Category Archives: Planned Parenthood

10/18/2016: Lawsuit Filed Against Hillary Clinton

Posted on by

WikiLeaks has in fact been of great assistance and will continue to be. WikiLeaks also tells us Hillary wants Obamacare to fail in order to implement a single payer system.

.pdf of Formal Complaint is here.

October 18, 2016

Office of the General Counsel

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20463

Re: Complaint Against Hillary for America, the Democratic National

Committee, Democracy Partners, Americans United for Change, and other

known and unknown individuals and groups.

To Whom It May Concern:

Complainant

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (“PILF”) is a non-profit educational and legal foundation

dedicated to protect the right to vote, preserve the Constitutional framework of American

elections, and educate the public on the issue of election integrity. As part of its mission, PILF

gathers and analyzes information regarding potential violations of federal and state election laws

and informs the public about these violations and concerns.

This complaint is filed on behalf of the Public Interest Legal Foundation by Joseph A.

Vanderhulst, Legal Counsel with PILF at 209 West Main Street, Plainfield, Indiana 46168,

pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1).

Respondents

Hillary for America

(Committee ID C00575795)

P.O. Box 5256

New York, NY 10185-5256

Jose H. Villarreal

Treasurer, Hillary for America

P.O. Box 5256

New York, NY 10185-5256

Democratic National Committee

430 South Capitol Street Southeast

Washington, DC 20003

Democracy Partners

1250 Eye Street, NW, Ste. 250

Washington, DC 20005

Bob Creamer

Strategist, Democracy Partners

1250 Eye Street, NW, Ste. 250

Washington, DC 20005

Americans United for Change

P.O. Box 34606

Washington, D.C. 20043

202-470-6954

Scott Foval

National Field Director, Americans United for Change

P.O. Box 34606

Washington, D.C. 20043

202-470-6954

Voces de la Frontera Action

1027 S. 5th Street

Milwaukee, WI 53204

Tel. 414-643-1620

Unknown Groups and Individuals Associated with Respondents

Summary

This complaint is based on information and belief that respondents have engaged in public

communications, campaign activity, targeted voter registration drives, and other targeted GOTV

activity under 11 C.F.R. 100.26 and 11 C.F.R. 114.4 at the request, direction, and approval of the

Hillary for America campaign committee and the Democratic National Committee in violation of

11 C.F.R. 109.20 and 11 C.F.R. 114.4(d)(2) and (3).

Complainant’s information and belief is based on findings from an investigation conducted by

Project Veritas Action and their published reports regarding the same, as well as on news

sources.

“If the Commission, upon receiving a complaint . . . has reason to believe that a person has

committed, or is about to commit, a violation of [the FECA] . . . [t]he Commission shall make an

investigation of such alleged violation . . . .” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2); see also 11 C.F.R. §

111.4(a).

Facts and Violations

Alien Registration Drives

On information and belief based on published reports and findings from an investigation by

Project Veritas Action, several groups including Americans United for Change and Voces de la

Frontera Action and other unknown groups have engaged in voter registration drives and other

GOTV activity during the 2016 election cycle. These activities potentially registered persons

who were not citizens. This activity is regulated under 11 C.F.R. 114.4.

On the same information and belief, these voter registration drives and other GOTV activity

were coordinated with DNC and HFA by express communication through agents of Democracy

Partners and The Foval Group. These communications resulted in coordination of voter

registration activity in violation of 11 C.F.R. 114.4(c)(2) and (d)(2)-(4) by all parties involved.

Also, because they were coordinated with a political party or campaign, there voter registration

activities deliberated targeted demographic groups because they were statistically more likely to

support a particular party or candidate in violation of 11 C.F.R. 114.4(c)(2) and (d)(2)-(4) by all

parties involved.

Paid Protesters

As reported in several news sources, disruptions, including incidents of violence, have occurred

at rallies held by the Trump for President campaign. Based on published reports, these

disruptions were instigated by paid professional protestors arranged by third party groups at the

coordination and direction of agents of Democracy Partners and The Foval Group at the request

and approval of agents of DNC and HFA.

On information and belief based on published reports and findings from an investigation by

Project Veritas Action, these disruptions include the payment of protesters “wherever Trump and

Pence are going to be.” Based on these reports, it appears that all violent disruptions at Trump

for President campaign rallies have been executed by paid protesters trained and instructed in

their speech and conduct to advocate against Trump and in support of Clinton.

On information and belief based on the same source, agents of DNC and HFA communicated

with the third party groups and individuals engaging in the activity and content through agents of

Democracy Partners and The Foval Group in order to request and approve the communications.

Through a direct chain of communication, this constituted coordination under 11 C.F.R.

109.21(d)(1)-(5).

Other Public Communications and Campaign Activities

On information and belief based on published reports, all public communications as defined in

11 C.F.R. 109.21(c) done by Americans United for Change, including the activities described in

Exhibit A, were done at or with the direction, approval, suggestion, or after material discussion

regarding the timing, content, and audience of the communications, of the DNC and Hillary for

America campaign.

Conclusion

Upon information and belief, and based upon the facts set forth above, Respondents Hillary for

America, the Democratic National Committee, Democracy Partners, Americans United for

Change, and their agents, named and unnamed above, have, each of them, individually and

collectively, violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and must be held

accountable and liable for their unlawful actions.

On behalf of PILF, I hereby request an investigation into whether the respondents identified

above, or any other related parties, have violated federal campaign finance laws. The information

uncovered by this investigation, including this initial complaint, will be used by PILF to educate

the American people about the laws governing our elections and current and potential threats to

election integrity.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please contact me if you have further

questions.

Respectfully submitted,

PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION

Joseph A. Vanderhulst

Legal Counsel

I hereby affirm and state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Joseph A. Vanderhulst

Subscribed and sworn to me on this day of , 2016, by Joseph A.

Vanderhulst, President and General Counsel of Public Interest Legal Foundation.

Notary Public

**** Additionally, here is yet an additional Federal Statue where Hillary Clinton is in violation and a lawsuit may be pending in this regard.

 

18 U.S.C. § 208, the basic criminal conflict of interest statute, prohibits an executive branch employee from participating personally and substantially in a particular Government matter that will affect his own financial interests, as well as the financial interests of:

  • His spouse or minor child;
  • His general partner;
  • An organization in which he serves as an officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee; and
  • A person with whom he is negotiating for or has an arrangement concerning prospective employment.

Financial Interests in a Particular Matter

An employee has a disqualifying financial interest in a particular matter only if there is a close causal link between a particular Government matter in which the employee participates and any effect on the asset or other interest (direct effect) and if there is a real possibility of gain or loss as a result of development in or resolution of that matter (predictable effect). Gain or loss need not be probable. The possibility of a benefit or detriment must be real, not speculative. One common point of confusion is distinguishing between an asset or other interest and a financial interest in a particular matter under 18 U.S.C. § 208. The financial interest is the possibility of gain or loss (of the value of an asset or other interest) resulting from a particular matter, not the asset or interest itself. Thus, a person could have a large holding but only a relatively small financial interest in the particular matter, because the potential for gain or loss is small.

Exemptions

The criminal prohibition has no de minimis level. That is, it applies where any financial interest exists, no matter how small. Under 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(2), however, OGE has the authority to establish blanket exemptions for financial interests considered too remote or too inconsequential to affect the integrity of the employee’s services. OGE has established several exemptions. The exemptions can be found in the implementing regulation for the statute, 5 C.F.R. part 2640. An employee who qualifies for an exemption can participate in official matters without violating 18 U.S.C. § 208, even though he has what would otherwise be a disqualifying financial interest in the matters. In addition to the exemptions established by OGE, there is an exception in the statute itself at 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(4) for employees that have certain Native American or Alaska Native birthrights. If the financial interest that would be affected by the particular matter is that resulting solely from the interest of employee or the spouse or minor children in certain Native American or Alaska Native birthrights, the employee may participate in the particular matter without violating 18 U.S.C. § 208.

Waivers

The criminal financial conflict of interest statute has two separate waiver provisions. An employee who has been granted a waiver can participate in official matters without violating 18 U.S.C. § 208, even though he has what would otherwise be a disqualifying financial interest in the matters. Ethics officials often use waivers for broad particular matters, such as general policy matters, in conjunction with a recusal from particular matters involving specific parties for a specific financial interest. The two types of waivers are:

  • 208(b)(1): A waiver issued by the employee’s agency that covers certain financial interests that are not so substantial as to affect the integrity of the employee’s services.
  • 208(b)(3): A waiver for special government employees on Federal Advisory Committee Act committees when the need for services outweighs the potential for conflicts.

Great Legal Decision on Obama’s Genderless Bathrooms

Posted on by

Post from: Washington Blade, America’s Leading LGBT News Source

Judge blocks guidance on bathroom access for trans students

A federal judge has blocked the enforcement of guidance from the Obama administration prohibiting schools from discriminating against transgender students, including denying them access to public restrooms consistent with their gender identity.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, issued the preliminary injunction late Sunday in response to a lawsuit filed in May by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on behalf of 12 states and two school districts.

In the 38-page order, O’Connor writes the case “presents the difficult issue of balancing” the rights of transgender students and privacy concerns, but he nonetheless sides with states suing the Obama administration.

“The sensitivity to this matter is heightened because defendants’ actions apply to the youngest child attending school and continues for every year throughout each child’s educational career,” O’Connor writes. “The resolution of this difficult policy issue is not, however, the subject of this order. Instead, the Constitution assigns these policy choices to the appropriate elected and appointed officials, who must follow the proper legal procedure.”

In May, the Departments of Justice and Education said schools are barred from discriminating against transgender students, including in bathroom use, under the prohibition of gender bias in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. That means schools refusing to allow transgender students to use the restroom consistent with their gender identity are at risk of losing federal funds.

The court order doesn’t devote significant discussion to why transgender students should be subjected to schools barring them from restroom use consistent with their gender identity, but cites the intent of Congress in passing Title IX and portions of the law that allow schools to segregate students by gender.

“Without question, permitting educational institutions to provide separate housing to male and female students, and separate educational instruction concerning human sexuality, was to protect students’ personal privacy, or discussion of their personal privacy, while in the presence of members of the opposite biological sex,” O’Connor writes.

Critics say Paxton and the states he represents lacked standing to sue the Obama administration over the guidance, but O’Connor writes they’re able to sue because the guidance is “clearly designed to target plaintiffs’ conduct.”

“Guidelines will force plaintiffs to consider ways to build or reconstruct restrooms, and how to accommodate students who may seek to use private single person facilities, as other school districts and employers who have been subjected to Defendants’ enforcement actions have had to do,” O’Connor writes. “That the guidelines spur this added regulatory compliance analysis satisfies the injury in fact requirement.”

O’Connor writes the injunction “should apply nationwide” and states that don’t wish to comply with the order “can easily avoid doing so by state law that recognizes the permissive nature.” The injunction, O’Connor writes, shouldn’t interfere with similar cases pending before federal courts on transgender bathroom use and “parties should file a pleading describing those cases so the court can appropriately narrow the scope if appropriate.”

Kasey Suffredini, chief program officer for Freedom for All Americans, called the ruling a “step back for transgender protections,” criticizing O’Connor for the decision and refusing to hear from a single transgender student during court proceedings.

“It is shameful that opponents of equality have forced this lawsuit forward in an attempt to make transgender Americans pawns in a political game; but this ruling will not stand the test of time,” Suffredini said. “All transgender Americans – particularly transgender youth – deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. No singular court ruling negates the right of all Americans to receive equal treatment under the law – that’s one of our nation’s founding values.”

Paxton in a statement after the ruling said the plaintiff states are “pleased” with the decision and it restricts “the Obama administration’s latest illegal federal overreach.”

“This president is attempting to rewrite the laws enacted by the elected representatives of the people, and is threatening to take away federal funding from schools to force them to conform,” Paxton said. “That cannot be allowed to continue, which is why we took action to protect states and school districts, who are charged under state law to establish a safe and disciplined environment conducive to student learning.”

Dena Iverson, a spokesperson for the U.S. Justice Department, said the Obama administration is considering the order and whether to appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The department is disappointed in the court’s decision, and we are reviewing our options,” Iverson said.

Given the broad nature of the litigation — which sought not only to bar enforcement of the Obama administration guidance, but general enforcement of federal laws against gender discrimination to protect transgender people — the nature of the injunction is sweeping and one that defies years of legal precedent establishing transgender discrimination amounts to gender discrimination.

Five civil rights organizations that had submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the lawsuit – Lambda Legal, American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Texas, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Transgender Law Center and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders — issued a joint statement in the aftermath of the injunction saying nothing has changed.

“A ruling by a single judge in one circuit cannot and does not undo the years of clear legal precedent nationwide establishing that transgender students have the right to go to school without being singled out for discrimination,” the statement says. “This unfortunate and premature ruling may, however, confuse school districts that are simply trying to support their students, including their transgender students. So let us make it clear to those districts: your obligations under the law have not changed, and you are still not only allowed but required to treat transgender students fairly.”

The statement also criticizes O’Connor for a decision the organizations say “targets a small, vulnerable group of young people – transgender elementary and high school students – for potential continued harassment, stigma and abuse.”

This ruling isn’t the first anti-LGBT decision made by O’Connor. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide, O’Connor issued an injunction allowing married same-sex couples to access benefits under the Family & Medical Leave Act in states without marriage equality.

 

In Nangarhar Province, ISIS Captures US Weapons

Posted on by

In pictures: ISIS captures US weapons after repelling joint Afghan/American attack

ISIS captured loads of US weapons and equipment after repelling an joint US/Afghan attack on Nanjarhar. An American flag, an American ID card, a rocket, and many hand grenades were seized by the terror group.

According to local media sources, Islamic State fighters were able to counter Afghan government attacks in Kut, Shadal, Dah Bala, Adel Khail, and Pandar that were backed by tanks and heavy air cover.

The source presumed that the American equipment most likely belonged to American soldiers that may have been injured carrying out military operation in the past few weeks.

ISIS has steadily grown over the past few years in the war-torn country fighting both the Afghan government forces and Taliban, which it accuses of not being Islamic enough due to its interactions with several foreign states.

123

As noted by Heavy: UPDATE 8/6/16 @ 7:10 pm EDT: According to Resolute Support, US Army SPC Ryan Jay Larson is present and accounted for. Read the original story below.

The Islamic State has purportedly released photos of documents and gear of United States soldiers, including the identity card of Ryan Jay Larson in Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan. The photos were released on ISIS terrorist channels on August 6 with the description: “Exclusive: Amaq Agency received photos in which American weapons and military equipment can be seen that have been captured by fighters of the Islamic State in Nangarhar. One of these pictures shows the identity of a US soldier named Ryan Jay Larson, whose fate is unknown, as well as bags, ammunition vests, a rocket, a US flag and several hand grenades. A media source reported that the fighters of the country managed to attack the US and Afghan troops in the territories Kot, Schadal, Dah Bala, Adl Khil and Bandar, when tanks and heavy air support were used to ward off [Islamic State militants].” It is unclear if ISIS is claiming to have only captured the equipment of soldiers, or Larson also. Terrorism analyst Michael S. Smith II suggests another translation for the fate of Larson as, “his destiny is unknown.” An earlier description of the photos by ISIS suggested the capture of Larson, writing “Photos of equipment and documents of US soldiers who had been captured by fighters of the Islamic State in Afghanistan.”

*****

Per General Nicholson:

At least five U.S. troops were wounded this week by small-arms fire and shrapnel while fighting alongside Afghan forces to expel ISIS from strongholds in eastern Nangarhar province, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan said Thursday.

Two of the wounded troops quickly returned to duty after treatment, and three others were medically evacuated from the country.

“We expect a full recovery” for all five troops, said Army Gen. John Nicholson, commander of Operation Resolute Support in Afghanistan.

The wounded troops were believed to be the first U.S. casualties in Afghanistan in fighting against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria offshoot, called Islamic State-Khorasan Province, or IS-K.

In a video briefing from Kabul to the Pentagon, Nicholson said the U.S. casualties occurred during an ongoing offensive by the Afghan National Defense Security Forces to rout ISIS from Nangarhar. He said ISIS’ areas of control in the province had been reduced from 10 districts to three while inflicting heavy casualties on the terror group.

“We have killed many Daesh commanders and soldiers,” Nicholson said, using an Arabic acronym for ISIS, and “Daesh fighters are retreating south” into the mountains on the Pakistani border.

He said ISIS’ force had been reduced from an estimated 3,000 fighters to about 1,500.

Nicholson said the U.S. casualties occurred “in recent days,” but the Pentagon later put out a clarifying statement. One was wounded on July 24 and the other four were wounded in a separate engagement on July 25, the statement said. “I characterize it as a clearing operation,” Nicholson said of the effort in Nangarhar called Operation Shafak (Dawn).

In June 2015, when reports emerged of an ISIS presence in Nangarhar, U.S. military officials said that the group appeared to consist of disaffected members of the Taliban who were “self-branding.”

However, Nicholson said that IS-Khorasan Province (a reference to a historical region including parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan) now had direct financial and communications links with the self-proclaimed “caliphate” in Iraq and Syria.

Nicholson told the Associated Press earlier this week, “They have applied for membership, they have been accepted, they had to meet certain tests, they have been publicized in Dabiq,” the ISIS magazine. The ISIS affiliate in Afghanistan included members of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), or Pakistani Taliban, and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Nicholson said.

He said that planning for the offensive in Nangarhar, which is home to the U.S. base in Jalalabad, began before the suicide bombings claimed by ISIS in Kabul last Saturday that killed at least 80 — the worst terror attack in the capital since 2001. “The fact that they could conduct a high-profile attack should not be perceived as a sign of growing strength,” Nicholson said.

In January, President Obama authorized the U.S. military to launch airstrikes against ISIS in Afghanistan. Airstrikes had previously been limited to supporting U.S. troops or Afghan forces who were in danger of being overrun. In June, Obama loosened the rules of engagement again to allow airstrikes against the Taliban.

“I’ve been using those [new] authorities daily,” Nicholson said in his first briefing to the Pentagon as Afghan commander since taking over from the now-retired Army Gen. John Campbell in March.

Since January, the U.S. has conducted a total 470 airstrikes in Afghanistan, with about 180 of those defined as “counter-terrorism” missions, Nicholson said. Since June, about 40 of the counter-terror airstrikes have targeted the ISIS affiliate, he said.

Nicholson was also using the new rules to boost the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan past the authorized level of 9,800. The additional troops were being deployed for counter-terror missions on a short-term basis, Nicholson told The Wall Street Journal.

“If I need to, I can bring in additional assets, and this could be reconnaissance, it could be air assets, it could even be ground assets,” Nicholson said. “We brought in additional assets this time” for the offensive in Nangarhar, “and we’ll do it again as needed to defeat” ISIS. He did not specify how many U.S. troops were in Nangarhar.

Previous U.S. commanders in Afghanistan have pointed to progress in the campaign against the Taliban and improvements in the capabilities of the Afghan forces only to have the Taliban prove their resilience with more attacks, but Nicholson echoed the same theme.

“Our mission in Afghanistan is on a positive trajectory,” Nicholson said, and “We’re cautiously optimistic the Afghan security forces are on a positive trajectory” despite mounting casualties. He said that fatalities for the Afghan forces were up 20 percent in the first six months of 2016, compared to the estimated 20,000 killed in 2015.

The Afghan forces conducted successful operations north of Kunduz to prevent another attack on the city, which was briefly overrun by the Taliban last year, Nicholson said. He also said a revitalized Afghan 215th Corps was having success in southwestern Helmand province, where the Taliban gained territory last year in Afghanistan’s biggest poppy-producing areas.

The Afghan forces, backed by U.S. advisers now embedded with them, were operating under what Nicholson called a new “sustainable security strategy.”

“The idea is that the Afghans will focus their efforts in certain areas and mainly it’s the key population centers, the ring road, major economic arteries in the country,” Nicholson said. “So these areas are generally designated as areas they will hold or will fight for.”

“So if it’s a hold or fight area, the Afghan security forces will immediately act to interdict [or] defeat any enemy effort to gain ground in those areas,” he said. “There are other areas of the country where they will disrupt enemy operations, but they’re not seeking to hold or fight for those areas.”

President Obama recently changed course on the number of U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan next year. Rather than reducing the troop level from 9,800 to 5,550 as originally planned, Obama said he was authorizing about 8,400 U.S. troops for Afghanistan in 2017.

In recent remarks to reporters in Kabul, Nicholson gave more exact figures and outlined the missions for the troops.

He said that 8,448 U.S. troops had been approved by the White House for deployment in Afghanistan in 2017. Of that number, about 2,150 would be involved in counter-terror missions, another 3,000 would serve as advisers to the Afghan forces, and the remaining troops would provide support missions, Nicholson said.

Hillary Was A Classification Authority

Posted on by

Primer:

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 29, 2009

Executive Order 13526- Original Classification Authority

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

TOP SECRET

Executive Office of the President:

The Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff

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

The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

The Director of National Drug Control Policy

The Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy

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

Departments and Agencies:

The Secretary of State

The Secretary of the Treasury

The Secretary of Defense

The Attorney General

The Secretary of Energy

The Secretary of Homeland Security

The Director of National Intelligence

The Secretary of the Army

The Secretary of the Navy

The Secretary of the Air Force

The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The Director, Information Security Oversight Office

SECRET

Executive Office of the President:

The United States Trade Representative

Departments and Agencies:

The Secretary of Agriculture

The Secretary of Commerce

The Secretary of Health and Human Services

The Secretary of Transportation

The Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

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

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

This order shall be published in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 29, 2009.

Related reading: Rules/Standards for Classification Desktop Reference

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

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

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

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

But…..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

DoJ: National Healthcare Fraud Takedown

Posted on by

In what the Justice Department is calling the largest takedown of healthcare fraud in U.S. history, federal authorities on Wednesday brought charges against 301 people for $900 million in false billings.

Among those charged includes 61 doctors, nurses, and other licensed medical professionals who, among other crimes, allegedly committed money laundering, identity theft, and Medicare Part D pharmacy fraud. Across the country, 23 states and 36 federal districts coordinated with the Justice Department and the Department of Health and Human Services to go after the alleged fraud schemes.

The defendants allegedly submitted Medicare and Medicaid claims the Justice Department said “were medically unnecessary and often never provided.” Some of the defendants were paid kickbacks for providing information for fraudulent bills. At least 28 doctors were among those charged on Wednesday. More from Atlantic.

 

Lynch/Justice Department: Good morning everyone and thank you all for being here.  I am joined by several key leaders in our nation’s efforts to address health care fraud: Department of Health and Human Services Secretary [Sylvia] Burwell; Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division [Leslie] Caldwell; United States Attorney [Wifredo] Ferrer of the Southern District of Florida; FBI Associate Deputy Director [David] Bowdich; HHS Deputy Inspector General for Investigations [Gary] Cantrell; DCIS Acting Director [Dermot] O’Reilly; and [Shantanu] Agrawal, Deputy Administrator and Director of the Center for Program Integrity at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

We are here today to announce a significant step in the federal government’s ongoing work to keep our nation’s health care system free of fraud and exploitation and to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used lawfully and appropriately.  Over the last three days, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force – a joint effort between the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services – executed a significant nationwide health care fraud takedown.  This action involved charging or unveiling charges against  approximately 300 defendants in 36 federal districts for their alleged participation in a variety of schemes involving more than $900 million in fraudulent billings, making this the largest takedown in the Strike Force’s nine-year history.

The defendants named in these charges include doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists and home health care providers.  They are accused of a wide range of serious crimes, from conspiring to commit health care fraud to making false statements and from bribery to money laundering.  They submitted dishonest claims, charged excessive fees and prescribed unnecessary drugs.  One group of defendants controlled a network of clinics in Brooklyn that they filled with patients through bribes and kickbacks.  These patients then received medically unnecessary treatment, for which the clinic received over $38 million from Medicare and Medicaid – money that the conspirators subsequently laundered through more than 15 shell companies.  In another case, a Detroit clinic billed Medicare for more than $36 million, even though it was actually a front for a narcotics diversion scheme.  And yet another defendant took advantage of his position in a state agency in Georgia by accepting bribes and recommending the approval of unqualified health providers.  These are just a few examples of the criminals that we targeted in this operation and although the specific nature of their wrongdoing varied from case to case, all of them betrayed the basic principles of their professions.

In addition to the usual patterns of fraud and deception that we’ve encountered in the past, we also saw new trends emerging in this year’s charges.  For instance, in a number of cases involving the Medicare prescription drug benefit program known as Part D, we saw new evidence of identity theft, including the use of stolen doctors’ IDs to prepare fake prescriptions.  We have also seen a growing number of cases involving compounded medications, which are combinations of two or more drugs prepared by a licensed professional.  In recent years, the cost of these drugs has grown exponentially, making them a more attractive target for criminals looking to exploit them for profit.

As this takedown should make clear, health care fraud is not an abstract violation or benign offense.  It is a serious crime.  The wrongdoers that we pursue in these operations seek to use public funds for private enrichment.  They target real people – many of them in need of significant medical care.  They promise effective cures and therapies, but they provide none.  Above all, they abuse basic bonds of trust – between doctor and patient; between pharmacist and doctor; between taxpayer and government – and pervert them to their own ends.  The Department of Justice is determined to continue working to ensure that the American people know that their health care system works for them – and them alone.

In tackling these challenges, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force relies on close cooperation between the federal, state and local, governments.  Since 2014, the Justice Department’s Criminal Division has organized an annual National Health Care Fraud Training Conference for Assistant U.S. Attorneys and state and federal law enforcement officers, which has substantially expanded the reach of our actions.  More than 20 non-Strike Force U.S. Attorney’s Offices participated in this year’s takedown, helping us to combat health care fraud in a total of 30 federal districts nationwide, from Alaska to Florida.  We were also assisted by approximately 20 state Medicaid Fraud Control Units, a reflection of the close partnership between state and federal authorities in combatting health care fraud – a partnership that we will continue to strengthen in the days ahead.

I want to thank my colleagues in the FBI, the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for their ongoing efforts to combat health care fraud.  I want to thank all of the state and local law enforcement officers across the country who participated in this complex and fast-moving takedown.  And I look forward to continuing our work together in the days ahead.

At this time, I’d like to turn things over to Secretary Burwell, who has been a dedicated leader and indispensable partner in this critical work and who will provide additional details on today’s announcement.