hedger about this discrepancy and other matters.

View the timeline of events regarding “John from Iowa.”

Core of Hillary FBI Investigation, Wilful Drone Discussions

Emails in Clinton probe dealt with planned drone strikes: WSJ

Reuters/WSJ: Emails between U.S. diplomats in Islamabad and State Department officials in Washington about whether to challenge specific U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan are at the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the “low side” -government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters – as part of a secret arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a CIA drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law enforcement officials briefed on the FBI probe, the Journal said.

Some of the emails were then forwarded by Clinton’s aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said, according to the newspaper.

Investigators have raised concerns that Clinton’s personal server was less secure than State Department systems, and a recent report by the State Department inspector general found that Clinton had broken government rules by using a private email server without approval, undermining Clinton’s earlier defenses of her emails.

The still-secret emails are a key part of the FBI investigation that has long dogged Clinton’s presidential campaign, the officials told the Journal. Clinton this week clinched the Democratic presidential nomination for the Nov. 8 election.

The vaguely worded messages did not mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the militant targets, officials said, according to the Journal.

The emails were written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger, the officials said, according to the newspaper.

Law enforcement and intelligence officials said State Department deliberations about the covert CIA drone program should have been conducted over a more secure government computer system designed to handle classified information, the Journal reported.

Context at the time:

Pakistan UAV attacks have become one of the Obama administration’s signature efforts in the terror war. Although the CIA does not divulge how many drones it operates, press reports suggest the agency has as many as 16 such systems. But in the early days of his presidency, Barack Obama was advised by at least two former high-ranking CIA officers not to over-rely on the use of drones.

Former CIA analyst Bruce Riedel, commissioned by the president to review US policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, concluded that robot airplanes could only function successfully when allied to high-quality “on the ground” intelligence.

That view was shared by General Michael Hayden, CIA director at the start of the Obama presidency. In his book Obama’s Wars, Bob Woodward recounts how Hayden believed that “The great lesson of World War II and Vietnam was that attack from the air, even massive bombings, can’t win a war.”

Noah Shachtman, contributing editor of Wired.com, warns that the lesson of not having troops on the ground could be over-learned: “The idea that any terrorist problem could be solved by drones alone just isn’t realistic. Drones are only as effective as the human informants who tell them where to strike.” For him, a drones-only policy could become “a way of maintaining political cover and a veil of secrecy over operations that might ordinarily be wide open”. More here.

**** Additionally for later context:

NPR: In 2013, President Obama tightened rules for drone strikes in order to reduce civilian casualties. NPR’s Audie Cornish talks to Wall Street Journal correspondent Adam Entous who learned that the president secretly waived the new rules for CIA operations in Pakistan.

In 2015: The killings revealed last week of two hostages – an American and an Italian – have raised new questions about how the CIA operates in Pakistan. Warren Weinstein and Giovanni La Porto were aid workers. They were killed in January by a U.S. drone strike aimed at al-Qaida militants. The Wall Street Journal reports the CIA conducted that strike under a secret waiver approved by President Obama in 2013. Obama laid it out in a speech at National Defense University in 2013. And he didn’t reveal all the rules. The actual guidance that he issued is – remains classified. But he did talk about three of them. He said that operations targeting individuals needed to have near certainty that there would be no civilians killed or injured in those strikes. He also said that the CIA and the Pentagon, when conducting strikes like this, need to know that there is an imminent threat to the United States posed by the militants that they intend on targeting. And another guideline that he laid out was the idea that the United States is not going to kill people in order to punish them for acts that they did in the past. This is about preventing them from attacking the United States or U.S. persons or assets overseas in the future.

Pakistan is important because this is the staging area for al-Qaida and other militant groups that are looking to cross the border into Afghanistan and attack American forces there. Attacking al-Qaida in Pakistan is a way to prevent them from later attacking U.S. forces across the border. So the White House and the president said that there would be a thorough review of this incident in order to ensure that mistakes like this do not happen again. And within this debate within the administration, several members of the president’s inner circle are making the case that now is the time to rein in the program.

But it’s really hard to tell what direction this is going to go in the end because of strong support, not only within the administration for the drone program and wanting to have the flexibility to use it, but also within the Congress. You have very powerful committees, members of the president’s own party, who very much support this program and don’t want to see it go away. Additional information here.