Category Archives: Clinton Fraud

Hillary Asks, ‘Will the Libya War Interrupt my Vacay’?

Posted on by

It must be noted that daily, when Hillary was at home at White Haven, her private residence that she DOES not share with Bill, a State Department driver would show up daily to deliver a package. Inside contents were usually her copy of the Presidential Daily Briefing, call sheets and other diplomatic operational actions, all in printed form. Note…PRINTED FORM. That is NOT protected material, just ask General Petraeus.

There are clear violations in the law in these emails with regard to her shadow intelligence point person, Sidney Blumenthal, known as the Logan Act, however, no one ever seems to be prosecuted under this law. The email exchanges also demonstrate that Syria was actually aiding Libya, an agreement Qaddafi made decades ago with Bashir al Assad’s father. Hummm.

Is there a shredder somewhere in this mess? Heh…read on. Did files and records get buried with Tyler Drumheller? Oh, has anyone interviewed Samantha Power, the current UN Ambassador? Well she was part of the Libya mess too.

Hillary’s team was particularly interested in a documentary:

 “The Oath of Tobruk,” Bernard-Henri Levy details how a self-promoting leftist intellectual persuaded a conservative French president to back the Libyan revolt.

Hillary Clinton Forwarded Huma Abedin Classified Info. for Printing

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released nearly 70 pages of State Department records that show that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aides, Deputy Chiefs of Staff Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan, received and sent classified information on their non-state.gov email accounts.  The documents, also available on the State Department website, were obtained in response to a court order from a May 5, 2015, lawsuit filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) after it failed to respond to a March 18 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking:

  • All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-“state.gov” email address.

The new documents show that Hillary Clinton used the clintonemail.com system to ask Huma Abedin (also on a non-state.gov email account) to print two March 2011 emails, which were sent from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair (using the moniker “aclb”) to Jake Sullivan on Sullivan’s non-state.gov email account.  The Obama State Department redacted the Blair emails under Exemption (b)(1) which allows the withholding of classified material.  The material is marked as being classified as “Foreign government information” and “foreign relations or foreign activities of the US, including confidential sources.”

Another email shows that Clinton wanted to know how meetings in Washington, including a four-hour meeting concerning America’s war on Libya, would impact her Hampton vacation.  Responding to an email that details the sensitive meetings in DC, Clinton emails Abedin on August 26, 2011, “Ok. What time would I get back to Hamptons?”  Again, this email discussion takes place on non-state.gov email accounts.

The documents also include advice to Clinton on Libya from Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton Foundation employee who, according to a Judicial Watch investigative report, also had business interests in Libya.  Clinton wanted Blumenthal’s March 9, 2011, Libya memo to be printed “without any identifiers.”

The newly released Abedin emails include a lengthy exchange giving precise details of Clinton’s schedule using unsecured government emails. The email from Lona J. Valmoro, former Special Assistant to Secretary of State Clinton, to Abedin and Clinton reveals exact times (including driving times) and locations of all appointments throughout the day. Another itinerary email provides details about a meeting at the United Nations in New York at 3:00 on Tuesday, January 31, 2012, with the precise disclosure, “that would mean wheels up from Andrews at approximately 12:00pm/12:15pm.”

“These emails show that Hillary Clinton isn’t the only Obama official who should be worried about being prosecuted for mishandling classified information.  Her former top State aides (and current campaign advisers) Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan should be in the dock, as well,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “The Obama State Department has now confirmed that Clinton, Abedin, and Sullivan used unsecured, non-government email accounts to communicate information that should now be withheld from the American people ‘in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, and properly classified.’ When can we expect the indictments?”

Spooky Dude Behind Migrants and Benefits

Posted on by
United States Programs via Open Society Foundation, George Soros:

The Open Society Foundations’ U.S. Programs is committed to building a vibrant, inclusive, and more just society in the United States. Through grant making, the Soros Justice Fellowships, and a special reserve fund used as crises and unexpected opportunities arise, U.S. Programs seeks to promote full participation in the nation’s civic, political, and economic life—particularly for communities that are historically marginalized and vulnerable—and to ensure that the core institutions of civil society are effective and accountable to the public.

The work of U.S. Programs is organized around four central goals: a more inclusive and accountable American democracy; a fair criminal justice system; full political, economic, and civic participation of communities of color and immigrants; and equitable economic growth.

Among its priorities:

Justice

Working to end mass incarceration; making police departments more accountable to the communities they serve; challenging the death penalty; and replacing youth justice policies that stigmatize and suppress with those that safeguard the rights of children.

Drug Policy

Promoting policies that address drug use—and the health, mental health, and social needs it creates—within the context of communities rather than the justice system, and working to ensure access to comprehensive treatment.

Equality

Promoting fairness and equality for all people in the United States by removing barriers to full participation in economic, social, and civic life for marginalized communities; seeking to reduce the racial wealth gap and reform harsh school discipline policies that disproportionately impact children of color; working to improve life outcomes for boys and men of color; and changing the racial narrative in this country.

Democracy

Supporting high-quality journalism to help hold powerful institutions accountable; protecting the free flow of information through an internet accessible to all; reducing the undue influence of money in politics; expanding electoral participation and combat voter suppression; and advancing reforms safeguarding the independence of state courts.

Economic Advancement

Working to promote economic opportunity for all Americans, reduce income equality, and advance fair housing and lending policies.

National Security & Human Rights

Working to promote the rule of law, defend civil liberties and human rights, and combat Islamophobia in the face of overbroad or discriminatory U.S. counterterrorism policies and practices.

Philanthropy of Place

Testing ideas at the state and local level through our sole field office, the Open Society Institute–Baltimore, which focuses on drug addiction, over-reliance on incarceration, and obstacles that prevent youth from succeeding inside and out of the classroom, as well as through the Open Places Initiative, which promotes equality and improved civic participation in Buffalo, San Diego, and Puerto Rico.

***

Countless pages here on who he gives grant money to.

Programs
George Soros: Open Society Foundation: International Migration Initiative

Governance and Accountability
Through empowerment, policy change, and legal action, we target reforms that meaningfully improve the working and living conditions of migrants.

The International Migration Initiative seeks to address exploitation, discrimination and violence against migrants at every stage of their migration journey. Specifically, the initiative aims to increase protections for migrants in the Asia/Middle East and the Central America/Mexico corridors while improving policymaking and the governance of international migration.

Two unique aspects of the initiative’s approach amplify its impact: First, our focus on migration corridors means the initiative is active in both countries of origin and destination, and thus targets every stage of the migration journey. Second, we bridge advocacy and policy by drawing on the experience of grassroots organizations, while engaging with policymaker and political leaders. Through empowerment, policy change, and legal action, we target reforms that can meaningfully improve the working and living conditions of migrants.

The International Migration Initiative’s main areas of work are built around increasing protections for migrants and improving migration policymaking and the governance of international migration. Within these strategic priority areas, the initiative targets three overarching goals:

  • Deterring rights violations and increasing access to justice: The International Migration Initiative aims to demonstrably improve the working and living conditions of migrants by bringing about a measurable decline in acts of violence against them and reducing the incidence of forced labor. This requires the development of a broader, stronger network of organizations and practitioners engaged in advocacy. We are pursuing initiatives to increase access to justice by building capacity among legal practitioners so they can overcome legal and jurisdictional hurdles impeding migrants’ access to redress.
  • Empowering migrants: The initiative seeks to strengthen the ability of migrants to assert and defend their rights, primarily by increasing access to information. This involves improving the quality, coverage, and effectiveness of training and orientation seminars prior to departure and upon arrival in countries of employment. We also aim to create an enabling environment in which migrants can mobilize and make their voices heard through grassroots organizing, the development of associations and informal support networks, and the creation of migrant-run, community-based media.
  • Enhancing regional policymaking and dialogue: The initiative advances policy reform and the promulgation of best practices by enabling dialogue among key stakeholders, including among actors who might not otherwise come together. We also aim to build the evidence base necessary to inform these conversations and to deepen networks among policymakers, as well as between the state and civil society. In the long term, we aim to promote more inclusive, tolerant communities and a better-informed public in order to combat xenophobia and discrimination.

Hat tip to Michael

Hillary, FBI Investigation is a Security Review, Wrong

Posted on by

It was a moment where words could be applied in general. Hillary stating that the FBI probe was merely a security review is flatly wrong. There are at least 2 tracks to the investigation. 1) Reviewing classified material in violation of the Espionage Act. 2) Reviewing whether there were foreign intrusions into her server, any of her devices or at the State Department.

One question that has not been asked: If Hillary did not have a dot gov email address nor did she have any government issued devices, ‘exactly how DID she receive classified material including material all the up to TS-SCI material? Was she ever in a SCIF?

Hillary misleading about email probe during debate, former FBI agents say

FNC: Hillary Clinton used misleading language in Thursday night’s Democratic debate to describe the ongoing FBI investigation into her use of a private email server to conduct official government business while she was secretary of state, according to former senior FBI agents.

In the New Hampshire debate with Senator Bernie Sanders, which aired on MSNBC, Clinton told moderator Chuck Todd that nothing would come of the FBI probe, “I am 100 percent confident. This is a security review that was requested.  It is being carried out.”

Not true says Steve Pomerantz, who spent 28 years at the FBI, and rose from field investigative special agent to the rank of assistant director, the third highest position in the Bureau.

“They (the FBI) do not do security reviews,” Pomerantz said. “What they primarily do and what they are clearly doing in this instance is a criminal investigation.”

Pomerantz emphasized to Fox News, “There is no mechanism for her to be briefed and to have information about the conduct, the substance, the direction or the result of any FBI investigation.”

Separately, an intelligence source familiar with the two prongs of the ongoing FBI probe, stressed to Fox that the criminal and national security elements remain “inseparable.”  The source, not authorized to speak on the record,  characterized Clinton’s statement “as a typical Clinton diversion… and what is she going to say, “I’m 95 percent sure that I am going to get away with it?”

Fox recently learned that one of the FBI’s senior agents responsible for counterintelligence matters, Charles H. Kable IV, is working the Clinton case, another indicator the intelligence source said that the FBI probe is “extremely serious, and the A-team is handling.”

Kable, known as “Sandy,” was appointed special agent in charge of the counterintelligence division at the Washington field office by Director James Comey in December.

He had recently served as the chief of the counterespionage section at FBI headquarters.  In that capacity, a bureau press releases says the 15-year, well-respected FBI veteran, “provided leadership and oversight to the field offices engaged in espionage, economic espionage, and insider threat investigations.”

While his responsibilities are not publicly known, Kable was described to Fox as “tough and no- nonsense FBI ” and analyst and agents are exploring whether the mishandling of classified information was “intentional” and who may have benefited.

A spokeswoman for the FBI took Fox’s questions, but said they would not be providing comment on Kable’s role or the FBI case.

In 2009, Kable led investigations against known and suspected Chinese intelligence officers in the U.S.  In January, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, told the Hugh Hewitt radio show that “the odds are pretty high” that then-Secretary of State Clinton’s personal email server was hacked by Iran, China and Russia.

An intelligence source told Fox, “it is no less of a violation of espionage statutes if any material was classified secret or top secret….All the statute requires is national defense information or NDI,” adding “this is way past accidental spillage…(it) is being investigated as intentional mishandling….in this kind of high profile investigation, the most damaging information takes primacy.”

Investigations into the compromise of classified information include damage assessments.  In the recent case of former CIA Director David Petraeus, the damage was deemed to be limited, discreet, and knowable because the highly classified information was shared with his biographer, who also had a security clearance.

In Hillary Clinton’s case, if the private server was compromised by a third party, the extent of the damage maybe unknowable.

The hacker “Guccifer” compromised Clinton’s adviser Sydney Blumenthal’s aol account, and he copied the email exchanges sent to Clinton.  The Romanian hacker, whose real name is Marcel Lehel Lazar, has an extradition hearing February 17, and in an interview, indicated he would welcome extradition to the U.S.

The amount of classified information, now including top secret emails the State Department withheld from public release last week, and more than 15-hundred containing classified information at various levels.

At the State Department briefing Thursday, spokesman John Kirby was asked by Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge whether Clinton, as well as aides Huma Abedin, and Cheryl Mills, completed the required classified training that includes the proper storage, handling, and identification of classified information.

“Everybody here is trained in how to handle sensitive information. Sometimes that takes place in in-person briefings and I can’t comment any further,”  Kirby said.  Asked it was documented, Kirby said he had nothing more to offer, but did confirm Clinton, Abedin, Mills were not exempt from the strict rules that apply to State Department personnel.

Fox: “So they would not be an exception?”

Kirby: “Everybody that works at the State Department gets trained in how to handle sensitive information.  Sometimes that’s done in- person briefings.”

This is important because, on its face, it undercuts Clinton’s claim she had no way to know it was classified because the emails were not marked.  Personnel are trained (IF?) the content is classified, it can be marked, unmarked, or given in oral communications.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch sought the records documented (IN?)the classification training, but in a letter dated January 22, 2016, exactly seven years after Clinton signed her Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to serve as Secretary of State, the government watchdog was told “no responsive records” could be found.

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

Pamela K. Browne is Senior Executive Producer at the FOX News Channel (FNC) and is Director of Long-Form Series and Specials. Her journalism has been recognized with several awards. Browne first joined FOX in 1997 to launch the news magazine “Fox Files” and later, “War Stories.”

 

Benghazi Cmte: Dem. Staffers Got Bonuses

Posted on by

Bonuses for what, stonewalling and refusals to cooperate or investigate?

Who authorized the bonuses and what staffers? Hello Congressman Cummings, you have a call holding on line 3 and there may be a knock at the door with a subpoena. Did the congressman himself take a bonus for leaking testimony to the press?

Did any of the surviving warriors get a bonus?

Benghazi committee Dems gave thousands in bonuses while blasting probe’s cost

FNC: Democrats on the House committee probing the 2012 Benghazi terror attacks awarded tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses to their staff, while at the same time repeatedly attacking Republicans over the rising cost of the investigation.

According to publicly available reports, a total of $33,600 was given to six Democratic staffers at the end of 2014 and 2015.

While the bonuses make up only a fraction of the panel’s total expenses to date, critics suggested they undermine the minority members’ complaints about the budget.

“This is the height of hypocrisy,” Lisa Boothe, a Republican strategist and president of High Noon Strategies, told FoxNews.com.

Democrats complain the committee’s investigation, established in May 2014, has gone on longer than the 9/11 Commission’s review of the 2001 terror attacks and have accused Republicans of using the committee as a political weapon to attack Democratic 2016 front-runner Hillary Clinton — who was secretary of state at the time of the Benghazi attacks.

And they have been relentless in describing the investigation as a waste of money, even including a “Benghazi Spending Tracker”on their website. The total taxpayer tab is now at nearly $6 million.

“Republicans continue to drag out this political charade closer to the 2016 presidential election, and the American taxpayers continue to pay the price,” ranking member Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said in January.

Boothe suggested there’s a disconnect.

“The Democrats on the committee want to criticize Republicans for investigating the deaths of four Americans to ensure a Benghazi style attack never happens again, but they have no problem doling out bonuses to their government staffers,” she said.

However, Democrats responded to questions about the bonuses by saying they have fewer staff and do more work than their Republican counterparts.

“Republicans are responsible for the decision to drag out this partisan charade for almost two years and for spending nearly $6 million to date. Democrats have about half the staff as the Republicans, spend less than half the budget of the Committee, and do just as much work, if not more,” a Democratic committee spokesman told FoxNews.com.

Last week, committee Republicans accused the Democrats of spending $2 million — more than one-third of the committee’s total cost — on what they called “politically motivated efforts to undermine and obstruct the investigation.”

Committee Republicans declined to comment, other than to confirm they have not given any bonuses.

Interesting that Elijah Cummings never talks about the 600 requests for more security in Benghazi.

In part from WaPo: “The chart was displayed in the hearing when the numbers were discussed, so all of the media and anyone else in the room could see it,” said the GOP staff member. “We also provided it to anyone who asked for a copy. As I’m sure you understand, members are often rushed when asking questions due to the limited time allotted them. Since Pompeo was discussing the numbers on the chart when it was right there for everyone to see, there was clearly no intent to mislead.”

As an example of a “concern,” the GOP staff provided a copy of a previously unpublished memo, embedded below. This memo, dated Aug. 28, 2012, or two weeks before the attacks, was written by the regional security officer in Benghazi as a transition memo for an incoming officer.

Finally, Hillary’s Security Clearance in Jeopardy?

Posted on by

Humm –> Expect to undergo one or more interviews and often a polygraph as part of the clearance process. These steps are used by investigators to get a better understanding of your character, conduct and integrity. You might also have to answer questions designed to clear up discrepancies or clarify unfavorable data discovered during the background investigation. The ultimate goal is for government security personnel to determine your eligibility for a clearance, a decision based on the totality of the evidence and information collected.

August of last year: Intelligence community wants Clinton’s security clearance suspended

WashingtonTimes: Security experts say that if Hillary Rodham Clinton retained her government security clearance when she left the State Department, as is normal practice, it should be suspended now that it is known her unprotected private email server contained top secret material.

“Standard procedure is that when there is evidence of a security breach, the clearance of the individual is suspended in many, but not all, cases,” said retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence in the George W. Bush administration. “This rises to the level of requiring a suspension.”

“The department does not comment on individuals’ security clearance status,” the official said.

Mrs. Clinton is the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. A campaign spokesman did not reply to a query, but she did get a vote of support from a key congressional Democrat.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, said Thursday there is no evidence Mrs. Clinton herself sent classified information and that the emails now under scrutiny were not marked classified at the time she sent them.

Clinton’s Security Clearance Is Under Scrutiny

Bloomberg: Now that several e-mails on Hillary Clinton’s private server have been classified, there is a more immediate question than the outcome of the investigation: Should the former secretary of state retain her security clearance during the inquiry? Congressional Republicans and Democrats offer predictably different answers.

The State Department announced Friday that it would not release 22 e-mails from Clinton’s private server after a review found they contained information designated as top secret. U.S. officials who reviewed the e-mails tell us they contain the names of U.S. intelligence officers overseas, but not the identities of undercover spies; summaries of sensitive meetings with foreign officials; and information on classified programs like drone strikes and intelligence-collection efforts in North Korea.

The FBI is investigating the use of Clinton’s home server when she was secretary of state, which the bureau now has. The New York Times reported in August that  Clinton is not a target of that investigation. We reported in September that one goal is to discover whether a foreign intelligence service hacked in.

 

Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Clinton should not lose her security clearance for receiving information that was not marked classified at the time. “I’m sure she does hold a clearance, and she should,” he told us.

Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican member of that committee who also has read the e-mails, told us, “It’s important, given all the information we now know, that the House of Representatives work alongside the executive branch to determine whether it’s appropriate for Secretary Clinton to continue to hold her security clearances.”

Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr told us the decision lies with the White House. “I think that’s up to what the National Security Council is comfortable with,” he said.

Burr, who has also read all 22 e-mails, said Clinton should have known to better protect the information they contain. “They are definitely sensitive,” he said. “Anybody in the intelligence world would know that the content was sensitive.”

His Democratic counterpart, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who also read them, told us that Clinton didn’t originally send any of the e-mails and that they were largely from her staff, although she did sometimes reply. Feinstein said the intelligence community is being overly cautious by designating the e-mails as top secret.

“There’s no question that they are over-classifying this stuff,” she said.

Clinton’s discussion of classified programs on an unclassified e-mail system is hardly rare. The issue, called “spillage,” has plagued the government for years. It can apply to anything from a spoken conversation about intelligence programs outside of a secure facility, to printing out a document with classified information on an unsecure printer.

Still, it is forbidden. The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual says “transmitting classified information over a communication channel that is unauthorized for the level of information being transmitted” is a “security violation.” Such violations must be investigated by the State Department’s own bureaus of human resources and diplomatic security. Punishment can vary from a letter of reprimand to loss of security clearance, according to the manual.

When asked about the status of Clinton’s security clearance, State Department spokesman John Kirby said: “The State Department does not comment on individuals’ security clearance status. We will say, however, that generally speaking there is a long tradition of secretaries of state making themselves available to future secretaries and presidents. Secretaries are typically allowed to maintain their security clearance and access to their own records for use in writing their memoirs and the like.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment.

During the Obama administration, it has not been automatic for officials to lose their security clearance while an investigation is underway. Just last week, the Washington Post reported that the chief of naval intelligence, Vice Adm. Ted Branch, had his security clearance suspended because he is wrapped up in a Justice Department investigation into contracting corruption. He has not been able to read, see, or hear classified information since November 2013. Branch has not been charged with any crime and continues to serve in that post.

But when then-CIA director David Petraeus came under FBI investigation at the end of 2012, his security clearance was not formally revoked. After he resigned, his access to classified information was suspended, according to U.S. officials. In that case, Petraeus had provided notebooks with highly classified information to his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell, whose security clearances did not permit her to receive it.

Unlike Broadwell, officials familiar with the e-mails tell us that Clinton and her e-mail correspondents were cleared to receive the information that has been classified after the fact. Steven Aftergood, who heads the project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, told us, “It’s entirely possible for information to start out as unclassified and to be classified only when the question of public disclosure arises.”

William Leonard, who oversaw the government’s security classification process between 2002 and 2008 as the director of the Information Security Oversight Office, told us this kind of “spillage” was common. “The bottom line is this, if you have the opportunity to pore through any cleared individual’s unclassified e-mail account, it’s almost inevitable you would find material that someone, some way would point out should be classified.” He also said that in Clinton’s case, “there is no indication that she deliberately disregarded the rules for handling classified information so I see no reason why she should not remain eligible for a security clearance.”

Nonetheless, Leonard added that Clinton’s decision to use the private e-mail server as secretary of state “reflected exceedingly poor judgment, and those that advised her on this did not serve her well.”

The FBI investigation may determine that neither Clinton nor her aides broke the law, but Clinton herself has said she used poor judgment. It’s an open question how that poor judgment will affect her access to state secrets, during and after the FBI’s investigation.