State Dept Purged the Emails, Anti Israel

State Department Purged Emails About Secret Anti-Netanyahu Campaign

Key emails deleted despite requirement to archive

FreeBeacon: A State Department official deleted emails that included information about a secret campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the country’s last election, according to a Senate investigatory committee that determined the Obama administration transferred tax funds to anti-Netanyahu groups.

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations disclosed in a massive report on Tuesday that the Obama administration provided U.S. taxpayer dollars to the OneVoice Movement, a liberal group that waged a clandestine campaign to smear and oust Netanyahu from office.

OneVoice, which was awarded $465,000 in U.S. grants through 2014, has been under congressional investigation since 2015, when it was first accused of funneling money to partisan political groups looking to unseat Netanyahu. This type of behavior by non-profit groups is prohibited under U.S. tax law.

The investigation determined that OneVoice redirected State Department funds to anti-Netanyahu efforts and that U.S. officials subsequently erased emails containing information about the administration’s relationship with the non-profit group.

Related reading: March 2015/ Netanyahu Prevailed Against EU/USA Anti-Semitism

The disclosure comes amid a massive effort by Congress to reform the State Department’s email practices in light of former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential frontrunner’s Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified materials.

The Washington Free Beacon revealed early Tuesday that new legislation would ban all State Department officials from using private email accounts and servers, as well as mandate annual reports about the leak of classified information.

A senior State Department official admitted to congressional investigators that he deleted several emails pertaining to the administration’s coordination with OneVoice.

“The State Department was unable to produce all documents responsive to the Subcommittee’s requests due to its failure to retain complete email records of Michael Ratney, who served as U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem during the award and oversight of the OneVoice grants,” the report states.

Related reading: Jeremy Bird in Violation of the Logan Act?

Investigators “discovered this retention problem because one important email exchange between OneVoice and Mr. Ratney … was produced to the Subcommittee only by OneVoice,” the report continues. “After conducting additional searches, the Department informed the Subcommittee that it was unable to locate any responsive emails from Mr. Ratney’s inbox or sent mail.”

Ratney was ultimately forced to tell investigators that “[a]t times I deleted emails with attachments I didn’t need in order to maintain my inbox under the storage limit.”

While Ratney had the option to archive emails—as required by the department—he did not do this. Ratney claimed he was not aware of the rule, stating he “did not know [he] was required to archive routine emails.”

The deletion of the email chains appears to be a violation of the Federal Records Act, which mandates official records be archived for future disclosure purposes.

One source with intimate knowledge of the situation told the Free Beacon that the deletion of these emails is highly suspicious given the seriousness of the claims about the administration’s behavior.

Related reading: Obama’s War on Israel

“The Obama administration had the money, skills, and personnel to build a gigantic campaign infrastructure that was used to try to defeat the prime minister of an ally,” the source said. “But apparently they didn’t have what they needed to store the emails in which they did all of those things. That’s certainly a lucky break for the State Department.”

State Department officials did not immediately respond to a request for further information about the investigation and the deletion of emails.

****

Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) each signed off on the investigation, which was conducted by Portman’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. In releasing the report, Portman criticized the State Department for lax oversight and for undermining a U.S. ally.

“The State Department ignored warning signs and funded a politically active group in a politically sensitive environment with inadequate safeguards,” Portman said. “It is completely unacceptable that U.S. taxpayer dollars were used to build a political campaign infrastructure that was deployed — immediately after the grant ended — against the leader of our closest ally in the Middle East.”

The investigation is notable for its bipartisan sheen. McCaskill highlighted the conclusion that it showed “no wrongdoing” by President Barack Obama’s administration but said the report “certainly highlights deficiencies in the Department’s policies that should be addressed in order to best protect taxpayer dollars.” Read more from Politico

Hillary Was A Classification Authority

Primer:

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release

Pursuant to the provisions of section 1.3 of the Executive Order issued today, entitled “Classified National Security Information” (Executive Order), I hereby designate the following officials to classify information originally as “Top Secret” or “Secret”:

TOP SECRET

Executive Office of the President:

The Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff

The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (National Security Advisor)

The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

The Director of National Drug Control Policy

The Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy

The Chair or Co-Chairs, President’s Intelligence Advisory Board

Departments and Agencies:

The Secretary of State

The Secretary of the Treasury

The Secretary of Defense

The Attorney General

The Secretary of Energy

The Secretary of Homeland Security

The Director of National Intelligence

The Secretary of the Army

The Secretary of the Navy

The Secretary of the Air Force

The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The Director, Information Security Oversight Office

SECRET

Executive Office of the President:

The United States Trade Representative

Departments and Agencies:

The Secretary of Agriculture

The Secretary of Commerce

The Secretary of Health and Human Services

The Secretary of Transportation

The Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

Any delegation of this authority shall be in accordance with section 1.3(c) of the Executive Order, except that the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may not delegate the authority granted in this order.  If an agency head without original classification authority under this order, or otherwise delegated in accordance with section 1.3(c) of the Executive Order, has an exceptional need to classify information originated by their agency, the matter shall be referred to the agency head with appropriate subject matter interest and classification authority in accordance with section 1.3(e) of the Executive Order.  If the agency with appropriate subject
matter interest and classification authority cannot readily be determined, the matter shall be referred to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office.

Presidential designations ordered prior to the issuance of the Executive Order are revoked as of the date of this order.  However, delegations of authority to classify information originally that were made in accordance with the provisions of section 1.4 of Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995, as amended, by officials designated under this order shall continue in effect, provided that the authority of such officials is delegable under this order.

This order shall be published in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 29, 2009.

Related reading: Rules/Standards for Classification Desktop Reference

Related reading: Military Classification Procedures  (She was on the Senate Armed Svcs. Cmte.

So…..are all these people trained or provided the standards for this authority? Judge for yourself. When Hillary speaks of retroactive classification status or applications, she cannot plea both dumb, unknown or unaware.

In the Senate, she served on the Armed Services Committee, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Budget Committee and the Select Committee on Aging. She was also a Commissioner on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Going back to Hillary’s time on the Senate Armed Services Committee, there are rules of this committee that demonstrate secrecy, classified material and consequences.

So…hey Director Comey….she DID have the sophistication to know the markings, going back to her time in the Senate.

But…..

. Image result for hillary clinton classified information Image result for hillary clinton classified information

EXCLUSIVE: State Dept Can’t Find Evidence Hillary Was Trained To Handle Classified Documents

DailyCaller: A senior Department of State official claimed there is no documentation showing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ever received training in the proper handling of classified materials, according to a June 30 Department of Justice filing in U.S. District Court.

The disclosure could buttress FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before a congressional committee that Clinton was perhaps not “sophisticated enough” to understand that the marking “C” on an email meant it was a classified document.

“It’s an interesting question whether she was sophisticated enough to understand what a C in parens means,” Comey said before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Wednesday. “It’s possible—possible—she didn’t understand what a (C) meant when she saw it in the body of the email like that.”

In the Freedom of Information lawsuit brought by The Daily Caller News Foundation, the department to date has failed to deliver any documents showing that Clinton ever enrolled and passed mandatory State Department courses that instructed officials in the proper handling of classified material.

Similarly, there was no evidence Huma Abedin, her deputy chief of staff, had taken and passed any security training during her four years at the Department of State.

All State Department officials normally receive annual reviews and certification as part of their training for the proper handling of all levels of classified materials, including top secret information.

It’s unclear if Clinton refused security training outright during her four years as secretary of state.

It is known she resisted many other security rules while serving as America’s top diplomat. She used a home-based private email server to conduct all Department of State business, shunned the use of any department email addresses, and insisted on using an unsecured private Blackberry cellphone inside the State Department headquarters in the nation’s capital.

Director Comey disclosed in a news conference July 5 the FBI found 110 classified emails in 52 email chains on her home server, including eight chains that contained top secret material.

Mark Zaid, the lead attorney in TheDCNF lawsuit, said in a statement that Comey’s comments about Clinton’s lack of sophistication “makes perfect sense,” in light of the fact that “there were absolutely no documents demonstrating Secretary Clinton had ever received even annual security training, a requirement that supposedly was imposed on everyone else at State.”

“I did not want to believe that could be true but now, in light of Director Comey’s statement, it might be true. I am still shaking my head in disbelief,” Zaid said, who specializes in national security cases and represents U.S. intelligence officials.

The department did produce some fragmentary evidence that Clinton’s other top aides — Cheryl Mills and Jacob Sullivan — were certified in the “cyber-awareness training.” But there are gaps in the certificates and do not cover their full four years at the department.

Eric Stein, the department’s co-director of Office Information Programs, stated in a June 30 declaration before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that his office could only identify 11 documents pertaining to security training and none show any certification for Clinton or Abedin.

Seven of the documents were released to TheDCNF earlier this year. The foundation sued the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act and is now before the court.

In a July 1 memorandum filed before Judge Leon, attorneys for TheDCNF noted that there were no documents showing Clinton and Abedin had ever taken any security training classes.

“Noticeably absent from the documentation produced by State was any record memorializing completion of a single mandatory security and/or Information Technology training course by either former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (“Secretary Clinton”) or former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin,” wrote national security attorney Bradley Moss in a July 1 memo before the court.

“Why are there no records for either Secretary Clinton or Ms. Abedin at all,” Moss asked Judge Leon in his filing before the court.

TheDCNF asked the court for discovery, the right to depose State Department officials or obtain affidavits.

Moss has handled FOIA issues since 2007 and has also represented intelligence, law enforcement and military officers in administrative proceedings.

In failing to find any certification, Stein did not tell the court they searched the hard drives, computers or other electronic devices used by Clinton or her aides that were in their offices.

Moss said the Stein declaration “demonstrates how State failed to meet its legal obligations to conduct an adequate search.”

“State did not even contemplate the possibility that responsive records could be located on individual-specific hard drives and/or shared drives utilized by any of the specific senior State officials during their respective tenures at State,” the attorney stated.

After the FBI and Justice Department reported they were closing their criminal investigation of Clinton, the Department of State  announced last Thursday it was reopening an earlier administrative investigation into the matter, which could lead to the presumptive presidential nominee losing her security clearance.

 

 

 

 

 

As for the FBI and the Clintons, Remember FileGate

Image result for clinton filegate

 Louis Freeh, Director of FBI from 1993 – 2001  James Comey, Director of FBI, appointed by Barack Obama and in 1996, Comey acted as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee

Is it any wonder that Comey gladly resides in the Clinton web of corruption? Is it any wonder the Department of Justice resides there as well? Since the media wont remind you…..I will. Take a walk on the wild history side….

Alexander, et al. v. FBI (Nos. 96-2123/97-1288) – “Filegate”

In the early 1990’s, President and Hillary Clinton violated the privacy rights of their perceived political enemies by wrongly accessing and misusing the FBI files of Reagan and Bush I staffer and others. This scandal became known as “Filegate.” In pursuing its Filegate investigation, Judicial Watch learned with the help of whistleblowers Sheryl Hall and Betty Lambuth that the Clinton-Gore White House had hidden over 1.8 million e-mails from courts, Congressional investigators and independent counsels for nearly two years. Plans were also uncovered to destroy the files. To keep the e-mails secret, Clinton-Gore White House officials threatened contractors and staff with their jobs or jail time. Once the failure to produce the e-mails was revealed, the cover-up began; a cover-up that included obstruction and false testimony. Then, on hearing the testimony of the White House whistleblowers, a federal court judge ordered the testimony of former high-level Clinton-Gore White House officials in a court hearing to examine the threats, obstruction and alleged false testimony.Evidence showed that the e-mails are incriminating and covered virtual all of the Clinton-Gore scandals, yet these e-mails were not considered by Independent Counsel Robert Ray who gave the Clinton-Gore White House a clean bill of health. (View ethics complaint.)In January 2001, the e-mail files were placed under custody of the National Archives (NARA) and were restored, costing the American tax-payers over $13 million.In December 2002 the court ordered the files be searched. The NARA is responsible for responding to all special access requests and subpoenas that are made pursuant to the Presidential Records Act (PRA). The PRA generally restricts public access to the Clinton Presidential and Gore Vice Presidential records for five years after the end of the administration and for specific records for an additional seven years. Judicial Watch is representing plaintiffs in a class-action suit filed by the White House employees of Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations whose FBI files were wrongly accessed by the Clinton White House. The FBI and White House are being sued for breach of the Federal Privacy Act while other individuals, including Hillary Clinton, are being sued for invasion of privacy.

Related reading: Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations 

Related reading: Charles Ortel: States and Foreign Governments Investigating Clinton Foundation ‘Charity Fraud’

 

Going further:

Iran, China Lead the World in Stealing U.S. Military Equipment and Technology According to Justice Department Documents Uncovered by Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch has launched an investigation regarding covert efforts by foreign nations to violate our export control laws. And here’s what we’ve found out so far: Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Iran and China lead the world in stealing sensitive U.S. military equipment and technology according to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

The documents include a report entitled, “Significant Export Control Cases Since September 2001,” prepared by the Counter Espionage Section (CES), which includes the charges, investigative agency, defendants and disposition of each case.

According to this report, which was originally labeled “For Official Use Only,” Iran and China were cited for 31 and 20 violations respectively between September 29, 2001 and May 16, 2008.

And here are just a few of the “significant” cases listed by the CES:

  • U.S. v. Eugene Hsu, et al. (9/21/01): Eugene Hsu, David Chang and Wing Chang were charged with “Conspiracy and an attempt to export military encryption units to China through Singapore.” All received guilty verdicts however Wing Chang is still listed as a fugitive.
  • U.S. v. Avassapian (12/03): Sherzhik Avassapian was a Tehran-based broker working for the Iranian Ministry of Defense when he attempted to “solicit and inspect F-14 fighter components, military helicopters and C-130 aircraft which he intended to ship to Iran via Italy.” Avassapian pleaded guilty to issuing false statements.
  • U.S. v. Kwonhwan Park (11/04): Kwonhwan Park was charged with “Exporting Black Hawk engine parts and other military items to China.” Pleaded guilty and sentenced to 32 months in prison.
  • U.S. v. Ghassemi, et al. (10/06): Iranian national Jamshid Ghassemi and Aurel Fratila were charged with “Conspiracy to export munition list items &emdash; including accelerometers and gyroscopes for missiles and spacecraft &emdash; to Iran without a license.” Ghassemi and Fratila are at large in Thailand and Romania respectively. Justice is currently seeking their deportation.

(By the way, in taking a look at the sentences given to those who are caught, the relatively light punishments do not seem to fit the serious crimes, which is one reason why this problem is getting worse. Just 32 months in prison for trying to steal military equipment and send it to a nation hostile to the United States?)

Lest anyone think this data is historical in nature and does not reflect today’s reality, in October 2008, the Department of Justice announced that criminal charges had been issued against more than 145 defendants in the previous fiscal year. And approximately 43% of these new cases involved munitions or other restricted technology bound for Iran or China.

A Justice Department press release included in our materials noted: “The illegal exports bound for Iran have involved such items as missile guidance systems, Improvised Explosive Device (IED) components, military aircraft parts, night vision systems and other materials. The illegal exports to China have involved rocket launch data, Space Shuttle technology, missile technology, naval warship data, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle or ‘drone’ technology, thermal imaging systems, military night vision systems and other materials.”

The bottom line here: These documents show that Iran and China have concerted efforts to obtain U.S. military technology in violation of our laws. And the Obama administration needs to maintain vigilance against the illegal efforts of enemies such as Iran to obtain our sensitive technologies.

And this new information is a useful reality check as to the intentions of Iran as this administration continues to kow-tow to Iran over its nuclear weapons program.

Judicial Watch Pushes for Victory in Filegate Lawsuit

If there is one legal case that exemplifies the “never-give-up” attitude of Judicial Watch and its attorneys it is the Filegate lawsuit, which was filed 13 years ago when Bill and Hillary Clinton still occupied The White House. As long-time readers of the Weekly Update know, over the years, Judicial Watch has continued to aggressively pursue justice in this matter, earning some key victories along the way (like the discovery of the hidden White House emails, to name just one example).

And just this week, on October 19, we filed a “Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment,” asking the U.S. District Court to rule in favor of two Filegate victims, Cara Leslie Alexander and Joseph P. Duggan [Cara Leslie Alexander, et al. v. FBI, et al., C.A. No. 96-2123 (RCL)].

At its core, Judicial Watch’s Filegate lawsuit is the Clinton White House’s illegal maintenance of the private FBI files of hundreds of former Reagan and Bush officials.

Specifically with respect to Judicial Watch’s clients, the Clinton White House procured their private FBI files in 1993 and 1994 respectively by claiming the two individuals required access to the Clinton White House. One problem. Neither individual worked for the White House any longer and therefore did not require access. This was simply a ruse by Clinton officials to get their hands on the files, something they did with regularity. In fact, one FBI official testified they made 488 such requests based on the bogus claim of “access” in a single year!

And to make matters worse, not only did the Clinton White House misstate the facts to get the private FBI files, it held on to them for almost three years!

Now, after 13 years of pushing the same tired justification for this illegal handling of private information, the FBI and the Obama White House (defending corruption in the Clinton White House) have asked the court to rule in its favor by filing a “Motion for Summary Judgment.” (A “summary judgment” is granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.) We filed our own Cross Motion for Summary Judgment in reply, and here is our basic argument:

Over the long and complex history of this matter, certain key facts have remained irrefutable. First, FBI background investigation files are perhaps some of the most sensitive records that the federal government maintains on individuals.

Second, the FBI has never disputed that it sent literally hundreds of these files to the Office of Personnel Security (“OPS”), a component of Executive Office of the President (EOP), despite the fact that OPS’s requests for the records were, in the FBI’s own words, “without justification and served no official purpose.” Indeed, the FBI has admitted that it failed to “institute sufficient protections to effectively safeguard the records”…and that their handling of the matter resulted in “egregious violations of privacy.”

…There can be no genuine dispute that the FBI violated the Privacy Act by failing to establish appropriate administrative safeguards to insure the security and confidentiality of its background investigation files and that its failure to do so was in flagrant disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights under the Privacy Act.

Third, regardless of the circumstances under which OPS acquired the records at issue, there has never been any dispute that OPS continued to maintain them long after it was known that the persons who were the subjects of these records never worked at the Clinton White House and had no need for access to the Clinton White House.

As we further noted in our Cross Motion, even Bill Clinton himself has said his administration should be held accountable. Clinton told historian Taylor Branch in preparation for his recently published book, “those files did not belong at The White House,” and that they “should have been isolated and returned immediately.” According to Branch, Clinton said “[h]is administration should and would be held accountable.”

We agree.

But the Obama administration has taken the legal position that the Privacy Act does not apply to the Executive Office of the President and the Clinton FBI files scandal was not a scandal.

This will be worrying to those of us concerned about the Obama White House’s collecting “fishy” emails and compiling an enemies list of new organizations, radio hosts, businesses, and industry associations to attack and smear. Is the Obama defense of the FBI files scandal less about that Clinton scandal and more about what his White House is up to now?

Judicial Watch Unveils ACORN Affiliate Map

Another week. Another ACORN scandal story. You will recall a few weeks ago, two young conservative journalists caught ACORN workers red-handed trying to advise the undercover reporters on how to evade paying taxes, immigration, and child prostitution laws. Well, there’s another tape. This according to The Associated Press:

The new videotape shows filmmakers Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe, posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend, soliciting advice about a possible housing loan from workers in the Philadelphia office of ACORN Housing Corp…The Philadelphia visit is significant because of a dispute over statements ACORN has made defending what took place when Giles and O’Keefe visited the Philadelphia office last summer.

Supporters of O’Keefe and Giles said ACORN has lied about whether the two were thrown out of the Philadelphia office, how much time they spent there and whether they explicitly told ACORN workers that Giles was a prostitute….

Okay, so we all know about ACORN’s alleged corruption. We knew it when ACORN workers in Florida registered Mickey Mouse to vote in the last presidential election. We knew it when the New York Times reported that the ACORN founder’s brother embezzled almost a million dollars from the organization. We knew it when the Nevada Secretary of State told Fox News that the ACORN chapter in his state hired convicts still in prison for canvassing voters. A criminal prosecution of the organization is proceeding there. All this is why the U.S. Congress took steps to sever the group’s funding, the IRS and the U.S. Census Bureau severed ties with the group.

But as much as we know about ACORN corruption, we know so very little about how ACORN actually operates. The organization’s complicated structure has made it difficult to identify how many affiliates are associated with the organization. And that’s just the way ACORN likes it.

As Rep. Darrel Issa, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, put it in his detailed report on ACORN’s alleged criminal activity: “Both structurally and operationally, ACORN hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate.”

Well, to help shed some light on ACORN and its operations, Judicial Watch has created a Google Earth map identifying 281 known ACORN branches and associated organizations. The idea is to compile and organize as much information as possible on ACORN-related organizations. You can check out the map for yourself here, but this is a brief summary of what ACORN organizations and affiliates the map includes:

  • ACORN – Founded in 1970, with national headquarters in New Orleans, New York, and Washington, DC. ACORN has over 75 regional offices throughout the U.S., and works on issues including voter registration, raising minimum wage, improving education, and providing affordable housing to low-income members.
  • ACORN Housing Corporation – ACORN Housing is the most prominent offshoot of ACORN, and provides services to clients trying to obtain affordable housing. ACORN Housing was created in 1987, and receives funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  • ACORN Affiliates – Judicial Watch created a category for all affiliates that are tied with ACORN, including the ACORN Institute, ACORN International, and ACORN Law for Education Representation & Training.
  • ACORN Housing Affiliates – This category specifies associates of ACORN Housing. Many of these housing companies, including ACORN Community Land Association, 385 Palmetto Street Housing Company, and MHANY 2003 HDFC, work closely with ACORN Housing and receive funds from them.
  • Other ACORN Affiliates – In addition to the numerous offices ACORN and ACORN Housing have throughout the U.S., there are additional organizations that are affiliated with ACORN, although their names might imply differently. These groups include Citizens Consulting Incorporated and Citizens Services Incorporated, both of which are responsible for organizing many of ACORN’s activities. Other known affiliates include the Affiliated Media Foundation Movement, the American Environmental Justice Project, AGAPE Broadcasting Foundation, the Working Families Organization, and the Hospitality Hotel and Restaurant Organizing Council.

This new research tool is just one component of Judicial Watch’s large-scale investigation of ACORN. As I’ve mentioned previously, Judicial Watch currently has over two dozen FOIA requests related to ACORN activities. Click here to find out more.

 

Movie: Hillary’s America, in Theaters July 22

Logos

Coming to theaters July 22.

Hillary’s America, the latest film from the creators of America: Imagine The World Without Her and 2016: Obama’s America takes audiences on a gripping journey into the secret history of the Democratic Party and the contentious rise of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

In Hillary’s America, New York Times #1 best-selling author and celebrated filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza reveals the sordid truth about Hillary and the secret history of the Democratic Party. This eye-opening film sheds light on the Democrats’ transition from pro-slavery to pro-enslavement; how Hillary Clinton’s political mentor was, literally, a cold-blooded gangster; and how the Clintons and other Democrats see foreign policy not in terms of national interest, but in terms of personal profit.

Hillary’s America will uncover how their plan is to simply steal America.

Gaddafi is Missing, You Read that Right

Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam at large in Libya after being released from death row, lawyer says

Telegraph:  

 Muammar Gaddafi’s British-educated son was released from death row in Libya earlier this year, his lawyer said, and now appears to be at large even though he faces charges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the ousted dictator’s most prominent son, was sentenced to die by firing squad last year after being found guilty of war crimes and was thought to be in prison in the western city of Zintan.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi in court in Zintan, Libya Saif al-Islam Gaddafi in court in Zintan Credit: Reuters

His lawyer, Karim Khan QC, said however that Gaddafi had been released in April under an amnesty law and was now free in Libya.

“It has been confirmed and is now public that he was given his liberty on April 12,” Mr Khan told France 24. “He is well and safe and he’s in Libya.”

There was no independent confirmation of Mr Khan’s claims from Libya’s UN-backed government but unverified documents appeared to show that the previous justice minister ordered him to be released in April.

 

If confirmed that Gaddafi has been freed, it would be a remarkable turnaround for the most Western-oriented of Col Gaddafi’s eight children.

The 44-year-old took a PhD at the London School of Economics was well known in British society, where he mingled with Lord Mandelson, the architect Norman Foster and other notables.

Some Western diplomats hoped he would eventually replace his dictator father and lead Libya to economic and political reforms.

But when the Libyan uprising began in 2011 he sided with his father’s regime and vowed to crush the revolt.

He was captured in November 2011, just a few weeks after the elder Gaddafi was killed, and later charged in a Libyan court with war crimes.

The sentence of death handed down by a Tripoli court last year was widely criticised by the UN and human rights groups who said that Gaddafi had not been given a fair trial.

He is still wanted by the ICC to face charges for his role during the Libyan uprising and could potentially be arrested if he tried to travel. International prosecutors allege he was responsible for crimes against humanity and murder during the 2011 conflict.

Mr Khan said he hoped to get the ICC charges dropped under rules that state the international court cannot try a person who has already been put on trial for the same crimes in their own country.

News of his apparent release may stir tensions in Libya, especially as he would have been released by militias in Zintan, a province that is already at odds with other elements of Libya’s new UN-backed unity government.

It is not clear why the previous government would have freed Gaddafi although a reconciliation bill was passed last year in an effort to try to unite the badly-fractured country.

In the same way some Iraqis say they regret the removal of Saddam Hussein because of the chaos that followed, some Libyans now look back more sympathetically at the Gaddafi regime in light of the anarchy in much of Libya.

The release documents from the previous minister of justice also say that elders from the Gaddafi tribe had been petitioning for Gaddafi to be freed.