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

Posted on June 10, 2016June 10, 2016 by Denise Simon

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

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

Shame on Google….but here goes:

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

Tech giant accused of whitewashing autocomplete results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. “Hillary Clinton anti…”

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

Google gets you “anti obama ad.”

2. “Hillary Clinton vin…”

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

Google recommends a search for a compilation of Vines.

3. “Hillary Clinton ga…”

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

Google thinks the user is researching her Gameboy?

4. “Hillary Clinton hum…”

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

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

5. “Hillary Clinton cro…”

Bing sends you over to crook or crooked.

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

6. “Hillary Clinton un…”

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

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

7. “Hillary Clinton aff…”

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

That suggestion is absent from Google.

8. “Hillary Clinton whi…”

Top result on Bing is the Whitewater scandal.

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

9. “Hillary Clinton mon…”

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

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

10. “Hillary Clinton li…”

Bing goes for lies, Libya, and liar.

Google goes for LinkedIn and lipstick.

Defense Dept Refused Cooperation on Benghazi Witness?

Posted on June 10, 2016June 10, 2016 by Denise Simon

Related reading: The witness was located and interviewed

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

June 10, 2016

Press Release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Select Committee Subpoenas Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Hedger

June 10, 2016

Press Release

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

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

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

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

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

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

CIA Personnel may have been Compromised Due to Hillary Emails

Posted on June 9, 2016June 9, 2016 by Denise Simon

Anyone remember the Valerie Plame affair, the outing of her position at the CIA?

The names of some CIA personnel could have been compromised in release of Clinton emails

WASHINGTON (AP) – The names of CIA personnel could have been compromised not only by hackers who may have penetrated Hillary Clinton’s private computer server or the State Department system, but also by the release itself of tens of thousands of her emails, security experts say.

Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, turned over to the State Department 55,000 emails from her private server that were sent or received when she was secretary of state.

Some contained information that has since been deemed classified, and those were redacted for public release with notations for the reason of the censorship.

At least 47 of the emails contain the notation “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” which indicates the material referred to CIA personnel or matters related to the agency. And because both Clinton’s server and the State Department systems were vulnerable to hacking, the perpetrators could have those original emails, and now the publicly released, redacted versions showing exactly which sections refer to CIA personnel.

“Start with the entirely plausible view that foreign intelligence services discovered and rifled Hillary Clinton’s server,” said Stewart Baker, a Washington lawyer who spent more than three years as an assistant secretary of the Homeland Security Department and is former legal counsel for the National Security Agency.

If so, those infiltrators would have copies of all her emails with the names not flagged as being linked to the agency.

In the process of publicly releasing the emails, however, classification experts seem to have inadvertently provided a key to anyone who has the originals. By redacting names associated with the CIA and using the “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” exemption as the reason, “Presto – the CIA names just fall off the page,” Baker said.

The CIA declined to comment.

A U.S. official said the risk of the names of CIA personnel being revealed in this way is “theoretical and probably remains so at this time.” The official, who did not have the authority to publicly address the matter, spoke on condition of anonymity and would not elaborate.

Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, said even if any identities were revealed, they might be the names of analysts or midlevel administrators, not undercover operatives.

“I don’t think there’s any particular vulnerability here,” Aftergood said.

Clinton has acknowledged that the email server, set up in the basement of her New York home, was a mistake. But she says she never sent or received anything that was marked classified at the time of transmission. Clinton, who was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, insists the personal server she used was never actually breached.

The AP discovered last year that Clinton’s private server was directly connected to the internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers. A recent State Department inspector general’s report indicated the server was temporarily unplugged by a Clinton aide at one point during attacks by hackers, but her campaign has said there’s no evidence the server was hacked.

In each year from 2011 to 2014, the State Department’s poor cybersecurity was identified by its inspector general as a “significant deficiency” that put the department’s information at risk. Another State Department inspector general report revealed that hacking attempts forced Clinton off her private email at one point in 2011.

Then in 2014, the State Department’s unclassified email system was breached by hackers with links to Russia. They stole an unspecified number of emails. The hack was so deep that State’s email system had to be cut off from the internet while experts worked to eliminate the infestation.

Baker points out another instance where Clinton’s server might have been hacked.

A March 2, 2009, email warned against State Department officials using Blackberries. Eric Boswell, assistant secretary of state, says the “vulnerabilities and risks associated with the use of Blackberries … considerably outweigh their convenience.”

Nine days later, another email states that Clinton approached Boswell and says she “gets” the risk. The email also said: “Her attention was drawn to the sentence that indicates we (the diplomatic security office officials) have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.”

Clinton traveled to China, Indonesia, Japan and South Korea in February 2009.

Migrants linked to 69,000 would-be or actual crimes in Germany

Posted on June 8, 2016June 8, 2016 by Denise Simon

Inviting in people of unknown backgrounds under the banner of humanitarian objectives is a dangerous policy, when innocent citizens are victims. This is occurring in the United States with wild abandon, yet apathy reigns and there are no real grass-roots efforts to demand and restore order or security.

Even if cases go to court, the judicial systems in Europe and in the United States render feeble sentences which is worse and almost no one is deported. Discretionary application of the law for the sake of an alleged culture, humanity and for refugee/asylum conditions with grow instability, clog and corrupt processes and cause illness or death.

Below, in the case of Germany the publication of this condition translate to a situation that is likely worse than actually being reported especially when Merkel had control over a media blackout.

Migrants linked to 69,000 would-be or actual crimes in Germany in first three months of 2016: police

Reuters: Migrants in Germany committed or tried to commit some 69,000 crimes in the first quarter of 2016, according to a police report that could raise unease, especially among anti-immigrant groups, about Chancellor Angela Merkel’s liberal migrant policy.

Immigrants are escorted by German police to a registration centre, after crossing the Austrian-German border in Wegscheid near Passau, Germany, October 20, 2015.

There was a record influx of more than a million migrants into Germany last year and concerns are now widespread about how Europe’s largest economy will manage to integrate them and ensure security.

The report from the BKA federal police showed that migrants from northern Africa, Georgia and Serbia were disproportionately represented among the suspects.

Absolute numbers of crimes committed by Syrians, Afghans and Iraqis – the three biggest groups of asylum seekers in Germany – were high but given the proportion of migrants that they account for, their involvement in crimes was “clearly disproportionately low”, the report said.

It gave no breakdown of the number of actual crimes and of would-be crimes, nor did it state what percentage the 69,000 figure represented with respect to the total number of crimes and would-be crimes committed in the first three months of 2016.

The report stated that the vast majority of migrants did not commit any crimes.

It is the first time the BKA has published a report on crimes committed by migrants containing data from all of Germany’s 16 states, so there is no comparable data.

The report showed that 29.2 percent of the crimes migrants committed or tried to commit in the first quarter were thefts, 28.3 percent were property or forgery offences and 23 percent offences such as bodily harm, robbery and unlawful detention.

Drug-related offences accounted for 6.6 percent and sex crimes accounted for 1.1 percent.

In Cologne at New Year, hundreds of women said they were groped, assaulted and robbed, with police saying the suspects were mainly of North African and Arab appearance. Prosecutors said last week three Pakistani men seeking asylum in Germany were under investigation after dozens of women said they were sexually harassed at a music festival.

The number of crimes committed by migrants declined by more than 18 percent between January and March, however, according to the report.

Suddenly Rep. Cummings wants to Participate in Benghazi Cmte

Posted on June 7, 2016June 7, 2016 by Denise Simon

June 6, 2016

Press Release

Washington, D.C. — Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (SC-04) sent the following letter to Ranking Minority Member Elijah Cummings and the other Committee Democrats in response to their letter regarding the committee’s final report.

Gowdy reminds the Minority of just how unhelpful they have been during the investigation, and points out that if their previous statements about the committee finding “nothing new” and gaining “no additional insight” are true, “it makes little sense for the Minority to suddenly be interested in the committee’s report.”

He further outlines how Republicans have gone out of their way to include the Minority in the investigation in the past, only to have Democrats use it against the committee. “[Y]ou have spent far more time writing letters, selectively leaking material, and spreading mischaracterizations than you have actually participating in this investigation,” Gowdy writes.

Gowdy also highlights Rep. Cummings’ widely-reported focus on the former Secretary of State – he has been described as her “defense attorney,” “chief defender,” “top supporter,” “staunch defender,” and “biggest defender” – in contrast to Committee Republicans’ commitment to conducting a serious, fair investigation focused on the facts.

“Despite your efforts to undermine and obstruct our fact-centered work, rest assured all members of the Committee will have the opportunity to review the report and offer changes in a manner consistent with the rules of the House,” Gowdy closes.

Gowdy Is ‘Amused’ Benghazi Committee Dems Think They’re Getting a Say in Final Report

TownHall: House Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) just about laughed out loud when he read that the committee’s Democrats wanted to have a say in the panel’s final report on their 2-year investigation. This, after representatives like Elijah Cummings (D-MD) have criticized the committee for months as a political scam intended to jeopardize former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s White House chances. Now he suddenly wants to contribute to their last efforts?

With this context, Gowdy responded with a letter of his own.

“Your May 31^st letter was mildly amusing but not altogether surprising,” Gowdy starts.

“It is mildly amusing that after two years of abject obstruction, after two years of not lifting a finger to assist the Majority with the investigation, after two years of doing everything in your power to prevent a report from being written, you now want to participate in the drafting of the report.”

The 7 page letter is here.

The chairman’s letter takes an even more sarcastic turn when he starts to “refresh” the Democrats on how “helpful” they’ve been throughout the investigation.

“[Y]ou have spent far more time writing letters, selectively leaking material, and spreading mischaracterizations than you have actually participating in this investigation,” he writes.

If Cummings and his fellow liberal lawmakers were so critical of their own committee, why would they expect any kind of input in the panel’s final and most important report?

This letter makes it clear that Gowdy regrets having Cummings sit on the Benghazi panel. While the committee does its job and asks witnesses, including Clinton, questions that need to be asked about September 11, 2012, Cummings has done nothing but complain.

Every time the panel holds a hearing, it is evident that Cummings would rather be anywhere else. Now that the committee is coming to a conclusion, he’ll get his wish.