An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.

Sidley Austin an Agent Firm for the Russian ‘Garchs’?

Sidley Austin Reps Clinton Confidante in Benghazi Probe

Former DAG James Cole appears with Sidney Blumenthal for depo in House investigation.

Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton family friend, on Tuesday sat for a closed-door deposition in the House over his communications with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton around the time of the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. James Cole, a former deputy attorney general under Eric Holder Jr. who is now a partner in Sidley Austin’s Washington office, represents Blumenthal.

*** Then this in a snippet:

The complaint, filed in October, names Sidley Austin and partner Edward McNicholas, alleging that they assisted one Joseph Garcia in securing millions in investments from a woman named Carrie Birkel. Birkel is looking to recover $1.5 million from the lawyers. Birkel claims that she had millions to invest after she got her $10 million divorce settlement — a divorce precipitated by Garcia providing her, unsolicited, with compromising photos of her husband, before introducing her to McNicholas, who vetted divorce lawyers for her on a $25,000 retainer.

As the complaint states:

Birkel’s claims arise out of a truly bizarre set of circumstances that would seem more appropriate for an episode of “Law and Order” than in reality.

Indeed.

Garcia, who is serving a 37-month sentence for similar activity, is a curious character by all accounts:

Garcia and his wife used multiple aliases to go along with numerous Social Security numbers. While peddling phony investments, Garcia would only reference his time as a Navy SEAL; the details were confidential. And he instructed his family to always have “go bags” packed should they need to flee one of the many lavish homes they rented across the country. More here.

***

For the confirmation hearing for Loretta Lynch, Statement of David B. Barlow ,Partner, Sidley Austin LLP made an endorsing and glowing recommendation for her.

Okay, so Sidley Austin is a very big and weird law firm with clear power in Washington DC, so what?

Well, let’s bring in the Russian lobby operation shall we? Sidley is the law firm of record to influence Congress and the White House against sanctions and political cover. The lobby agreement was generated by VTB Bank with Sidley Austin.

You can read the full document/agreement here.

In part from VOA:

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) reported in April that suspicious payments made by “Putin’s cronies may have, in some cases, been intended as payoffs, possibly in exchange for Russian government aid or contracts.”

The secret documents suggested that much of the money originally came from a bank in Cyprus, the ICIJ said, “that, at the time, was majority-owned by the Russian state-controlled VTB Bank.”

The documents also showed dozens of transactions, over more than a decade, involving people or companies linked to Putin, who has been in power at the Kremlin since 2000. Among those identified in the document were Putin’s longtime friend, cellist Sergei Roldugin, and the wife of Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov.

Putin has admitted there were transactions between him and Roldugin, but said there was no evidence of illegal activity.

Roldugin has dismissed any suggestion that he was either a custodian or a conduit for Putin’s money or assets.

*** Back in 2014:

VTB Bank and Bank of China today signed an Agreement on Cooperation in the presence of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The agreement was signed by First Deputy President and Chairman of VTB Bank Management Board Vasily Titov and Bank of China President Chen Siqing.

Under the agreement, the banks plan to develop their partnership in a number of areas, including cooperation on ruble and renminbi settlements, investment banking, inter-bank lending, trade finance and capital-markets transactions.

Vasily Titov said :”The signing of the agreement underscores VTB Group’s ongoing drive to grow its business in Asia, and will help facilitate the development of bilateral trade and economic relations between Russia and China, which have always been reliable partners.”

***

The Russian state-controlled bank VTB confirmed that its websites had been targeted by a cyber attack. The VTB is the second largest bank in the country. In December of 2016, Security Affairs reported:

Last week the Russian intelligence service FSB revealed that an unnamed foreign power is planning to undermine Russian Banks with cyber attacks and PSYOPS via social media.

According to the Russian intelligence, a group of servers in the Netherlands and leased to the Ukrainian web hosting firm BlazingFast were ready to launch an assault next Monday.

“Russia’s domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service (FSB), said that the servers to be used in the alleged cyber attack were located in the Netherlands and registered to a Ukrainian web hosting company called BlazingFast.” reported the Reuters.

“The attack, which was to target major national and provincial banks in several Russian cities, was meant to start on Dec. 5, the FSB said in a statement.”

A few hours after the announcement made by the FSB, the Russian Central Bank confirmed that hackers have stolen 2 billion rubles, roughly 31 million US dollars, from accounts at the Russian central bank.

The Russian authorities haven’t disclosed the identity of the alleged threat actor behind the attack.

The Russian bank industry was recently hit by a string of cyber attacks, a few day ago experts from Kaspersky Lab revealed that at least five of Russia’s largest banks were targeted by massive DDoS attacks.

The attacks were powered by devices located in 30 countries across the world, including the United States.

The Russian Government was accused by Washington of interference in the recent US Presidential Election.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security have issued a joint security statement to accuse the Russian government of a series of intrusions into the networks of US organizations and state election boards involved in the Presidential Election.

“The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process” reads the statement.

There is more to the Obama administration and decisions than we know. This matter of cyber intrusions, sanctions, lawyers, Russian interference will not go away any time soon.

 

C’mon Trump, Americans are Still Angry

Hey President Donald, how about assigning a leader to a whistleblower task force that coughs up the goods on the Obama administration.

In the past eight years we have almost forgotten all the fraud, collusion, deception and nefarious work of the previous administration and how far reaching those operations were. We still want consequences….why? If left unchallenged, rather unexposed, those operatives will dig in deeper and with wild abandon. The media cannot be left out of this whistleblowing mission either. Complicity and political behavior modeling by the left will only gain traction if not forced into the sunlight.

Trump pledged to restore law and order, voters should know how far afield the law was fractured under the Obama administration.

Much in the news is the Russian intrusion into our election infrastructure, which did happen without dispute. Altering the vote count or influencing voters to cast votes to a preferred candidate did NOT happen, such there is no evidence. The Russians have a history of such intrusions beyond the United States including Ukraine, Germany and Europe. The U.S. intelligence agencies warned of forced log-ins long before the November election. Now British intelligence is making the same warnings.

A particular item that requires a whistleblower headline is how the Obama White House interfered in the election process in Israel paying operatives to remove Netanyahu from power. Hello Trump team, can you expose more details on this please? We already know about Jeremy Bird, but we want the full story and in the end, we want punishment.

Some items that need attention and exposure are noted below but this list is hardly complete. In fact you are invited to add to the list in the comments section.

We need to know the culprits, the money, the facts and the rest of the stories on many scandals. This is the moment now leading into the building mid-term elections, but mostly due to the DNC being led by two terrifying people Tom Perez and Keith Ellison. The DNC, DNCC, Center for American Policy and others are houses of UnAmerican activities, if we even remember what America is and should be anymore.

There is no better source or investigator than Trevor Louden. He helped us with his movie, ‘Enemies Within’ as he laid the foundation for the viewers to take the baton and run to expose more.

Congress has an ‘oversight committee’ that does investigate and expose countless cases yet it is time consuming and burdensome given scheduling, subpoenas, testimony and document requests. Then we have Judicial Watch that is doing great work using the legal machinery, but all reliance cannot be placed there.

The Trump White House has this lifetime opportunity to own the headlines, the stories of connected events and provide the full account of scandals and people that today are left still with unanswered question.

Here are some samples Mr. President we need to know more about, begin here with the whistleblowing now that your administration is in power with access.

  1. The matter of Fast and Furious, the gun-running operation to Mexico was never fully told. Did Kevin O’Reilly ever cooperate and provide testimony, when in the middle of the scandal he was suddenly deployed to Iraq?
  2. Judicial Watch just obtained almost 7000 documents relating to the IRS targeting scandal. Exactly why is John Koskinen still the commissioner and has anyone moved to sue Lois Lerner in civil suits? Is there evidence of White House collusion including some members of Congress?
  3. What is the rest of the story when it comes to new solar/energy businesses launched with government loan guarantees that have gone belly up? Who is responsible, what did it really cost the taxpayer and are any monies recoverable? How about the DoJ investigations where some financial reports were altered?
  4. Benghazi stands on its own..
  5. Who at the Department of Energy is responsible for the lead in the water in Flint, Michigan and polluting the Colorado river?
  6. With the ransom money given to Iran and the side deals all but forgotten of the Iranian nuclear deal, how much is still out there to be uncovered and reported? What more do we need to know about Ploughshares, NIAC, Ben Rhodes and John Kerry?
  7. We have new leadership at the Veterans Administration. Great now how about exposing the hidden case files, the corruption of the unions, jailing those that falsified status reports and got big bonuses? The VA Inspector General has done some great work so far, but who in leadership is going down for the never-ending issues at the VA?
  8. Can we have a team that reveals the ‘slush funds’ from the ‘stimulus money’ and who is guilty in both parties that scammed the taxpayers?
  9. Clearly there is more to know about Obama’s amnesty and his DACA program. Who was behind it, how much money was involved? Are judges being paid off? Who gets grants to sponsor children and illegals and how much money was spent in transportation of people all over the country hiding the from the legal system?
  10. Obamacare is a major topic, what more do we need to know such that it is being used to blame democrats and repeal the law? How about HHS contracts, sharing patient databases with outside agencies and foreign governments? What about cyber security, what about paying off big pharma and insurance companies?
  11. Where are we with the Clinton Foundation and the emails to Hillary’s private server that included Obama emails and the computer belonging to Huma Abedin? Is anyone still at the State Department still providing the Clinton operation cover? Can Patrick Kennedy or John Kerry be prosecuted?
  12. What is the rest of the story of Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch on corporate fines for violations and company officials not going to prison?
  13. The Department of Justice maintained a victims fund which selectively paid surviving family members in cases of attacks and murder victims. Why was Obama personally involved and how was it decided who got money and how much?
  14. The DoJ funded leftist organizations. Two examples were National Council of La Raza, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and the National Urban League.
  15. Obama and his team negotiated with the Taliban. What is the real truth, how much money did we give the terror organization and where are the Taliban 5 released from Gitmo today?
  16. Several on the Democrat side of the House of Representatives hired a rogue team of IT professionals that were not vetted and had access to computer systems and passwords causing more national security threats. Why? Who was fired, who is responsible? Are there more we don’t know about?

Once again, this is hardly a comprehensive list, we must know more. We want consequences. build the case, tell us what we need to know going forward.

 

 

 

Trump Team Better Keep on Eye on Hillary, She is Plotting

Hillary Clinton Says the Women’s Marches Were ‘Awe-Inspiring’

Clinton, 69, who was the first-ever female presidential nominee for a major political party and won the popular vote, tweeted about the peaceful rallies on Saturday, January 21. “Thanks for standing, speaking & marching for our values @womensmarch. Important as ever. I truly believe we’re always Stronger Together,” she wrote to her more than 12 million followers. “Scrolling through images of the #womensmarch is awe-inspiring. Hope it brought joy to others as it did to me.”

Protesters walk during the Women's March on Washington, with the U.S. Capitol in the background, on Jan. 21, 2017.Protesters walk during the Women’s March on Washington, with the U.S. Capitol in the background, on Jan. 21, 2017. Mario Tama/Getty Images

Hillary ClintonVerified account @HillaryClinton 18h18 hours ago 

Scrolling through images of the is awe-inspiring. Hope it brought joy to others as it did to me.

**** Some of her closets political allies also echoed the same sentiments. Read more here.

Related reading: Opposing Trump Admin, When Documents Matter

Hillary Clinton plots her next move

The Democrat has been studying election presentations, including reports on where she underperformed.

Politico: LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — In a series of private meetings and phone calls at their home in Chappaqua, in New York City and in Washington, Bill and Hillary Clinton are slowly starting to puzzle through their political future, according to over a dozen people who have spoken directly with them, and nearly two dozen other Democrats who have been briefed on their thinking.

The recently vanquished candidate has told some associates she’s looking at a spring timeline for mapping out some of her next political steps. Still recovering from her stunning loss, a political return is far from the top of Clinton’s mind, with much of her planning focused around the kinds of projects she wants to take on outside the partisan arena, like writing or pushing specific policy initiatives.

Just as the Democratic Party feels its way through a landscape without either Clinton looming over its future for the first time in nearly a quarter century, Clinton herself is working through the uncertainty surrounding how to best return to the fold.

There have been no conversations about starting her own political group but Clinton has spoken with leaders of emerging Democratic-leaning organizations about their work, and has discussed possible opportunities to work with Organizing For Action, former President Barack Obama’s initiative. Among the potential political priorities she has mentioned to associates are building pipelines for young party leaders to rise and ensuring that a reconstructed Democratic National Committee functions as an effective hub that works seamlessly with other party campaign wings.

The one-time secretary of state has been in contact with a range of ex-aides, studying presentations as she tries to better understand the forces behind her shocking November defeat.

Included among those presentations has been a series of reports pulled together by her former campaign manager Robby Mook and members of his team, who have updated her not just on data and polling errors, but also on results among segments of the electorate where she underperformed, according to Democrats familiar with the project.

“She understands that a forensic exam of the campaign is necessary, not only for her, but for the party and other electeds, and for the investors in the campaign,” said a close Hillary Clinton friend in Washington who, like several others, declined to speak on the record because their conversations with one or both Clintons were private. “People want to know that their investment was treated with respect, but that their mistakes wouldn’t be repeated.”

For his part, Bill Clinton has spent considerable time poring over precinct-level results from the 2016 race while meeting with and calling longtime friends to rail against FBI Director James Comey’s late campaign intervention and Russia’s involvement, say a handful of Democrats who have spoken with him.

“Many Democratic politicians have been personally influenced or share direct ties to President Clinton, Secretary Clinton, or both. That history goes back decades,” said Mack McLarty, Bill Clinton’s first White House chief of staff and a lifelong friend, predicting their eventual return to the scene. “And, despite the grave disappointment, resilience is in the Clintons’ DNA. So, while I certainly don’t expect to see them trying to assert their authority, I think there will be natural and welcome opportunities for them to engage.”

Wary of the complex political moment as Donald Trump assumes the presidency and supporters of Bernie Sanders assert themselves more forcefully within the Democratic Party, however, the Clintons have been letting the political discussions come to them, rarely bringing it up unprompted in their conversations, and for the moment focusing more on other projects.

Bill Clinton, for example, has dived back into his work with the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton — spotted recently resuming her social life on Broadway and at trendy dinners in New York and Washington — is considering doing some writing.

For weeks leading up to Trump’s swearing in, the constant refrain among friends and former aides who are struggling with the question of their next political step has been, “Let’s get through the inauguration first.” The Clintons have been careful not to step into the party-shaping territory now occupied by Obama as the most recent Democratic president. And that posture is unlikely to change until at least late February, as the couple studiously stays away from a race for the DNC chairmanship that is widely seen as a Clinton-Sanders proxy fight.

Still, party leaders and friends alike expect them to jump back into the political fundraising and campaigning circuit in some form by the 2018 midterms — and perhaps in time for 2017’s two gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia. A number of Hillary Clinton’s most prominent 2016 supporters are likely to need the help soon, including Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine and Orlando attorney John Morgan — both likely gubernatorial candidates in 2018 — as well as Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, and New Jersey governor hopeful Phil Murphy.

“I would be surprised [to see Bill Clinton step away from politics] only because he has so many friends who are still involved, who he’s worked with for so many years,” said Skip Rutherford, the dean of the University of Arkansas’ Clinton School of Public Service and the founding president of the Clinton Foundation. “Many of the people who are involved in the political world got their starts in the Clinton world, so there’s a whole base of people who are connected to both Clintons.”

“If someone they knew was running for the Senate or the Statehouse or City Hall, it would be out of character for them not to be supportive,” added McLarty.

But before that lies a set of more immediate concerns that includes determining the fate of Hillary Clinton’s campaign email list and figuring out which new Democratic efforts — if any — to support.

“On a personal level, I lost a race in 2014 and it was on a much, much smaller scale than what she lost. But I know there’s a time of healing that has to happen. So on a personal level I know she just needs to get away for a while,” said former Democratic Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor.

There’s no obvious model for the pair to follow in the months and years ahead: Bill Clinton has been uniquely involved in electoral politics in his post-presidency, and recent losing nominees have either returned to their Senate day jobs — like John Kerry and John McCain — or continued to flirt with another presidential run — like Mitt Romney.

But neither Clinton is likely to run for office again, never mind the New York City mayoral rumors that Hillary Clinton’s friends routinely laugh off.

“The Democratic Party does need new blood, new faces, and I don’t think Bill or Hillary Clinton would ever want to get back and run for anything — I don’t think a team of mules could drag them to do that,” said Pryor.

Their current political standing within the party is somewhat precarious, defined by a mixture of admiration for the family balanced with frustration, and in some cases, anger. Many supporters of Sanders, for instance, are still licking their wounds from the bruising primary, and have seized the post-election moment to gain power in local Democratic party committees across the country — often by dismissing the more establishment-oriented Clintonian way of doing business.

And some Clinton supporters in the states are irritated by the lack of a formal, public-facing autopsy from her campaign since the absence of even a preliminary acknowledgment of fault has made it harder for the party to raise money on a local level — donors feel burned.

“There’s huge annoyance in the states,” said one swing-state party leader. “People assume they’re done, and they’re more powerful if they take that back seat. [For now] there’s short-term fatigue, but it will settle into respect.”

Clinton allies have been careful not to engage in direct fights with detractors that could turn into referenda on the family’s legacy, but national leaders acknowledge some lingering post-election tension.

“The problem with circular firing squads is everyone gets hit. I don’t think there’s any room in the party right now for a circular firing squad. The party has a long way to go in order to regain its proverbial political footing across the country,” said interim DNC chair Donna Brazile — a Bill Clinton campaign advisor in 1992 and 1996 — adding that Hillary Clinton’s victory over Trump in the popular vote underscores the potential use of promoting her as a surrogate for the next crop of candidates.

Not relying on Clinton, she said, would be “like taking your running back and placing them on the sideline just because you lost the season. As Democrats, we need to keep everyone on the roster — to recruit, raise funds, and more — even if they are no longer part of the starting lineup.”

The ongoing competition to lead the DNC makes the situation all the more delicate as the couple monitors the situation from New York: the candidates for chair rarely mention either Clinton, sensing a level of impatience with them among voting members of the committee and elected officials who want to see a younger generation of Democrats take power.

“New ideas and new approaches and new direction, that’s really needed right now,” said Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, a prominent Clinton supporter during the campaign who challenged Nancy Pelosi’s House leadership position after the election. Ryan said the Clintons would remain useful to the party moving forward, but “it’s just the natural cycle of political parties, and I think Republicans have done a better job than we have in trying to engage young voices to get into the mix.”

For the moment, the Clintons’ closest political allies are counseling a “wait-and-see” approach when it comes to the nature of their public-facing role. Well acquainted with fluctuating public perceptions after three decades of sine curve-style approval ratings, they are watching Trump’s numbers closely, aware that their own popularity could rebound — especially when the Trump administration runs up against popular pieces of Bill Clinton’s White House and Hillary Clinton’s State Department legacies.

Whatever role they choose, however, their shadow will continue to loom over the party’s infrastructure. A number of the major left-leaning organizations that are relaunching in opposition to Trump are run by operatives who are closely associated with the Clintons, including the Priorities USA super PAC run by Guy Cecil, the Center for American Progress under Neera Tanden, and the network of liberal groups steered by David Brock.

Outside Washington, meanwhile, Democrats are considering ways Clinton could emerge as a prominent potential ally for local-level officials. For example, a major problem faced by Democratic state parties in red states is the reluctance of national party leaders to travel and help them raise money, due to those state’s lack of relevance in national races. But such a fundraising role would be natural for Clinton, said multiple Democrats who are piecing together the party’s map ahead.

“They believe in the party and they want to leave this party in a better position than where they found it, and I think [they and the Obamas] have an obligation to the party, because the party has given them so much,” said South Carolina Chairman Jaime Harrison, a candidate to lead the national committee. “If I’m DNC chair, that’s one of the first calls I’m going to make, to ask them to play that ambassador role.”

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, who was considered for Clinton’s running-mate position last summer, said Hillary Clinton — like her husband — will have much to offer as a party elder, a sentiment repeated by up-and-coming liberals and veteran moderates alike. “Thirty-four states have both their House and Senate in Republican hands, so there’s a larger discussion [to be had]. It involves not just policy, but it involves funding, and she’s going to be a respected voice who’s been in just about every situation imaginable.”

So while the Clintons’ short-term priorities remain apolitical, their allies and the people surrounding them are skeptical that can last too long.

Predicted former Pennsylvania governor and DNC chair Ed Rendell, a longtime family friend: “I’m certain Trump will screw up enough that by the fall of ’18, Hillary’s numbers will be way up again.”

Additional Details: Hillary Emails, V. FBI, V State and Sidney

New Clinton email files detail FBI-State tussle over Benghazi message

Politico: Newly-released records about the Hillary Clinton email investigation shed new light on an early dispute between the FBI and the State Department over the classification of an email discussing the aftermath of the 2012 Benghazi attacks.

The 299 pages of internal FBI records, apparently released over the weekend on the FBI’s Freedom of Information Act page, describe the bureau’s reaction to State’s protest of an FBI decision to classify a November 2012 State email discussing arrests in the Benghazi attacks.

The email was the first from Clinton’s private account and server to be publicly identified as “SECRET,” fueling arguments that Clinton and State had been careless in handling sensitive information.

Notations applied to the message when it was reviewed in 2015 show it was classified because of the potential impact on U.S. relations overseas. However, the newly-disclosed FBI communications messages show one official there argued that the message should actually be classified based on its potential to disclose intelligence “sources and methods”—a designation that could have raised red flags with the press and on Capitol Hill.

“The redaction lists ‘interference with foreign relations as the rationale.’ The crux of States [sic] argument is they know better what will impact foreign relations and there is no longer a government in place” in Libya, the unidentified FBI official wrote to Michelle Jupina, the FBI Assistant Director for Records Management. “The more appropriate rationale is sources and methods. While the email does not name the particular official, this might be deduced and, given the threat of violence in the region, any surmise could be fatal for whoever cooperated with us. State will say no one will know if it is redacted, but that is not how classification works.”

The message shows Deputy Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy intervened with the FBI to dispute the classification at least three times: in a May 14, 2015, call to International Operations Division chief Brian McCauley, at an in-person meeting at the State Department five days later and in a phone conversation with the head of FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, Michael Steinbach.

The unnamed FBI author of the message to Jupina said Kennedy summoned various officials to State to discuss the review of 55,000 of Clinton emails requested under FOIA. At that meeting, Kennedy asked the FBI representative and a Justice Department FOIA official to “stay behind to discuss the FBI determination” on classification in the first batch of Clinton emails, the FBI email says.

An email from Steinbach said he turned down Kennedy’s request that the information be withheld solely under a FOIA provision for protection of law enforcement sources, rather than by classifying it.

“I explained to Mr. Kennedy that to only exempt for (b)(7)(D) was not appropriate as the information in the two portions in question was classified at the Secret/NOFORN level,” Steinbach wrote.

Even after that decision, the FBI got another high-level contact on the issue from State that same day, with Secretary of State John Kerry’s chief of staff Jon Finer calling Jim Rybicki, then-deputy chief of staff to FBI Director James Comey.

“Finer…stated that he was not attempting to change [Steinbach’s] classification decision, and said that he just wanted to make sure that FBI leadership was aware of the decision and the procedural process and media attention it would likely trigger,” Rybicki wrote in an email to several colleagues. “I relayed back to the State Department that leadership is aware of the review process and decision.”

Rybicki said Finer asked if the FBI could classify the information rather than State doing so at FBI’s request. When the email was released, State officials said they were withholding it at FBI’s request.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Monday that the new records demonstrate the department’s longstanding contention that it did not feel the specific document needed to be upgraded and that there were discussions among agencies about the issue.

“Classification is an art, not a science, and individuals with classification authority sometimes have different views. We have an obligation to ensure determinations as they relate to classification are made appropriately,” Kirby said in a statement.

He added, “With respect to Mr. Finer, the material recently released by the FBI makes clear that he did not contact them to change the classification of the email. On the contrary, this was routine contact to ensure appropriate leadership in both agencies were prepared to respond to questions. As is well known and was discussed publicly at the time, the State Department did upgrade the document at the request of the FBI when we released it back in May 2015.”

Some indications of the FBI-State dispute appeared in records released in October, leading then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to argue on the campaign trail that Kennedy had proposed a trade-off where State would increase FBI staffing levels overseas if State withdrew its claim that the Benghazi-related email was classified.

The notion of such a quid pro quo apparently originated with a records official at the FBI, but Kennedy flatly denied it. In addition, McCauley said he did not believe Kennedy was proposing such a trade-off, although the pair did discuss both issues in a single phone call.

While the classification dispute over the Benghazi-related message appears to have been heavily litigated, it would wind up being just the tip of the iceberg. In a statement in July, Comey said 110 emails in Clinton’s account were classified at the time they were sent, with eight email chains considered “Top Secret” at the time they were sent and 36 chains containing “Secret”-level information. None of those messages was properly marked as classified, he said.

The newly-released FBI emails and memos also contain some other details about the Clinton email probe that have not been previously reported or received little notice:

–The Secret Service rebuffed the FBI’s initial request for assistance in the investigation, according to a memo which suggests some tensions between the two law enforcement agencies.

At a July 28, 2015, meeting, a Secret Service official “advised that his management told him that any FBI request for information or assistance related to this matter would need to come via written request from the Department of Justice to the Department of Homeland Security, which would then forward the request to the USSS,” an FBI memo said. After consulting with Secret Service managers about the requested assistance, the official “refused to identify [to the FBI] the specific USSS manager(s) to whom he spoke.”

The FBI eventually obtained information on the Secret Service’s assistance to former President Bill Clinton with security issues related to his computer server, which eventually became the one hosting Hillary Clinton’s much-discussed private account.

–The FBI apparently took a week to notify the Justice Department after receiving a formal referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General about the Clinton email matter in July 2015. A memo from Deputy FBI Director Mark Giuliano says the FBI got the referral on July 6, formally opened its full investigation on July 10, and first advised Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates on July 13.

–The investigation itself was treated as classified at its outset, but was declassified in August 2015. Internal FBI memos say it was determined that an initial batch of emails from Clinton’s account released by State under FOIA contained “Top Secret” information. The memo declassifying the investigation says that information was deemed not to be so sensitive that it could not be discussed more widely. “No previously unknown sources or informants were revealed in the identified material…. No sensitive sources or methods were disclosed.”

–The email investigation was also designated as “sensitive” and its records were closely-held at the FBI because of Clinton’s status as a political candidate.

–The FBI obtained a special “one-time” approval to show Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal a copy of one of his own emails to Clinton about the political situation in Kyrgyzstan. A January 5, 2016, FBI memo says the email has “since been deemed to contain classified FBI information.” The “SECRET” portion of the April 2010 message relates to what Blumenthal called an “ongoing criminal investigation.”

–An internal FBI profile of longtime Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper derived information from a publication of the conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch. The group had tracked Cooper’s links to Teneo Holdings, a consulting firm founded by individuals with close ties to the Clintons.

FBI Released New Unseen Hillary Emails

FBI Quietly Releases 300 Pages Of Hillary Clinton Investigation Records

DailyCaller: The FBI quietly released nearly 300 pages of records from its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server on Sunday night.

This is the fifth release of Clinton investigation records from the FBI. The documents deal with the handling of computer hardware collected from Clinton’s lawyers for the investigation and also contain emails from FBI officials discussing the classification of Clinton’s emails.

The FBI has previously released notes from interviews it conducted during its investigation of Clinton’s handling of classified information. FBI director James Comey declined to recommend that Clinton be charged in the case, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch accepted that advice.

The emails included in the documents are from the months prior to the formal opening of the Clinton email probe, which occurred on July 10, 2015. The exchanges show disagreements between the FBI and State Department over whether some of Clinton’s personal emails should be classified.

In one April 27, 2015 email, an FBI official wrote to other officials that they were “about to get drug into an issue on classification” of Clinton’s emails. The official, whose name is redacted, said that the State Department was “forum shopping,” or seeking a favorable opinion on the classification issue by asking different officials to rate emails as unclassified.

screen-shot-2017-01-08-at-6-52-31-pm

From FBI document release

Other email traffic sheds light on a controversy involving State Department under secretary for management Patrick Kennedy and a request he made in 2015 that the FBI reduce its classification of a Clinton email related to the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi.

Clinton investigation notes released by the FBI in October showed that an FBI official said during an interview as part of the email probe that Kennedy asked him and others at the FBI to relax classifications on some emails.

The new FBI release contains a May 21, 2015 email in which Michael Steinbach, the FBI’s assistant director of the counterterrorism division, detailed a conversation he had with Kennedy about the classification issue.

Steinbach said that the FBI had determined that one of Clinton’s emails should be classified using b(1) and b(7) redactions, used to protect information in the interest of national defense and to prevent the disclosure of a confidential source, respectively. Kennedy asked Steinbach to classify the email using only the b(1) category.

An email sent two days earlier from a separate FBI official provided more information about the dispute.

The official, whose name is redacted, wrote that the Clinton email was redacted and classified on the rationale that it contained information that would cause “interference with foreign relations.”

The FBI official wrote that the email could disclose sources and investigative methods used by the bureau.

“While the email does not name the particular official, this might be deduced and, given the threat of violence in the region, any surmise could be fatal for whoever cooperated with us,” the official wrote.

“State will say no one will know if it is redacted, but that is not how classification works,” they added.

The official wrote that he informed Kennedy of that rationale and that Kennedy said he would be in contact with Steinbach.

The FBI release also includes an email from the attorney of Bryan Pagliano, the Hillary Clinton State Department aide who set up and managed her secret email server. In the email, Mark MacDougall, Pagliano’s lawyer, informed the FBI that Pagliano would decline the bureau’s request for an investigation. Pagliano would eventually meet with the FBI in December, but only after receiving limited immunity from the Department of Justice.

screen-shot-2017-01-08-at-7-23-07-pm
****

In part from AJC:

The documents released included a series of letters from the FBI to what seem to be internet service providers and/or major telecommunications companies, asking them to preserve any documents related to this investigation.

Even more interesting about those letters, was the specific request to keep this query secret, and not reveal it to the subjects being investigated, “as the FBI’s investigation may be jeopardized by this type of disclosure.”

The letters were all signed by Charles Kable, the Section Chief of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division.

Also included, FBI communications with the State Department, asking that agency to preserve emails that were sent to clintonemail.com.

The names of 19 individuals were listed in the FBI letter to the State Department Inspector General – all those names were redacted in this FBI release.

The same letter was also sent by the FBI to Secretary of State John Kerry.

The newly released records indicate the FBI went so far as to serve the letter addressed to the State Department Inspector General and the Secretary of State, though it seemed more of a formality for Kerry.

“The preservation letter was served at U.S. Department of State’s Visitor Center,” read one of the released FBI documents.

Also included in the documents are email exchanges between the FBI and State Department over how to treat some of Clinton’s emails that were being released before the election.

“Attached is an email forwarded to us by State Dept. for coordination,” reads one email that had the subject line of “State Department Emails – FOIA Coordination.”

“The email concerns Benghazi. It is from former Sec. Clinton’s emails,” the note adds. The name of the sender and the recipient of that email were redacted.

That was part of a series of email exchanges between the FBI and State Department on how to deal with the release of certain Clinton emails under the Freedom of Information Act.

“I’ve called the State’s Legal Advisor’s Office a number of times and haven’t connected,” read one of the many emails released.

“Just received a call from State,” read another. “They want to argue about the b1 portion,” referring to one of the classifications.

The emails discussing what to do about Clinton’s own emails were also subject to similar classification issues, as those notices dot the margins of the FBI’s release.

The FBI release also includes an email from the lawyer for Brian Pagliano, the former aide who helped Hillary Clinton set up and maintain her private email server – it notified officials in August of 2015 that he would not be cooperating with the investigation.

The FBI documents also detail the search for information from Platte River Networks, the high tech company that dealt with the Clinton server.

On August 12, 2015, the FBI took possession of a Dell Poweredge Server from that company – the box “Collected/Seized” was checked.

The FBI documents show the breadth of the investigation into the Clinton email matter growing dramatically – whereas the FBI at first was asking for email records from 19 different names, by August 18, 2015, that had grown to 422 in a “Request for Preservation of Records.”

The recipient of that letter was unclear; the address and name was redacted by the FBI.

Another letter from August 18, 2015 asked for records to be preserved for over 900 people – again, the recipient of that letter is unknown, redacted by the FBI.

As with other requests, the FBI asks that the recipient not reveal the FBI investigation.

There are also other intriguing documents, like this one – which hint at some kind of tip related to the Clinton investigation.

In this release, which was made on Sunday night without any publicity, the FBI did not release any emails to or from Hillary Clinton.

 

 

 

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/08/fbi-quietly-releases-300-pages-of-hillary-clinton-investigation-records/#ixzz4VHPSd0Uo