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.
I had the distinct privilege of hosting two friends tonight on my radio show. LTG Thomas McInerney (ret)
and Sheriff Jon Lopey of Siskiyou County, California.
General McInerney explained the threats to America beyond Islamic State to include China’s potential aggressions but he put special emphasis on Putin’s operation to rebuild the old Soviet Union where NATO is operating from a feeble posture.
Sheriff Lopey explain the moral and attitude in law enforcement across the country due mostly in part of the behavior of the Mayor of Baltimore allowing officers to be victims of rocks, bricks and bottles being thrown at them while they were told be practice sensitivity to the rioters. The sheriff also spoke to the rush to judgment by the prosecutor’s office against the 6 officers yet provided high praise for law enforcement in Garland, Texas.
Meanwhile, Director of the FBI today declare that Islamic State has inspired soldiers in each U.S. state causing major investigations across the homeland.
WASHINGTON — In a dramatic assessment of the domestic threat posed by the Islamic State, FBI Director James Comey said Thursday there are “hundreds, maybe thousands” of people across the country who are receiving recruitment overtures from the terrorist group or directives to attack the U.S.
Comey said the Islamic State, also known as ISIL, is leveraging social media in unprecedented ways through Twitter and other platforms, directing messages to the smartphones of “disturbed people” who could be pushed to launch assaults on U.S. targets.
“It’s like the devil sitting on their shoulders, saying ‘kill, kill, kill,”’ Comey said in a meeting with reporters.
The FBI director’s comments come in the midst of a federal investigation into a foiled attack in Garland, Texas, involving two ISIL sympathizers, one of whom, Elton Simpson, was long known to federal authorities.
Comey said Thursday that hours before the attempted Garland attack, FBI agents sent a bulletin to local authorities indicating that Simpson may have been interested in traveling there from Phoenix to attend the conference featuring controversial cartoon depictions of the prophet Mohammed. At the time, Comey said, agents did not have specific information that Simpson had targeted the meeting.
The 30-year-old Simpson and associate Nadir Soofi, 34, were fatally shot by a police officer Sunday night after the pair launched a bungled attack on the conference. Read the full article here.
I watched this matter unfold myself on social media, then I worked the connections and tracked their posts carefully. Elton Simpson, born in Illinois was radicalized and was on his way to the jihad battleground until the FBI executed a sting operation a little more than a month ago. Elton got scared and concocted the Garland operation which too, the FBI knew about and broadcasted an alert.
The FBI had a rock solid case in 2006 against Simpson, but a liberal judge did not believe their case or investigation. The FBI continues to investigate at jihadis in all 50 states as noted by the director James Comey.
The information about Elton Simpson of Phoenix surfaced hours before the contest in Garland, Texas, which the FBI had already identified as a potential target for violence, Comey said.
The director said the agency then sent an intelligence bulletin to the Garland Police Department, including a picture and other information about Simpson, “even though we didn’t have reason to believe that he was going to attack the event. In fact, we didn’t have reason to believe that he had left Phoenix,” Comey said.
Other parts of the FBI uncovered the following leading up to the Garland attack.
One of the two gunmen involved in the Garland, Texas shooting on May 3, 2015, targeting the “Draw Muhammad” event, telegraphed his intentions on Twitter. In the last message that one of the alleged gunmen posted to his account, he suggests that he was operating in the name of the Islamic State (ISIS). Other Twitter messages posted by known Islamic State members indicate that he was in contact with ISIS operatives. While the ISIS link remains uncertain at this moment, ISIS supporters were quick to praise the attack and honor the perpetrators as martyrs for the cause of jihad.
This screenshot shows the Twitter profile of one of the alleged perpetrators, with the social media handle of “Mutawakil” (“one who places his faith in Allah”). In his last tweet, he claims that both attackers had pledged allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and uses the hashtag #texasattack just hours prior to the event itself. His Twitter account shows him to be an online supporter of ISIS whose account had been frequently shut down for spreading jihadi content. He was followed by over 1,000 accounts, and tweeted regularly. He uses a picture of the late Yemeni-American preacher and Al-Qaeda operative Anwar Al-Awlaki, killed in an American drone strike, as his profile.
His social media contacts include several known ISIS operatives. One possible direct contact, the Minnesotan Somali-American Mohamed Abdullahi Hussein, known as Mujahid Miski,[1] who is currently fighting with the Al-Qaeda affiliate Al-Shabab Al-Mujahideen in Somalia, tweeted immediately following the attack: “I’m gonna miss Mutawakil, he was truly a man of wisdom. I’m gonna miss his greeting every morning on Twitter.” Miski added “I’m gonna miss how he always used to talk speak of the Hoor Al Ayn [virgin of paradise promised to martyrs]. How he always said he wanted to meet her.” In a May 4 tweet, Miski wrote: “Our brother Mutawakil in 2008 wanted to Make #Hijrah to Somalia but a Murtad spied on him. Allah swt was preparing him for something better.”[2]
Mujahid Miski also claimed awareness of what the perpetrator had dreamed about prior to the attack. “Mutawakil saw himself in a dream walking in a road and a woman looking from the sky with a niqab. He was frightened the interpretation of his dream was that the #hoor Al-Ayn [virgins in paradise] were waiting for him eagerly and that he should hasten to meeting them too.” Such dreams are commonly told by jihadi fighters, and are often used to reinforce the operatives’ morale and resolve before they embark on suicide missions.
Also tweeting about Mutawakil and #hoor_al_ayn were Irish ISIS supporter “Abu Khalid” and another Western supporter, “Ibn Rushd AlLubnani.” Abu Khalid wrote: “brother @atawaakul was talking about #hoor_al_ayn for several days, he surely was planning for this. he was a revert [i.e. convert to Islam] (so far as I know).” Ibn Rushd AlLubnani wrote: “Just a few days ago @atawaakul was talking about Hoor al ayn on twitter and the sisters were getting upset with him. Little did they know…”
British ISIS fighter Junaid Hussain, who is known as Abu Hussain Al Britani, tweeted ominously hours before the attack and praised the two perpetrators after it occurred: “The knives have been sharpened; soon we will come to your streets with death and slaughter! #QaribanQariba [soon, soon] … Allahu Akbar! Two of our brothers just opened fire at the Prophet Muhammad art exhibition in Texas! #TexasAttack” He also advocated and threatened further attacks: “Kill Those That Insult The Prophet – #GarlandShooting … They Thought They Was Safe In Texas From The Soldiers of The Islamic State – #garlandshooting #TexasAttack … If there is no check on the freedom of your speech, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions #GarlandShooting #TexasAttack.”
Another American ISIS operative with the alias Abu Khalid Al-Amriki upon learning of the attack on Twitter, praised the attempt and threatened more to come. He tweeted: “This one should hit the front page! Dawlah [ISIS] is in America! Allahu akbar … How much do you love the Prophet? I’m sure the brothers earned their spot next to the messenger of Allah … The drawn Sword on the one that Insults the messenger of Allah. Let this be a wakeup call for all cartoonists. We are coming for you.” On March 29, Abu Khalid had claimed on Twitter that he was in contact with ISIS supporters in the USA and that one of them was prepared to carry out an operation.[3]
ISIS operative Abu Hamza Al-habashi tweeted after the attack: “Allahu Akbar The two Brothers attained shadah[martyrdom] in texas! The disbelievers will never understand our love for death. May Allah accept them.”
Online ISIS supporters immediately reacted to the Texas attack by praising the perpetrators and elevating them to the rank of martyrs in the cause of jihad. For example, ISIS supporter “Australi Witness,” who recently called for targeting Australian cartoonists,[4] tweeted: “May Allah reward the Garland mujahideen with a seat right next to the Prophet in Jannah [heaven].”
The pro-ISIS London-based sheikh Anjem Choudary also reacted to the event on Twitter, by justifying the attack as retribution for the insult to the prophet Muhammad: “Once again we see that people refuse to learn the lesson that insulting the Prophet Muhammad is a deadly pursuit … #garlandshooting the world should know that, for Muslims, the honor of the Messenger Muhammad is dearer to them than their own lives! … #garlandshooting we must learn the lessons from Rushdie, Hirsi Ali, Theo Van Gogh & Chalie Hebdo not to insult the Messenger Muhammad! … #garlandshooting Freedom of speech does not extend to insulting the Messenger Muhammad (saw) & hence provoking the anger of 1/4 of the world.”
“Muslimah 1,” a Dutch ISIS supporter, tweeted a photo of Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who was keynote speaker at the Garland, Texas event, to “Al Ghareeb,” an American ISIS supporter, with the comment “Does Geert Wilders look like he is feeling ‘safe’ at the event??” Al Ghareeb had written: “They spend 10000 on security for this blasphemous event but then say they will not be scared. Lol. Your scared, the brothers made a point.”
Bashir al Assad of Syria was labeled a reformer by the Obama administration. Syria is the favorite battleground of militant terror operations for countless organizations. Assad has been propped up by Russia and Iran for years while the United States was forced to posture itself siding with Assad against al Nusra and Islamic State.
The United States has sided with Iran in Iraq, has sided against Iran in Yemen and has sided with Iran in Syria. Quietly, the United States has also launched a military mission to create safe zones in Syria that includes ordnance and counter-measures against regime aircraft, stinger missiles, manpads and ground operations.
Assad has been losing ground in spite of all the foreign support which makes matters in Syria all the more alarming. The future is difficult to predict, hence a strategy is even more ghastly an objective to draft or adhere to.
Obama announced a red-line threat if Assad was found to be using chemical weapons. They did and continue to do so. The White House turned the solution of chemical weapons over to Russia to cure. The United Nations sent in teams to collect the chemical weapons declared by Assad and removed them. To no avail, chlorine barrel bombs are being used by the regime with wild abandon and without a whimper from the UN or the West. Chlorine is not on any list of forbidden substances so it seems.
There is a multi-track convoluted mess to clean up in Syria, yet how will it play out with the United States, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordan. Lebanon and Russia?
BEIRUT, Lebanon — Eyes watering, struggling to breathe, Abd al-Mouin, 22, dragged his nephews from a house reeking of noxious fumes, then briefly blacked out. Even fresh air, he recalled, was “burning my lungs.”
The chaos unfolded in the Syrian town of Sarmeen one night this spring, as walkie-talkies warned of helicopters flying from a nearby army base, a signal for residents to take cover. Soon, residents said, there were sounds of aircraft, a smell of bleach and gasping victims streaming to a clinic.
Two years after President Bashar al-Assad agreed to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile, there is mounting evidence that his government is flouting international law to drop cheap, jerry-built chlorine bombs on insurgent-held areas. Lately, the pace of the bombardments in contested areas like Idlib Province has picked up, rescue workers say, as government forces have faced new threats from insurgents. Yet, the Assad government has so far evaded more formal scrutiny because of a thicket of political, legal and technical obstacles to assigning blame for the attacks — a situation that feels surreal to many Syrians under the bombs, who say it is patently clear the government drops them. Read more here.
Now the chilling questions must be asked, who is bailing out on Assad’s regime in Syria? What will be the future consequences? Why has the regime begun a tailspin and what will fill that void?
For most of the past two years, it looked like Bashar al-Assad’s campaign to hold on in Syria was working. Syria’s weak, uncoordinated, and increasingly Islamist rebels were being gradually pushed back. And while ISIS had seized vast parts of the country, it and Assad appeared to tolerate one another in a sort of tacit non-aggression pact designed to crush the Syrian rebels. It seemed that Syria, and the world, would be stuck with Assad’s murderous dictatorship for the foreseeable future.
But in the past few weeks, things appear to have changed — potentially dramatically. The rebels have won a string of significant victories in the country’s north. Assad’s troop reserves are wearing thin, and it’s becoming harder for him to replace his losses.
A rebel victory, to be clear, is far from imminent or even likely. At this point, it’s too early to say for sure what this means for the course of the Syrian war. But the rebels have found a new momentum against Assad just as his military strength could be weakening, which could be a significant change in the trajectory of a war that has been ongoing for years.
Assad is losing ground
A rebel fighter in Aleppo. (Ahmed Muhammed Ali/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
Bashar al-Assad’s forces are losing ground against the rebels, for example in northern Idlib province, where two recent rebel victories show how strong the rebels have gotten. First, in late March, Assad’s forces were pushed out of Idlib City, the region’s capital. Second, in late April, rebels took Jisr al-Shughour, a strategically valuable town that lies on the Assad regime’s supply line in the area and near its important coastal holdings.
“Jisr al-Shughour is a good example of how the regime is, indeed, losing ground,” Noah Bonsey, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, told me. “Most observers were surprised at how quickly it fell, given that it is a town of some strategic importance.”
While rebels’ most dramatic victories are in Idlib, they’re advancing elsewhere as well. They’ve seized towns in the south and have repelled Assad offensives around the country.
“Losses in Idlib and the southern governorate of Deraa have placed great pressure on Assad,” Charles Lister, a fellow at the Brookings Doha Center, writes. “Frustration, disaffection and even incidences of protest are rising across Assad’s most ardent areas of support on Syria’s coast — some of which are now under direct attack.”
Bonsey concurs. “Rebels have seized momentum in recent weeks and months,” he says. “The regime is clearly weakening to an extent that was not widely reflected in the English-language narrative surrounding the conflict.”
Rebels are more united as Assad troop losses mount
Free Syrian Army rebels train. (Baraa al-Halabi/AFP/Getty Images)
Recent regime defeats reflect growing unity among the rebels as well as fundamental weaknesses on the regime’s side.
The Idlib advance, in particular, was led by Jaish al-Fatah, a new rebel coalition led by several different Islamist groups. While the coalition includes Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, the jihadis don’t appear to dominate the group.
“The operations also displayed a far improved level of coordination between rival factions,” Lister writes, “spanning from U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) brigades, to moderate and conservative Syrian Islamists, to al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and several independent jihadist factions.”
Rebel coordination is nothing new in Syria. But this coalition stands out for its size and breadth.
“The number of fighters mobilized for the initial Idlib city campaign has been significant, and that’s been just as true in subsequent operations in the north,” Bonsey says. “The level of coordination we’ve seen over several weeks, on multiple fronts, is something that we have rarely, if ever, seen from rebels in the north.”
And as the rebels have gotten more united, the regime has gotten weaker. The basic problem is attrition: Assad is losing a lot of soldiers in this war, and his regime — a sectarian Shia government in an overwhelmingly Sunni country — can’t train replacements quickly enough.
Bonsey calls this an “unsolvable manpower problem.” As a result, he says, Assad is becoming increasingly dependent on his foreign allies — Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah specifically — to lead the ground campaign.
But Iran has shown limited willingness to commit heavily to areas like Idlib, and rather is concentrating principally on defending the regime’s core holdings around Damascus and the coast. According to Bonsey, “it’s a matter of priorities,” which is to say that their resources aren’t unlimited, and they’ve (so far) preferred to concentrate them in the most critical areas.
Iran’s involvement in conflicts in Iraq and Yemen on top of Syria has left it “really overstretched,” according to Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. The cumulative resource investment has “certainly had an impact on Assad losing territory in Syria,” he concludes.
“For the regime, the status quo militarily is not sustainable,” Bonsey says, and “Iran’s strategy in Syria does not appear sustainable. The costs to Iran of propping up Assad’s rule in Syria are only going to rise with time, substantially. And what’s happened with Idlib in recent weeks is only the latest indication of that.”
Bonsey, like most Syria experts, does not believe Assad is on the road to inevitable defeat.
“While much of the subsequent commentary [to the Idlib offensive] proclaimed this as the beginning of the end for President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, we are still a long way from that,” Lister writes.
For one thing, Iran sees the survival of the Assad regime as a critical strategic priority, as it allows Iran to supply Hezbollah and maintain a close ally in the Levant. Any post-Assad government is likely to be Sunni-dominated,and quite hostile to Iran. Tehran is probably willing to go to some lengths to keep that from happening, and Iranian intervention in the war has been a significant force.
“In strict military terms, there isn’t yet a direct threat on the strategically essential territory that the regime and its backers continue to control,” Bonsey says, “and there isn’t yet a reason to think the rebels are capable of threatening” such a region.
Since Assad can’t crush the rebels in their strongholds, then, the conflict is looking a lot like a stalemate — which it already was before this rebel offensive began.
Moreover, the unity of this new rebel coalition could collapse. The broad alliance we’ve seen in Idlib is held together by victory: the more they push back Assad, the more willing they are to cooperate. But if Assad’s forces start beating them, the ideological and political fault lines in the coalition could cause rebel groups to turn on one another. It’s happened — many times — before.
The “big question now,” according to Bonsey, is “how the regime and its backers choose to respond to these defeats.” A major decider, in other words, is Iran. But as long as they see protecting the Assad regime as vital, they are likely to do what it takes to keep his core territory intact.
Get our your decoder ring, some interesting things are in play here and it appears that Kerry is possibly ready for the ultimate Iran betrayal, which has been telegraphed in history and most especially during the P5+1 talks.
In case the talks fail, Kerry could be posturing a move to delete Russia and China from having a vote. Even the Iranian Supreme leader appears to be poised to run away. The Obama team building mission for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians has failed…no checkmark there. The next try again event is neutralizing Iran’s nuclear program which appears to be taking a nose-dive…no checkmark there either?
(Reuters) – Washington wants to be certain that any nuclear deal between Iran and major powers includes the possibility of restoring U.N. sanctions if Tehran breaks the agreement without risking Russian and Chinese vetoes, a senior U.S. official said on Tuesday.
United Nations sanctions and a future mechanism for Iran to buy atomic technology are two core sticking points in talks on a possible nuclear deal on which Tehran and world powers have been struggling to overcome deep divisions in recent days, diplomats said on condition of anonymity.
Negotiators were wrapping up nearly a week of talks in New York on Tuesday, the latest round in 18 months of discussions aimed at clinching a long-term deal by June 30 to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for an end to sanctions. Expert-level negotiations are expected to continue for several days.
The current talks have been taking place on the sidelines of a conference on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The negotiations between Iran, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union will resume in Vienna next week.
The latest discussions revolved around a future Security Council resolution that would endorse a deal and render invalid all previous sanctions resolutions, while keeping U.N. bans on ballistic missiles, an arms embargo and some other restrictions.
U.S. and European negotiators want any easing of U.N. sanctions to be automatically reversible – negotiators call this a “snapback” – if Tehran fails to comply with terms of a deal. Russia and China traditionally dislike such automatic measures.
The “snapback” is one of the most important issues for Western governments who fear that, once any U.N. sanctions on Iran are suspended, it could be hard to restore them because Russia and China would veto any such attempt.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power made it clear that Washington did not want Russia’s and China’s recent slew of vetoes on resolutions related to Syria to be repeated with an Iran nuclear agreement.
“We’re going to do so in a manner that doesn’t require Russian and Chinese support or a vote for snapback … because we are in a different world in 2015 than we were when the sanctions architecture was put in place,” Power said in an interview with Charlie Rose on Bloomberg television.
She offered no details.
Power said Washington hoped the conclusion of a nuclear deal with Tehran would lead to a change in Iran’s posture on Syria, where it has supported President Bashar al-Assad in a four-year civil war against rebels seeking to oust him.
PROCUREMENT CHANNEL
Iran’s chief negotiator in New York offered a positive assessment of the latest round of nuclear negotiations.
“The atmosphere of the talks was good and it is possible to reach the final deal by June 30,” Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told Iranian state television.
However, Western diplomats said on condition of anonymity that Iran and the six powers, who struck an interim agreement on April 2 in Switzerland, were far from agreement due to divisions on sanctions, monitoring and other issues.
Restoring U.S. and EU sanctions is relatively easy, but that is not the case with U.N. sanctions. While the United States is worried about Russia and China, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran want to be certain that Washington cannot unilaterally force a snapback if the Republicans win the U.S. presidency in 2016.
“We haven’t found a mechanism that works for everyone yet,” one diplomat said.
Another difficult issue is the “procurement channel” – a mechanism for approving Iranian purchases of sensitive atomic technology currently banned under U.N. sanctions. One idea under consideration is a vetting committee that would include Iran and the six powers. Tehran would have a say but not a veto, diplomats said.
Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and rejects allegations from Western countries and their allies that it wants the capability to produce atomic weapons. It says all sanctions are illegal and works hard to circumvent them.
A confidential report by a U.N. Panel of Experts, obtained by Reuters last week, said Britain had informed it of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted companies.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, vowed on Wednesday that his nation would leave nuclear negotiations if it feels threatened by America’s armed forces.
“Recently U.S. officials threatened to take military action against #Iran,” Khamenei tweeted.
“What does negotiations mean under ghost of a threat?” he asked.
“U.S. need for the #talks – if not more – is not less than #Iran’s,” Khamenei wrote.
“Negotiators should observe red lines & tolerate no burden, humiliation & threat,” he added.
Khamenei said Tehran does not need the economic relief the U.S. is offering in a potential deal over its nuclear arms research.
The pact would lift sanctions on Iran in return for greater restrictions on its nuclear programs.
“Many foreign officials said if sanctions against #Iran were put on other countries, they would’ve been destroyed but they didn’t undermine Iran,” Khamenei tweeted.
The supreme leader also mocked the Obama administration’s struggles with the civil war in Yemen. U.S. efforts in the region, he argued, had not restored stability in the Middle East.
“U.S. has been disgraced,” he said.
“Supporting those who attack #women & #children in Yemen & destroy #Yemen’s infrastructure ruin U.S. image in the region,” Khamenei said of American support for ousted Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi.
Khamenei closed with a parting shot at U.S. race relations. Police action towards minorities, he said, exposed the hypocrisy of American human rights.
“In the world of deception, the most racist govts. become flag-bearers of human rights,” Khamenei posted alongside a video documenting alleged law enforcement abuses in the U.S.
Khamenei’s criticisms come as diplomatic talks between Iran and the West resume over Tehran’s nuclear program. The two sides are wrangling for a final agreement due June 30.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday announced he would move later this week on legislation allowing Congress to review any final Iran deal.
Should it pass, lawmakers could vote on whether they approve of the Obama administration’s potential agreement with Iranian leadership.
Their declared power is an aphrodisiac as witnessed by the words wielded by Hillary Clinton. While many in Washington DC abuse authority for the sake of collusion seeking personal gain, Hillary is one of the top trophy winners in this category with her machine and inner protective circle.
Hillary goes farther than Obama on amnesty if that is possible and then her personal aide gets major protections of turning over government documents, mostly emails from that private server. Keep in mind, Hillary is/was a lawyer.
Hillary Clinton held a Cinco de Mayo event with illegal immigrants in Nevada Tuesday — “an especially appropriate day for us to be having this conversation” — in which she promised to go farther than President Obama in using executive authority to confer legal status on illegal immigrants, and to ultimately to award them U.S. citizenship. No matter what Republicans might offer to illegal immigrants in terms of legal status, Clinton said, she will offer more.
Changing the immigration system will be a top priority should she become president, Clinton said. “We can’t wait any longer. We can’t wait any longer for a path to full and equal citizenship.”
Clinton made clear she would go beyond any Republican, be it Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or any other, in conferring benefits on currently illegal immigrants. “This is where I differ with everybody on the Republican side,” she said. “Make no mistakes — today not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship. Not one. When they talk about legal status, that is code for second-class status.”
As for Obama’s unilateral executive action, Clinton said she will defend what has already been done and then add action of her own. “I will fight for comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship for you and for your families across our country,” she said.
“I will fight to stop partisan attacks on the executive actions that would put Dreamers, including those with us today, at risk of deportation. And if Congress continues to refuse to act, as president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further. There are more people, like many parents of Dreamers, and others, with deep ties and contributions to our communities, who deserve a chance to stay, and I will fight for them.”
“I want to do everything we can to defend the president’s executive orders,” Clinton said at another point. “Because I think they were certainly within his authority, constitutionally, legally, they were based on precedent that I certainly believe is adequate. And then still try to go further and deal with some of these other issues, like the re-unification of families that were here and that have been split up.”
A number of words were missing from Clinton’s discussion of immigration. She did not say “border,” for example, or “visa” or “E-Verify” or “workplace.” The notion of enforcing the nation’s immigration laws as they currently exist was not on the table.
Clinton has not always been quite so expansive on the subject of immigration. For much of 2014, as the nation debated Obama’s threatened unilateral executive action, Clinton stayed out of the conversation, not committing one way or the other. In the summer of 2014, when there was a flood of unaccompanied minor illegal immigrants across the southeastern border, Clinton advocated sending most of them back to their home countries.
“They should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who the responsible adults in their families are…” Clinton said at the time. “But I think all of them who can be, should be reunited with their families.”
During her 2008 run for president, Clinton famously opposed issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.
That’s all in the past. Now, Clinton is again running for president, and with Hispanic votes to be won, she is vowing she will not be outbid when it comes to the subject of immigration.
The emails of Huma Abedin, the top personal aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, are now facing a disclosure lawsuit after the State Department failed to turn them over in response to an open-records request.
Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest law firm that uses open-records laws to pry information loose, had filed a request to get a look at Ms. Abedin’s emails during her four years at the State Department. News outlets have reported that Ms. Abedin also used the private email server Mrs. Clinton set up to handle government business, but the status of her messages is unclear.
It’s one of a number of open-records requests Judicial Watch filed after the email scandal broke, and Tom Fitton, president of the organization, said they’ve been stonewalled on all of them, so now they’re turning to the courts.
“We’re churning through these,” he said. “The scandal at the State Department is more than about Hillary Clinton. There are others involved.”
The State Department said it wouldn’t comment now that Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit — though it had struggled to explain its procedures even before the lawsuit was filed, and the status is of Ms. Abedin’s emails remains unclear.
Mrs. Clinton has said she turned over about 30,000 emails from her server, and discarded another 32,000 messages she deemed unrelated to business. But it’s unclear whether the messages she turned over were hers alone, or whether they also included ones from Ms. Abedin’s account or other aides who were using the server for government business.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who exposed the private emails as part of his investigation into the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, has urged Mrs. Clinton to turn the server over to a neutral third party while questions get sorted out, but Mrs. Clinton has refused, saying she believes she has now complied with the law by finally going through and turning emails over.
The law at the time Mrs. Clinton was in office urged federal employees doing government business to use their official accounts, but said those who used personal accounts were required to forward all government-related messages to their official accounts for storage. Mrs. Clinton rejected using an official account and did not forward her messages, but after Mr. Gowdy’s inquiries the State Department asked her to belatedly turn her emails over.
The State Department has turned about 300 emails over to the Benghazi probe, but has refused to release the other tens of thousands of messages, saying it wants to process and clear them all at the same time, which will take months.
But the department has admitted in court that it was remiss in not searching the emails earlier, and has agreed to reopen some previous open-records requests from Judicial Watch that had sought Clinton emails.
Ms. Abedin, who is married to former Rep. Anthony Weiner, has come under scrutiny for her time at the State Department. Mrs. Clinton designated her a special government employee, allowing her to collect a federal salary even as she also worked for an outside consulting company.
The department’s inspector general is looking into whether that arrangement was legal, since the designation is supposed to be used to lure workers with special skills into government service. Ms. Abedin was already a government employee when she was given the designation, and the State Department has yet to explain what skills she brought to earn the special status.