Russian Govt Hackers broke into DNC, Stole Trump Oppo

Posted on June 14, 2016June 29, 2016 by Denise Simon

They have been inside for a year.

Last month May, ODNI James Clapper already testified to this.

The director of national intelligence on Wednesday said officials had seen signs of attempted cyberattacks on 2016 presidential campaigns.

“We’ve already had some indications of that,” James R. Clapper Jr. said at a cyber-event at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.

He did not indicate whether the attempted intrusions were successful or whether they were by foreign or domestic hackers. Nor did he specify whether the websites or campaign networks of Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders or Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump were targeted.

“We’re aware that campaigns and related organizations and individuals are targeted by actors with a variety of motivations — from philosophical differences to espionage — and capabilities — from defacements to intrusions,” said Brian P. Hale, director of public affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. “We defer to FBI for specific incidents.” More here from WaPo.

Russian government hackers broke into DNC servers, stole Trump oppo

The hackers had access to the information for approximately one year.

Politico: Russian government hackers broke into the computer systems of the Democratic National Committee and accessed information about Democratic candidates as well as a database on opposition research against Donald Trump, POLITICO has confirmed.

The Washington Post first reported on Tuesday that the DNC was aware of suspicious activity in April; within 24 hours of the first signals that something was amiss, cyber firm CrowdStrike was brought in to install monitoring software to analyze the details of who was responsible.

The hackers had access to the information for approximately one year but were all cleared out over the last weekend, the Post reported, noting that the DNC said that no personal, financial or donor information had been accessed or taken.

“The security of our system is critical to our operation and to the confidence of the campaigns and state parties we work with,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the DNC chairwoman, in a statement. “When we discovered the intrusion, we treated this like the serious incident it is and reached out to CrowdStrike immediately. Our team moved as quickly as possible to kick out the intruders and secure our network.”

A spokesman for the Russian Embassy told the Post that he had no knowledge of the hacking.

Shawn Henry, the president of CrowdStrike, told MSNBC moments after the story broke that the DNC was “very responsive” to the hack.

“They immediately recognized and had a high degree of urgency that this was important by calling us in,” Henry said. “The key piece is moving towards remediation. How are we able to quickly kind of stop the flow of intelligence that’s leaving that network and move the attackers off the network and provide the organization, allow them to build a network that is free from this type of tools that the Russians had put on to the network.”

Henry, former executive assistant director at the FBI, said the DNC contacted his organization through their legal counsel.

“We deployed certain pieces of technology that we use to try to get some visibility into the extent, the depth and breadth of this particular breach. In the course of this, working very closely with the I.T. staff of the DNC, we were able to identify with a very high degree of confidence a group that we have attributed back to the Russian government targeting that DNC network,” Henry said. “We know with certainty my time in the bureau and now at Crowd Strike that foreign intelligence services are constantly interested in political processes. They’re interested in strategies. They’re interested in foreign policy, et cetera. And the DNC and other NGOs that have been targeted over the years by this very, very sophisticated group with a high degree of capability and some very, very sophisticated technology.”

Disgusting: Democrats Walk During Moment of Silence

Posted on June 14, 2016June 14, 2016 by Denise Simon

6 victims remain in intensive care.

Democrats shout down Paul Ryan after Orlando shooting moment of silence

CBS: Shouting erupted Monday evening on the House floor after a moment of silence for the victims of the Orlando massacre as Democrats demanded that the House consider gun control legislation.

After the brief moment of silence that Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, called for, Democrats began shouting from one side of the chamber, interrupting Ryan. Ryan’s office only tweeted out a clip of the moment of silence, but not the shouting that followed.

The House just observed a moment of silence in memory of those killed in the terrorist attack in #Orlando.https://t.co/MqS94hk68V

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) June 13, 2016

“Where’s the bill?” Democrats shouted, referring to gun control legislation.

Amid the shouting, Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn, D-South Carolina, tried to seek recognition.

“I am really concerned that we have just today had a moment of silence and later this week the 17th…,” Clyburn said, as he was interrupted by Ryan who then asked if he was a posing a parliamentary inquiry.

“Yes, Mr. Speaker,” Clyburn said. “I am particularly interested about three pieces of legislation that have been filed in response to Charleston.”

Clyburn was referring to the anniversary this Saturday of the Charleston shooting massacre that left nine parishioners dead in a South Carolina church last year. One of the bills Democrats want the House to consider would close the “Charleston loophole, which is how the shooter in Charleston obtained a gun. The FBI performs background checks on gun buyers on South Carolina and if the check isn’t denied or completed in three days, the gun seller can sell the guy to the prospective buyer. The other pieces of legislation would prevent people who are on the FBI’s no-fly list from purchasing guns and one would ban anyone convicted of a hate crime from buying firearms, according to a leadership aide.

Ryan, however, ignored Clyburn and called for the House to continue voting. According to the speaker’s office, Clyburn was out of order under House rules and was not making a proper motion or inquiry.

“It’s shameful that anyone would try to use a moment of silence honoring victims of a brutal terrorist attack to advance their own political agenda,” Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong said.

We just observed a moment of silence for the #Orlando victims. Then @SpeakerRyan refused to act to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists.

— Rep. Ted Deutch (@RepTedDeutch) June 13, 2016

Some Democrats said that they didn’t want to participate in the moment of silence at all.

Why I’m refusing the moment of silence. #NoMoreSilence Read: https://t.co/pSKUie0jVk pic.twitter.com/NTnFEokK3r

— Katherine Clark (@RepKClark) June 13, 2016

The victims of #Orlando deserve more than a moment of silence from Congress. They deserve moments of courage & action. #WheresTheBill

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) June 13, 2016

Jim HimesVerified account ‏@jahimes Jun 12

I will not attend one more”Moment of Silence” on the Floor. Our silence does not honor the victims, it mocks them.

Seth MoultonVerified account ‏@sethmoulton 14h14 hours ago

So I’m joining @jahimes in not attending any more House “Moments of Silence” for mass shooting victims. Walked out of my first one tonight.

***** Tuesday, Obama holds a large national security council meeting to discuss terror attacks.

Taking part in the NSC meeting now underway at @USTreasury per WH:pic.twitter.com/0TAFys8gJg

#RedNationRising

Militant Islam, Obama Admin Forbidden Terms

Posted on June 14, 2016June 14, 2016 by Denise Simon

A distinction needs to be made. Radical extremists are for the force multipliers, those like Anwar al Awlaki. The militants like Mohammed Emwazi are born from the radicals and they are the deadly enforcers of the Islamic doctrine and Sharia.

Don’t blame the FBI for failures, with particular regard to the worst terror attack in American by a gunman, Orlando. Blame the White House. All the Q&A sessions, congressional testimony and press briefings by FBI Director James Comey have had an underlying message, a cry for help, attention and support.

Don’t blame the intelligence community including CENTCOM and the Pentagon for battlefield or rules of engagement failures. That belongs to the entire White House national security team. The Office of National Intelligence has also been affected.

This is not political correctness at all, it is a Barak Obama edict, sensitivity to Islam across our homeland and across the globe. Obama has had a strident mission since he assumed the Oval Office to create a Muslim protective shield. This is beyond dispute.

While not in any chronological order, there are some very key decisions that were made and continue to be made by the Obama administration that affect our national security and this generational war titled the Overseas Contingency Operation.

In April of 2009, Barak Obama delivered ‘The New Beginnings’ speech. In this presentation he spelled out his full agenda in what was to become the long-term mission to elevate Muslims and their organizations at home and globally. The White House objectives have been successful and consequential.

With the new beginning announced, Obama extended his same purpose throughout government agencies, law enforcement and policies as a mandatory doctrine.

‘Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to “connect dots.” Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.’ Philip Haney, The Hill.

Directly after the 9/11 attack, the Bush administration did reach out to the Muslim communities to determine who was with peace and national security and who perhaps gave clues of a larger and hidden condition that could be festering that would prove clues to more domestic security challenges.

Then came the Holyland Foundation trial in 2007/2008. The material facts and conditions of the domestic threat, people, money, collaboration and global consequence all converged in a courtroom in Texas.

During the Holy Land trial, FBI Agent Lara Burns testified in court that CAIR was a front for HAMAS. One trial exhibit submitted by federal prosecutors – and stipulated to by the defense in the case – explained that these organizations were dedicated to a “civilizational-jihadist process” to destroy America from within and replace the Constitution with sharia (Islamic law):

The Ikhwah [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions. (p. 21)

Federal prosecutors specifically cited this internal Muslim Brotherhood planning document as the strategic goal of these U.S.-based Islamic groups – the very same group advising the Obama Administration. The federal judge in the Holy Foundation case agreed with the case presented by the federal prosecutors had made regarding these organizations, stating in one ruling that “the Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations with CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF…and with HAMAS.” (p. 14-15) More important details here from the CounterjihadReport.

The Department of Justice under Eric Holder was included in the full protection of the terror networks and associated people. Congressman Gohmert of Texas challenged AG Holder to no avail in a chilling exchange.

Here is where the ‘words matter’ material documentation began. The Obama administration took this agenda to new standard.

In 2009, DHS published via the Office of Intelligence and Analysis Assessment a ‘Rightwing Extremism’ document, pinpointing those that may challenge the Obama Muslim doctrine. Additionally, DHS posted The Department of Homeland Security launched a ‘Do’s and Dont’s bulletin.

The entire complexion of the Department of Homeland Security began to change with new personnel and outreach under Secretary Janet Napolitano. The outreach extended to law enforcement agencies of which LAPD demonstrates.

The order to purge documents, training materials and database was made. The proof is here.

Barak Obama was not finished. In 2015, the White House introduced a strategy for CVE, Counter Violent Extremism.

Then comes the foreign policy of Obama. All deference to Iran began before Obama assumed the White House in 2009 and continues today. Secret back channels to Iran using Ambassador Burns began in 2008. Further, there is Iraq and Syria with Islamic State. Documents here on ISIS prove the intelligence and forecasts were known, available and delivered.

This would not be complete without mentioning China, Russia or North Korea where policies are non-existent.

The Paris attack was a slaughter and Obama found it wise to snub the solidarity march with other world leaders.

Obama touted Yemen as one of his successes but the country collapsed. Finally, the Obama policy doctrine crumbled and the cause was fully explained here. Obama wilfully recoiled as he and Hillary did on Benghazi.

It really no longer matters that Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton or John Kerry refuse to use key terms to describe militant Islam, the entire well verse and informed world have defined it for them. What does matter beyond the words are the policies and refusals of missions, strategies and conditions to keep America, her interests and allies safe.

It is no wonder there is no global respect for the Obama administration and there is much less to fear from her.

In summary, Obama owns this terror, owns this jihad and owns the death as well as the genocide. This is his legacy, he owns it as his own scarlet letter.

Post Sandy Hook Gun Laws to Judges

Posted on June 13, 2016June 13, 2016 by Denise Simon

Post-Sandy Hook Gun Laws to Reach Justices Days After Orlando Shooting

Second Circuit upheld Connecticut restrictions on military-style rifles. But justices haven’t shown a recent interest in gun cases.

NationalLawJournal: With the worst mass shooting in American history in the background, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 16 will take its first look at a challenge to Connecticut’s ban on military-style firearms. But as past actions show, the justices may have little interest in revisiting Second Amendment disputes, including the regulation of the AR-15-style weapon reportedly used in the Orlando shootings that killed at least 50 people at a night club.

Since its landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, the high court has declined numerous requests by gun rights advocates to examine the scope of protection for firearms—from concealed carry bans to open carry and guns on campus.

One possible reason? Lower courts have largely been uniform in upholding firearm restrictions. Jonathan Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told The National Law Journal last year that the circuit courts haven’t split on any significant issues.

In the Connecticut case, Shew v. Malloy, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and others challenged a law the state passed in the aftermath of the 2012 mass killing of 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut. The shooter, Adam Lanza, fired 154 rounds in less than five minutes from an AR-15 military-style rifle.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the challenged provisions in October.

The Supreme Court last year was presented a chance to take up a Chicago suburb’s assault-weapon ban. In December, the court, with justices Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia dissenting, denied review in Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois. The decision left in place a Seventh Circuit ruling that upheld the city’s ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

Highland Park defined an “assault weapon” as a semiautomatic firearm with one of five specific features and with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition. A large capacity magazine is an “ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” according to the ordinance.

Thomas dissented from the denial of review. He said the Heller decision asks “whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns.”

Thomas said Highland Park’s ban “is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.”

California, Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Hawaii, have bans similar to Highland Park’s law.

In June 2015, with Thomas and Scalia again dissenting, the justices declined to review Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco. The Ninth Circuit in that case upheld certain restrictions on handguns kept in the home.

The Ninth Circuit acted again on June 10 in Peruta v. County of San Diego, holding there is no Second Amendment right for private citizens to carry concealed weapons in public.

The Connecticut case that the justices have scheduled for their June 16 conference was filed by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and others. They are represented by the same lawyers who brought the Illinois challenge—including David Thompson of Washington’s Cooper & Kirk.

Thompson argues the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller applies to firearms “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

Under Heller’s reasoning, he said, “law-abiding citizens also must be permitted to use the arms at issue in this case, which include AR-15s, the nation’s most popular semi-automatic rifles.”

Opposing review, Connecticut Assistant Attorney General Maura Osborne argued: “There is no disagreement among the lower courts on the question in this case. Indeed, the lower courts that have fully and finally considered whether a state may prohibit access to assault weapons have universally concluded that states may do so.”

Maryland regulations under review

Gun rights advocates and their opponents are closely watching a Maryland case that could create a division among circuit courts.

On May 11, the full Fourth Circuit considered the constitutionality of Maryland’s ban on certain semiautomatic weapons. Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, like Connecticut’s regulations, passed in the wake of the 2012 Newtown elementary school shootings. The law also prohibits magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

A three-judge panel in Kolbe v. Hogan ruled in February that the state ban imposed a “substantial” burden on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. It vacated a district court decision that upheld the ban. The appellate panel directed the trial court to apply “strict scrutiny,” a high standard that requires the government to prove a restriction “furthers a compelling interest” and it not overly broad.

“Let’s be real: The assault weapons banned by Maryland’s [Firearm Safety Act] are exceptionally lethal weapons of war,” Fourth Circuit Judge Robert King wrote in a dissent that supported the trial judge. “In fact, the most popular of the prohibited semiautomatic rifles, the AR-15, functions almost identically to the military’s fully automatic M16.”

A decision by the full Fourth Circuit is pending.

Read More:

Thomas Objects as Justices Turn Away Challenge to Assault-Weapon Ban

A Liberal Court Could Limit Reach of ‘Heller’

Second Circuit Largely Upholds Weapon Restrictions in Connecticut, New York

Split Ninth Circuit Rejects Concealed Carry Right in Gun Case

Florida Supreme Court Takes On Open-Carry Case

The Long Push to Get Another High-Court Gun Ruling

In Wake of Oregon Shooting, Don’t Expect Gun Makers to Pay

POTUS, No Executive Order to Close Gitmo

Posted on June 13, 2016June 13, 2016 by Denise Simon

Official offers details on Gitmo detainees who kill more Americans

An official who spoke to CNN Thursday put the numbers at fewer than 15 who went on to attack Americans or coalition forces in Afghanistan. The number of Americans killed in these attacks is believed to be in the single digits, according to the U.S. official, who is familiar with the matter.

“Because many of these incidents were large-scale firefights in a war zone, we cannot always distinguish whether Americans were killed by the former detainees or by others in the same fight,” the official said. More here.

USN: The White House was unable to come up with a strong legal strategy for executive action in this case, as the White House teams did in the cases of gun control and immigration executive orders, even though Obama serves as commander-in-chief and the office that he occupies traditionally has wider latitude in military matters. Obama sent a closure plan to Congress in February.

Report: Obama Administration Is ‘Not Pursuing’ an Executive Order to Close Guantanamo

TheBlaze: The Obama administration is not planning to use an executive order to close the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after officials determined that such an order would not be a “viable” strategy, “sources familiar with the deliberations” told Reuters.

According to Reuters, the decision “narrows the already slim chances that President Barack Obama can fulfill his pledge to close the notorious offshore prison before leaving office in January.”

While campaigning for president in 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama promised to close the controversial facility if elected. Earlier this year, the president announced a plan to close the facility that was met with opposition in Congress.

The source told Reuters that the administration won’t pursue an executive order to close the facility, although the president is eager to close the prison.

“It was just deemed too difficult to get through all of the hurdles that they would need to get through, and the level of support they were likely to receive on it was thought to be too low to generate such controversy, particularly at a sensitive (time) in an election cycle.”

Myles Caggins, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, told Reuters, “The administration’s goal is to work with Congress to find a solution to close Guantanamo.”

Related reading: Obama Submitted the Plan to Close Gitmo, Rejected

Related from the White House in 2011:

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 7, 2011

FACT SHEET: NEW ACTIONS ON GUANTANAMO AND DETAINEE POLICY