Category Archives: Presidential campaign

IRS Targeting List, Much Worse than Reported

Posted on by

What say you when it is proven that a government agency does go after individuals and organizations for their beliefs and there is no consequence? It is tyranny but does anyone care anymore?

Congressman Jason Chaffetz, the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been on an assertive mission to impeach the IRS Commissioner with good reason, but in truth there are many more that need to be in that impeachment net beyond John Koskinen.

   

Where is the outrage? Has this report been turned over to the FBI? Will the Department of Justice seek any prosecutions? This matter is in our hands, what are you willing to do about it? Anything?

IRS finally reveals list of tea party groups targeted for extra scrutiny

WashingtonExaminer: More than three years after it admitted to targeting tea party groups for intrusive scrutiny, the IRS has finally released a near-complete list of the organizations it snagged in a political dragnet.

The tax agency filed the list last month as part of a court case after a series of federal judges, fed up with what they said was the agency’s stonewalling, ordered it to get a move on. The case is a class-action lawsuit, so the list of names is critical to knowing the scope of those who would have a claim against the IRS.

But even as it answers some questions, the list raises others, including exactly when the targeting stopped, and how broadly the tax agency drew its net when it went after nonprofits for unusual scrutiny.

The government released names of 426 organizations. Another 40 were not released as part of the list because they had already opted out of being part of the class-action suit.

That total is much higher than the 298 groups the IRS‘ inspector general identified back in May 2013, when investigators first revealed the agency had been subjecting applications to long — potentially illegal — delays, and forcing them to answer intrusive questions about their activities. Tea party and conservative groups said they was the target of unusually heavy investigations and longer delays,

Edward D. Greim, the lawyer who’s pursuing the case on behalf of NorCal Tea Party Patriots and other members of the class, said the list also could have ballooned toward the end of the targeting as the IRS, once it knew it was being investigated, snagged more liberal groups in its operations to try to soften perceptions of political bias.

“As we have identified in our filings in this case, important questions still exist regarding changes to the IRS‘ case listings that occurred after the IRS learned that the [inspector general] and congressional investigations had begun,” he said. “Based on these changes, which to date remain unexplained, a very real possibility — if not probability — exists that the IRS modified its targeting in light of the investigations, packing its own internal lists of targeted groups to support its preferred narrative, including by adding ideologically diverse groups.”

He said if that did happen, it would have “tainted” the list the IRS has now released.

The IRS declined to comment, saying its filing spoke for itself.

A series of investigations found the IRS did ask intrusive questions and did delay applications for years, in violation of policy. But so far no investigation has found any order from the White House to conduct the targeting.

‘Tea’ and ‘patriot’ groups

 

Sixty of the groups on the list released last month have the word “tea” in their name, 33 have “patriot,” eight refer to the Constitution, and 13 have “912” in their name — which is the monicker of a movement started by conservatives. Another 26 group names refer to “liberty,” though that list does include some groups that are not discernibly conservative in orientation.

Among the groups that appear to trend liberal are three with the word “occupy” in their name.

And then there are some surprising names, including three state or local chapters of the League of Women Voters — a group with a long history of nonprofit work.

Some of the most active and prominent tea party groups snared in the targeting aren’t on the class-action list. At least some of them opted not to be part of the joint legal action to preserve their own lawsuits.

 

Congressional Republicans say IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who was brought in by President Obama to clean up the agency after the targeting scandal, has failed — and even misled Congress during the investigation. Some Republicans are even pursuing impeachment against Mr. Koskinen, accusing him of defying a subpoena for former senior IRS executive Lois G. Lerner’s emails by allowing computer backup tapes to be destroyed.

Even outside of impeachment, the House GOP has proposed a new round of budget cuts for the IRS, aimed at trying to deliver a message that Mr. Koskinen’s tenure has been unacceptable.

And the tax agency is still defending itself in a series of court cases. In addition to the NorCal class action case, the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., is currently considering an appeal by tea party groups who argue the targeting is still going on.

“One thing remains clear: Continued litigation is the only way to force the IRS‘ hand in order to expose its targeting scheme that was coordinated with the help of the DOJ and other federal agencies so that we can obtain justice for those patriotic Americans who were unconstitutionally targeted by their own government,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing some of the plaintiffs in the appeals case.

In yet another case, the conservative group Cause of Action has been pursuing the IRS to turn over documents the group believed would show White House officials requesting secret taxpayer information on conservatives.

But in a filing Friday, the IRS said it has conducted a final search and can’t find any evidence that the White House either asked for or received protected information.

Damn Hillary, What the Heck?

Posted on by

So exactly how does the Hillary team and all her Democrat friends keep defending this? Maybe some questions need to be asked what violations of the Espionage Act is in their respective history.

What does Dianne Feinstein know? Are they emails between George and Amal Clooney and Hillary?

Off the shelf encryption software, unprotected mobile phone calls, text messages on foreign communications networks, and then has anyone asked if she shredded the hardcopies she always asked to be printed and delivered to her personally?

Hillary Clinton posted and shared the names of concealed U.S. intelligence officials on her unprotected email system.

Breitbart: Federal records reveal that Clinton swapped these highly classified names on an email account that was vulnerable to attack and was breached repeatedly by Russia-linked hacker attempts. These new revelations — reminiscent of the Valerie Plame scandal during George W. Bush’s tenure — could give FBI investigators the evidence they need to make a case that Clinton violated the Espionage Act by mishandling national defense information through “gross negligence.”

Numerous names cited in Clinton’s emails have been redacted in State Department email releases with the classification code “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” a highly specialized classification that means the information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence Act of 1949.

The State Department produced a document to Judicial Watch in April 2014 that identifies different types of “(b)(3)” redactions, including “CIA PERS/ORG,” which it defines as information “Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute … Central Intelligence Act of 1949.”

“That’s what it suggests,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Breitbart News, referring to the indication that Clinton disclosed the names of CIA-protected intelligence sources, based on the B3 redactions.

The CIA justifies “(b)(3)” redactions with this description: “(b)(3) Applies to the Director’s statutory obligations to protect from disclosure intelligence sources and methods, as well as the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the Agency, in accord with the National Security Act of 1947 and the CIA Act of 1949, respectively.”

The State Department declined to comment. “Per the colleague who handles this issue, we are not speaking to the content of emails,” State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson told Breitbart News.

 

Here are some examples of (b)(3) redactions;

Naming the defense attaché in Malta

On October 16, 2011, recent U.S. Ambassador to Malta Douglas Kmiec sent an email to Cheryl Mills with the subject line “TIME SENSITIVE AND CONFIDENTIAL – Malta Trip Backgrounder for the Secretary – Confidential.”

Kmiec wrote to Mills, “I know from current events that your life must be a whirlwind. I know that if there ever was someone who could tame the whirlwind, it would be you. Just read the news report of the Secretary’s stop in Malta next week. Thank you for arranging this. This letter and the accompanying clips I believe will help make the Secretary’s visit a highly successful and well received one.”

In the memo, Kmiec revealed the name of a top defense attaché in the country. That name was later classified by the State Department with three different classifications: 1.4 (D) to connote “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the US, including confidential sources,” B1 to connote “Information specifically authorized by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy,” and “B3 CIA PERS/ORG.”

“The largest part of our US team in the embassy is the navy/coast guard/ ncis contingent that has established a Maritime training program with the AFM to good success. The defense attaché there now is new [REDACTED] beloved and hardworking – and to good effect, patrolling the waters and the ports for [illegible] traffickers and terror related figures,” Kmiec wrote.

Mills forwarded the memo directly to Clinton’s private email account at clintonemail.com with the note “Fyi background.”

Clinton replied to Mills and CC’ed Huma Abedin with the confidential information, writing, “I need enough time there to meet. Hague is there today and doing all the right meetings. So, I’m copying Huma to reinforce my desire to squeeze more out of a too quick trip.”

When he sent the memo to Mills, Douglas Kmiec had been out of his Ambassador to Malta job for several months. Kmiec was a big supporter of President Obama. He garnered criticism in a 2011 inspector general report for ignoring directives from Washington and for spending too much time writing articles about religion.

Naming the guest in her office 

On December 15, 2011, Clinton’s office manager Claire Coleman sent out Clinton’s daily schedule to Clinton’s private email account and to Abedin and others.

The schedule included a five-minute Presidential Daily Briefing in the Secretary’s office between 8:35 AM and 8:40 AM.

“Note: Official Photo following w/ [Redacted]” the schedule read, blanking out the name of the person who Clinton was taking a photo with. That redaction was marked “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” in addition to other redactions.

Clinton’s public schedule released for that day begins at 9 AM, after the classified photo op.

Petraeus’ chief of staff

On March 14, 2012, a redacted name sent Cheryl Mills an email with the subject line “URGENT — From Dave Petraeus’s Chief of Staff…”

The sender’s name was marked with a “B3” redaction to connote violation of the CIA statute.

“Dear Cheryl,” the email began, followed by a vast section of redacted material. Those paragraphs were marked with several classifications including “B3 CIA PERS/ORG.”

The email’s closing paragraphs were also marked with B3 redactions.

“Does all of that sound ok to you?” the message continued. “If so, may I please ask you to get word around immediately [B3 Redaction] only in those circumstances where he deems that to be appropriate and the best way forward? Thanks much and cheers, [B3 Redaction].”

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

On September 15, 2012, a B3 redacted name sent an email to Jake Sullivan numerous redacted names with a redacted subject line, most of text redacted, “Per the discussion at Deputies, here are the revised TPs for HPSCI [The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence].”

The email was later forwarded to Clinton, who told an aide, “PLs print.”

“Iran Insights”

On September 2, 2009, Jackie Newmyer of Long Term Strategy Group in Cambridge, Massachusetts sent an email directly to Clinton’s private account with the subject line “Iran Insights From [Redacted]” that included the B3 redaction code:

Secretary Clinton,

Last week I traveled to Israel [REDACTED] in an Iran-related seminar and simulation exercise with the IDF general who is likely to become Israel’s next chief of military intelligence and his team and, separately, [REDACTED]. Yesterday, [REDACTED] Iran workshop in Washington involving DoD and think tank experts. Despite the fact that the meetings were with defense [REDACTED] personnel, there was universal sentiment that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be counterproductive, on the one hand, and that incremental measures would be perceived by Iran as an indication of weakness, on the other.

The email included sensitive information including the following:

If Iran acquires a nuclear capability, no single American/allied countermeasure will be adequate. Something like the “flexible response” posture from the Cold War will be required, necessitating a range of actions from enhancing the US deterrent presence — nuclear submarines carrying ballistic missiles in the Arabian Sea — to bolstering regional actors’ defenses.

Israeli leaders should be able to contain the damage to the Israeli population’s morale from an Iranian bomb, but this will require careful management of public statements. There is a tension between building up support for action against the Iranian nuclear program now and delivering the kind of reassurance that will be necessary once the capability has been acquired.

Clinton replied that she would like to discuss the matter with Jackie.

Jackie replied:

I will be in Washington for a day-long meeting on Thursday this week [B3 REDACTED] and my travel plans are flexible, so I could meet you any time on Wednesday afternoon, after 5 pm on Thursday, or any time on Friday morning. If those times do not work, I would be happy to come down at your convenience.

Clinton and Jake Sullivan then set up a meeting with Jackie.

Naming someone at the ‘Pre-Brief’

On November 11, 2011, Clinton’s special assistant Lona J. Valmoro sent an email directly to Clinton’s private email address with the subject line “Pre-Brief.”

Valmoro wrote:

“MS — Kurt said that he has no reservations about Toria joining the pre-brief so I will confirm.

The manifest for the meeting will be:

Kurt Campbell

Jake Sullivan

Evan Mederios, NSS

Admiral Willard

Kin Moy

Toria Nuland

[REDACTED] per Kurt’s request”

That last name on the list was redacted with “B6” and also “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” classifications.

‘See Traffic’

On March 14, 2012, Mills sent an email to then-U.S. Ambassador to Algeria Henry Ensher with the subject line “Connecting.”

“I hope your visit to DC is going well,” Mills said before writing a chunk of text that is redacted with 1.4 (D), B1, and also “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.

Mills’ redacted text clearly included a name because she then wrote, “B/f I could respond w/our protocol he advised that the matter had been resolved. Can you advise as to what accommodation was worked out?”

Ensher replied, “Sorry. Had not seen this until en route back to post. Accommodation was to have elizabeth go to a dinner meeting, but not the next day session with senior counterpart. Bare objectives of visit were achieved but we blew an opportunity to make the larger point about civ control of mil, which is critical in dealing with algerian leaders.”

Ensher’s next paragraph is redacted with 1.4 (D), B1, and also the “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.

“Good work on com conf. Thx,” Ensher concluded.

After sending another email to Ensher, Mills forwarded the chain to Clinton’s private email account and said “See traffic.”

The departing diplomat

On December 12, 2011, Mills sent an email to Clinton’s private email account with the subject line “FW: Thank you for your time today.”

“[REDACTED] last day is Thursday,” Mills wrote, adding that “Lona” would arrange a photograph for the man with Clinton and his daughter and asking Clinton for feedback on the employee. The redacted portion had a B6 and a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction.

“He did a good job,” Clinton replied.

The Taliban

On March 25, 2012, Jake Sullivan forwarded to Clinton’s private email address a chain involving a meeting involving Pakistan and the Taliban that had a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction in it. The subject line was “Fw: MG-Z in Dushanbe.”

Hill testimony

On January 23, 2013, Mills forwarded to Clinton’s private email address a transcript of Clinton’s testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with the subject line “Fw: Testimony as Prepared for Delivery to SFRC & HFAC.”

The chain included an email that a person with a redacted name sent to Mills saying, “You know, she’s pretty damned good.”

The chain also included an email that Mills sent with the transcript to various people including White House adviser Ben Rhodes and various individuals with redacted names, including two people whose names are blotted out with “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.

CC’s

On July 25, 2010, Jake Sullivan forwarded Clinton a long email chain with the subject line “Fw: Digest from NyTimes and Guardian [Full E-Mail List].”

The highly redacted email chain was at one point forwarded to “[Full E-Mail List]” and includes on multiple occasions an individual whose name is blotted out with a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction.

DHS Approves/Admits 4700 Syrians + 7900?

Posted on by

4,700 Syrian refugees approved resettlement to U.S.: Homeland Security chief

Reuters: The United States has approved 4,700 Syrian refugees who are awaiting resettlement to the country, while an additional 7,900 are awaiting security review, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said on Thursday.

Syrian refugee children play as they wait with their families to register their information at the U.S. processing centre for Syrian refugees, during a media tour held by the U.S. Embassy in Jordan, in Amman, Jordan, April 6, 2016. REUTERS/Muhammad Hamed

Johnson, speaking to a homeland security advisory panel at the Department of Homeland Security, was defending against critics who say the Obama administration is falling behind meeting its goal of bringing in 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country by the end of fiscal year 2016.

Meanwhile:

Sanctioned Syrian Official Invited To D.C. Event Delivers Outrageous Defense Of Assad

There is no moderate opposition and nobody is starving in Syria, according to Bouthaina Shaaban.

HuffPo: WASHINGTON — A panel discussion that had been billed as an effort to create a global alliance to defeat the so-called Islamic State spiraled downward Thursday into a tense two-and-a-half hour event dominated by a top Syrian official who has been sanctioned by the U.S. government. She insisted that her country’s brutal crackdown on its own people is just part of the war on terrorism.

Khaled al-Hariri/Reuters
Bashar Assad spokeswoman Bouthaina Shaaban was invited to speak via Skype despite facing U.S. sanctions.

“There is no such thing as moderate opposition,” Bouthaina Shaaban, spokeswoman for Syrian President Bashar Assad, said during the event hosted by an obscure group called the Global Alliance for Terminating ISIS/al-Qaeda (GAFTA).

In a lengthy pre-recorded speech, which was aired at the National Press Club event, Shaaban blasted Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Western countries for backing Syrian opposition fighters in her country’s civil war. She accused them of directly aiding both the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, and Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda offshoot.

During a subsequent question-and-answer session, Shaaban sparred with reporters via Skype, dismissing accusations that the Assad regime had blocked humanitarian groups from delivering food to besieged areas of Syria and had aided ISIS by releasing its members from prison and purchasing oil from the terrorist group.

“It is a very fertile land. Nobody is starving in Daraya,” Shaaban said, despite well-documented reports of the Assad regime’s “surrender or starve” tactics in areas like Daraya and Madaya.

In 2011, the U.S. sanctioned Shaaban, along with Assad and a handful of other regime officials, in response to the Syrian government’s violent repression of its people. The sanctions froze any assets the officials had in the U.S. and prohibited Americans from providing “financial, material, or technological support” to them.

It is unclear whether GAFTA, a Florida-based nonprofit, violated the sanctions by hosting Shaaban electronically. Ghassan Mansour, GAFTA’s treasurer, claimed that the group did not know about the sanctions until the day before the event.

A Treasury spokeswoman declined to comment on the specific case, only vaguely suggesting that the arrangement could be problematic. “Transactions with designated persons are generally prohibited,” she told The Huffington Post.

GAFTA founder Ahmad Maki Kubba, speaking at the event, defended the invitation to Shaaban as part of an effort to hear from all parties involved in the fight against ISIS and claimed that the group has no allegiance to either side. But the Thursday discussion was decidedly one-sided, and there are indications that GAFTA itself is sympathetic to Assad and his allies.

The organization’s Facebook page contains numerous news stories that frame the Assad regime and its ally Russia in a flattering light. Mansour himself was previously accused by the U.S. Department of Justice of participating in a money-laundering operation to aid the Lebanese militia group Hezbollah, which has fought on behalf of Assad in Syria. Mansour denies the 2011 allegation.

“We are not associated with [Shaaban] or anybody,” he told HuffPost in a phone interview. “We’re trying to fight an evil. Is there sanctions against that?”

 

In the lead-up to the panel discussion, critics of the Assad regime accused GAFTA of providing a propaganda platform for a top-level Syrian official in violation of the spirit of the sanctions, if not the law itself.

“The point of sanctioning someone is to change their behavior, isolate them and force them to reconsider the actions they were taking. This is not in line with that,” one House Republican aide said of inviting Shaaban.

Mansour said his group has reached out to members of Congress but has had little luck securing meetings in Washington.

 

Others accused GAFTA of undermining the United Nations-led peace process by giving Assad’s spokeswoman a direct line to a U.S. audience. “She is regularly the one who speaks for the regime,” said Joseph Bahout, a visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “She’s been propagandizing, denying the use of chemical weapons, denying massacres.”

Bahout rejected GAFTA’s argument that hearing from the Syrian regime at Thursday’s event was part of an effort to resolve the civil war.

“I’m sorry to be blunt, but this is the classical, usual bullshit used every time someone is trying to open a channel with the regime. If you want to negotiate with the regime, there are proper channels in Geneva,” Bahout said, referring to the U.N.-led talks.

 

The Syrian American Council, a U.S.-based group that has lobbied for more support for the Syrian opposition, said that it had pushed the National Press Club to remove Shaaban from the event, but as of Wednesday evening, had not heard back from Bill McCarren, executive director of the club. McCarren also did not respond to a request for comment from HuffPost.

“This is supposed to be about combating ISIS, and the Assad regime is directly responsible for not only fueling the rise of ISIS, but for supporting it financially through lucrative oil deals,” said Mohammed Ghanem, director of government relations for the Syrian American Council. “It’s unacceptable for a prestigious venue such as the National Press Club to be turned into a platform to spew propaganda.”

Pigs Fly, the UN Finally Admitted Global Sex Violence/Trafficking

Posted on by

Related reading: Child Sex Tourism
Alaska Man Receives Prison Term for Crimes Committed in Cambodia

Remarks at a UN Security Council Open Debate on Women Peace and Security: Sexual Violence in Conflict

Ambassador Michele J. Sison
U.S. Deputy Representative to the United Nations
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
New York City
June 2, 2016

AS DELIVERED

Thank you very much, Monsieur le Président, for chairing and organizing this open debate and for including the perspectives of civil society in our discussion. And thank you, also, Mr. Secretary-General, for your briefing and your leadership on this critical issue.

Special Representative Bangura, Special Rapporteur Giammarinaro, and Ms. Davis, thank you, as well, for your statements.

This Council has long recognized that sexual and gender-based violence not only abuses and violates the human rights of its victims, but also undermines the security, livelihood, and health of nations by suppressing survivors’ participation in civic, social, political, and economic life.

We have put in place many tools for countering conflict-related sexual violence inflicted by state and non-state armed groups, for improving accountability and bringing perpetrators to justice, and for documenting violations against marginalized groups of victims – including women and girls, men and boys, ethnic and religious minorities, and LGBTI individuals. But we must do a better job making use of these tools.

We commend Special Representative Bangura for her energetic efforts to translate the Council’s resolutions into real, on-the-ground action. Her work with the national militaries of the Democratic Republic of Congo and with armed groups on both sides of the conflict in South Sudan to help develop structures to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions has been particularly noteworthy. We also applaud her efforts to support the investigation of the 2009 Stadium Massacre in Guinea.

In addition to the Special Representative’s efforts, we value the work done by the Team of Experts on Rule of Law and Sexual Violence in Conflict, which has assisted countries in the areas of investigations and prosecution, in strengthening legal frameworks, and in ensuring protection of victims and witnesses.

However, significant challenges remain in countering sexual violence in conflict – especially when it comes to holding non-state armed groups and their partners and associates accountable for their crimes.

In resolution 2242, the Council recognized the nexus between sexual violence, terrorism, violent extremism – which can be conducive to terrorism. We have seen steady growth in the use of sexual violence against women and men, girls and boys, by terrorists not only in Iraq and Syria, but also in Somalia, Nigeria, and Mali. Non-state armed groups like ISIL use sexual violence in a pre-meditated and systemic way to recruit fighters, raise money, and intimidate and demoralize communities in order to consolidate their hold over territory.

Resolutions 2199 and 2253 not only strongly condemn such acts by ISIL, al-Qaida, and their associates, but also work to strengthen accountability by encouraging all state and non-state actors with evidence to bring it to the attention of the Council.

The 1267 Committee represents a vital tool for us to punish perpetrators, since any individual who makes funds or other financial and economic resources available to ISIL and other terrorist groups in connection with sexual violence is eligible for designation in the 1267 sanctions regime.

We must make full use of these tools, as noted by Special Rapporteur Giammarinaro, we also need to do more to protect displaced women and girls whose heightened vulnerability puts them at increased risk of sexual violence and trafficking.

Over the past year, we’ve seen the continuation of mass migration from Syria, Iraq, and the Horn of Africa. Reports of smugglers demanding sex as “payment of passage” are rampant, and part of a global surge in human trafficking. And with reference to Ms. Davis’ intervention, that’s why last month at the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul, the United States announced an additional $10 million dollar contribution to the “Safe from Start” Initiative to prevent and respond to gender-based violence in emergency situations.

The United States urges all Member States to condemn these crimes and those who commit them; to properly document the horrors, so that one day those responsible can be held accountable; to commit to ending the conflicts that provide an ideal climate for human traffickers; and to commit to eradicating the groups that use human trafficking and conflict-related sexual violence as a weapon of war. Member States must also work to ensure that labor practices – such as charging workers recruitment fees that can lead to debt bondage – do not contribute to human trafficking. We must teach people how to actually see the victims of trafficking. We must also make our resources for victims more victim- and survivor-centered, incorporating victims and survivors into the policy-making process to yield better solutions.

A further challenge, of course, is the lack of global documentation of the phenomenon of sexual and gender-based violence against all vulnerable communities, including those which are too often forgotten in this discourse: LGBTI individuals, as well as men and boys. These individuals are not only at a heightened risk of facing harassment, abuse, sexual violence by armed groups due to discriminatory social norms and attitudes, but they also face a strong stigma against reporting abuses.

We commend the Secretary-General for highlighting the victimization of men and boys; the UN and Member States must more fully embrace a gender-inclusive approach in sexual violence and gender-based violence programming. There is scant documentation with little understanding of the patterns, prevalence, and severity of conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence against males as compared to sexual and gender-based violence against girls and women.

In addition, the absence of targeted services for male victims not only fails to address the needs of boys and men, but could also contribute to the problem of underreporting. Now bilateral efforts to counter conflict-related sexual violence and to improve accountability and documentation, of course, are also crucial.

In 2014, the United States launched the “Accountability Initiative” to support the development of specialized justice sector mechanisms to improve access to justice for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. We remain committed to strengthening efforts to protect all people from harm, exploitation, discrimination, abuse, gender-based violence, and trafficking, and we must hold perpetrators accountable – especially in conflict-affected environments as all of the speakers have noted to us.

The United States has also committed nearly $40 million for support to victims of sexual violence in conflict, including in Nigeria, where the United States supports UN agencies, community groups, and local non-governmental organizations that provide health care services, including appropriate psychosocial counseling for women and children who have survived Boko Haram’s horrific campaign.

However, we recognize that support programs are not enough. To combat sexual violence in conflict, women must have a seat at the table in resolving conflicts. Empowered women provide powerful antidotes to violent extremism and have critical contributions to make at every level of our struggle against sexual violence in conflict. We also need women in uniform to rebuild trust between law enforcement and communities; female corrections officers and female counselors to reach out to female inmates who are on the path to radicalization; and women legislators to support more inclusive public policies that address the unique grievances that drive individuals to terrorism.

As Secretary of State Kerry has said, fighting the scourge of sexual violence requires all of these tools, including UN Security Council resolutions, better reporting, and support to survivors. It especially requires holding criminals accountable, and ending impunity. Instead of shaming the survivors, we must punish the perpetrators, and we must be ready to support and empower the survivors as they work to rebuild their lives.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Judge Orders More Hillary Emails to be Released

Posted on by

Judge orders Obama administration to release new Clinton emails

TheHill: A federal judge has ordered the Obama administration to release new emails connected to Hillary Clinton before Democratic National Convention in July.

In an order late on Wednesday, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson told the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to hand over to the Republican National Committee (RNC) whatever records it could as part of an RNC’s open-records lawsuit on July 11.

After that, USAID will need to consult with the State Department about hundreds of other pages of documents, which could be released at some point in the future.

The RNC sued the aid agency in March, seeking two sets of communications: those between USAID officials and former aides at the State Department, as well as those between USAID and private domain names associated with Clinton, former President Bill Clinton and others including the Clinton Foundation. The effort appeared to be related to allegations that the former secretary of State’s family foundation had undue influence on USAID.

The RNC lawsuit was one of several it has filed seeking records connected to Clinton, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, in a preview of a battle sure to last through the general election.

Before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, USAID has claimed that it has discovered approximately 3,300 pages of records that it might be able to hand over to the Republican Party organization. But roughly 2,600 of those reportedly need to be cleared with the State Department before they can be released.

In her order on Wednesday, Jackson said USAID should release to the RNC what it can by July 11 and determine a schedule for releasing the rest.

The time frame would put the release of the first batch of emails just one week before the Republican National Convention in Cleveland on July 18 and two weeks before the Democratic convention begins on July 25.

Critics of Clinton, however, will likely be wary of the State Department, which is notoriously slow at responding to Freedom of Information Act requests and has been buried underneath a barrage of demands related to Clinton’s email history in recent months.

Separately late on Wednesday, the Obama administration filed a motion trying to kill a different RNC open-records lawsuit targeting the State Department. That suit is seeking email messages from a slew of Clinton’s former top aides.

***** 

WashingtonTimes: Hillary Clinton used a personal email account for official business during her tenure in the U.S. Senate and carried the practice over once she was at the helm of the State Department, an aide to the presumptive Democratic nominee for president said in sworn testimony released Tuesday.

Cheryl Mills, Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff during the White House hopeful’s four-year stint with the State Department, said her former boss relied on a personal email account provided by AT&T for about three months after being sworn in as secretary of state by President Obama in January 2009.

“Secretary Clinton continued a practice that she was using of [sic] her personal email,” Ms. Mills testified Friday, according to a transcript of her remarks released this week by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group currently suing the State Dept. over Mrs. Clinton’s use of a nongovernmental email system while in office.

Ms. Mills’ admission comes amid an active FBI probe launched to investigate Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email account while secretary of state, in addition to the Judicial Watch lawsuit. Leaked emails released to the media in 2013 first indicated that Mrs. Clinton used an account hosted at “clintonemail.com” in lieu of a government-provided account, raising questions regarding security concerns and, as argued by some, possible efforts to conceal correspondence from Freedom of Information Act requests.

As revealed through Friday’s sworn testimony, however, Mrs. Clinton relied on a separate, nongovernmental account through as late as April 2009 before she abandoned her AT&T account and began communicating through the clintonemail.com account.

“So Secretary Clinton used — always used one email account when she was using an email account,” Ms. Mills testified. “So when she initially arrived [at the State Dept.] she was continuing to use the AT&T accounts, and then transitioned to the .Clinton email, or Clintonemail.com account. And during her tenure those were the two addresses, if you will, that she used.”

“I don’t know that I could articulate that there was a specific discussion as opposed to her continuation of the practice she had been using when she was a senator. … I don’t have a specific memory of the conversations that may or may not have occurred. I know that I understood she was going to be using her personal email and that’s what she did,” Ms. Mills testified.

Christopher Soghoian, the principal technologist at the American Civil Liberties Union, tweeted Wednesday that Mrs. Clinton’s was likely not the only lawmaker on Capitol Hill to use personal email accounts for official business, but said it nevertheless poses “a huge cybersecurity problem.”

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, acknowledged last year that his personal Gmail address is listed on his congressional business card in lieu of a government-provided email account, but explained to ABC News at the time that members of Congress are not subject to the Federal Records Act.

Mr. Chaffetz, who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform, has overseen the federal investigation concerning the 2011 terrorist attack in Benghazi, and he has been among the most vocal critics in Congress with respect to Mrs. Clinton’s use of a personal email account in communicating official business in the immediate aftermath of the assault.