Justice Dept. Refuses to Comply With Court Order

Posted on February 4, 2016February 4, 2016 by Denise Simon

The excuses are stupid…

Justice Dept. Fights Subpoenas for Bank Records About Russian Assets

Visitors look through books before Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to the library of the Schneerson family of Hasidic rabbis in the Jewish Museum in Moscow, Thursday, June 13, 2013. The vast collection of Jewish books and documents is the focus of a dispute between Moscow and Washington.

Photo: Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP

Updated at 1:10 p.m.

The U.S. Department of Justice is fighting efforts by a Jewish group to subpoena banks for information about assets owned by the Russian Federation, which owes more than $43 million in sanctions for rebuffing a U.S. judge’s order to return a collection of religious texts.

In papers filed on Wednesday night, the Justice Department warned that allowing lawyers for Agudas Chasidei Chabad of the United States to subpoena information about Russian assets from five financial institutions—JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and Computershare—could harm U.S. foreign policy interests. The subpoenas seek information about accounts that belong to the Russian government and to individuals, including President Vladimir Putin.

“Such efforts are antithetical to the goal of securing the return of the collection to Chabad, open the doors to reciprocal measures being taken against the United States by Russia, and would be out of step with international practice such that they could cause considerable friction with other foreign governments,” the Justice Department wrote.

The U.S. government supports Chabad’s claim to the Schneerson Collection—more than 12,000 books and manuscripts seized in Russia in the early 20th century, and 25,000 pages of texts stolen by the Nazis and then taken as war loot by the Soviet Red Army. Chabad has fought in court for the return of the collection for more than a decade. The Russian government stopped participating in the litigation in 2009.

The Justice Department has opposed efforts by Chabad’s lawyers to pursue Russian assets to force compliance with a 2010 court ruling that ordered Russia to return the collection to Chabad.

Steven Lieberman, a partner at Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck and a lead attorney for Chabad, said in a joint statement with lawyers from Lewin & Lewin in Washington that the Justice Department was “simply trying to re-litigate an issue it has already lost.”

“We are reviewing the government’s position, and we will consider asking [the judge] to take appropriate steps to ensure that our efforts to identify Russian assets will proceed without further interference,” Lieberman said. “However, it is shocking that the Departments of Justice and State now appear to be representing Russian interests more aggressively than their private counsel ever did.”

In 2013, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington—over the Justice Department’s objections—entered a civil contempt order against Russia that included a fine of $50,000 per day. In September 2015, Lamberth entered a judgment for Chabad for $43.7 million, the sanctions total at the time.

With the judgment on record, Chabad’s lawyers ramped up their search for Russian assets in the United States. They subpoenaed the five financial institutions in December.

The Justice Department argues that even with Lamberth’s sanctions order in place, the court wouldn’t be allowed under federal law to actually enforce it. And if the court can’t enforce its order, the government said, Chabad shouldn’t be allowed to subpoena information or otherwise use the court system to investigate Russian assets that it can’t attach.

“The sanctions judgment at issue here … while resulting from Russia’s noncompliance with a default judgment ordering it to return certain property to Chabad, does not in and of itself grant any property rights to Chabad. Instead, it simply sanctions Russia for its noncompliance with the court’s specific performance order,” the Justice Department wrote.

In a Feb. 2 letter included in the government’s court papers from Katherine McManus, deputy legal adviser at the U.S. Department of State, to Justice Department Civil Division Principal Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Mizer, McManus wrote that the Chabad case had already created diplomatic problems.

“For several years, senior Russian officials have regularly raised this litigation with their U.S. counterparts. They have done so more frequently, and at higher levels, since the issuance of the district court’s sanctions order,” McManus wrote. The sanctions order and efforts to enforce it would only hurt efforts to negotiate the return of the Schneerson Collection, she added.

More broadly, the Justice Department said in its court papers that if Chabad were allowed to conduct “sweeping discovery” into Russian assets, it would create “friction” with other foreign governments and risk similar orders being entered against the United States abroad. The U.S. last year was granted immunity from contempt sanctions in a Spanish court, the Justice Department noted.

“Any constraint placed on property of the Russian entities named in the subpoenas in the context of this case would isolate the United States in the international community and raise doubts about the United States’ respect for other foreign sovereigns,” the government argued.

Updated with comment from Chabad’s lawyers.

Price of Gas at the Pump too Low, Barack’s Proposal

Posted on February 4, 2016February 4, 2016 by Denise Simon

Obama to call for $10-per-barrel oil tax to fund clean transport

FNC: President Obama will propose a $10 fee for every barrel of oil to be paid by oil companies in order to fund clean energy transport system, the White House announced Thursday — although Republicans were quick to declare the plan “dead on arrival” in Congress.

The fee would be phased in over five years and would provide $20 billion per year for traffic reduction, investment in transit systems and other modes of transport such as high-speed rail, the White House said. It would also offer $10 billion to encourage investment in clean transport at the regional level.

Obama is expected to formalize the proposal Tuesday when he releases his final budget request to Congress. However, the proposal immediately faced resistance from Republicans.

“Once again, the president expects hardworking consumers to pay for his out of touch climate agenda,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement, arguing it would lead to higher energy prices and hurt poor Americans.

Ryan went on to describe Obama’s plan as “dead on arrival” in Congress.

“The good news is this plan is little more than an election-year distraction. As this lame-duck president knows, it’s dead on arrival in Congress, because House Republicans are committed to affordable American energy and a strong U.S. economy,” Ryan said.

The White House claims the added cost of gasoline would incentivize the private sector to reduce the reliance on oil and to increase investment in clean energy technology.

The plan also saw opposition from advocates for the oil industry, who warned it would only harm consumers.

“The White House thinks Americans are not paying enough for gasoline, so they have proposed a new tax that could raise the cost of gasoline by 25 cents a gallon, harm consumers that are enjoying low energy prices, destroy American jobs and reverse America’s emergence as a global energy leader,” API President and CEO Jack Gerard:

“On his way out of office, President Obama has now proposed making the United States less competitive.” Gerard said.

*****

In part from Bloomberg: With the proceeds targeted to transportation and climate initiatives, the proposal announced Thursday deepens Obama’s environmental credentials and signifies his ambitions to aggressively push action on climate change during his final year in office.

“By placing a fee on oil, the president’s plan creates a clear incentive for private-sector innovation to reduce our reliance on oil and at the same time invests in clean energy technologies that will power our future,” the White House said in a statement.

It is unclear who, exactly would pay the tax if it were to pass, and how it would be structured. White House officials repeatedly stressed that the fee would fall on oil companies, but said it wouldn’t be charged at the wellhead and they look forward to working with Congress on the details.

The fee, which drew swift objections from oil industry groups and Republicans, is part of a broader administration plan to shift the nation away from transportation systems reliant on internal combustion engines and fossil fuels. The proposal envisions investing $20 billion to reduce traffic and improve commuting, $10 billion for state and local transportation and climate programs and $2 billion for research on clean vehicles and aircraft.

Environmentalists applauded the move. “President Obama’s vision underscores the inevitable transition away from oil, and investments like this speed us along the way to a 100% clean energy future,” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in an e-mail.

Inadequate infrastructure raises costs for businesses and consumers, including motorists stuck in traffic — a “hidden tax” and a harm to the environment, said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. More here.

Finally, Hillary’s Security Clearance in Jeopardy?

Posted on February 4, 2016February 4, 2016 by Denise Simon

Humm –> Expect to undergo one or more interviews and often a polygraph as part of the clearance process. These steps are used by investigators to get a better understanding of your character, conduct and integrity. You might also have to answer questions designed to clear up discrepancies or clarify unfavorable data discovered during the background investigation. The ultimate goal is for government security personnel to determine your eligibility for a clearance, a decision based on the totality of the evidence and information collected.

August of last year: Intelligence community wants Clinton’s security clearance suspended

WashingtonTimes: Security experts say that if Hillary Rodham Clinton retained her government security clearance when she left the State Department, as is normal practice, it should be suspended now that it is known her unprotected private email server contained top secret material.

“Standard procedure is that when there is evidence of a security breach, the clearance of the individual is suspended in many, but not all, cases,” said retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence in the George W. Bush administration. “This rises to the level of requiring a suspension.”

“The department does not comment on individuals’ security clearance status,” the official said.

Mrs. Clinton is the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. A campaign spokesman did not reply to a query, but she did get a vote of support from a key congressional Democrat.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, said Thursday there is no evidence Mrs. Clinton herself sent classified information and that the emails now under scrutiny were not marked classified at the time she sent them.

Clinton’s Security Clearance Is Under Scrutiny

Bloomberg: Now that several e-mails on Hillary Clinton’s private server have been classified, there is a more immediate question than the outcome of the investigation: Should the former secretary of state retain her security clearance during the inquiry? Congressional Republicans and Democrats offer predictably different answers.

The State Department announced Friday that it would not release 22 e-mails from Clinton’s private server after a review found they contained information designated as top secret. U.S. officials who reviewed the e-mails tell us they contain the names of U.S. intelligence officers overseas, but not the identities of undercover spies; summaries of sensitive meetings with foreign officials; and information on classified programs like drone strikes and intelligence-collection efforts in North Korea.

The FBI is investigating the use of Clinton’s home server when she was secretary of state, which the bureau now has. The New York Times reported in August that Clinton is not a target of that investigation. We reported in September that one goal is to discover whether a foreign intelligence service hacked in.

Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Clinton should not lose her security clearance for receiving information that was not marked classified at the time. “I’m sure she does hold a clearance, and she should,” he told us.

Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican member of that committee who also has read the e-mails, told us, “It’s important, given all the information we now know, that the House of Representatives work alongside the executive branch to determine whether it’s appropriate for Secretary Clinton to continue to hold her security clearances.”

Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr told us the decision lies with the White House. “I think that’s up to what the National Security Council is comfortable with,” he said.

Burr, who has also read all 22 e-mails, said Clinton should have known to better protect the information they contain. “They are definitely sensitive,” he said. “Anybody in the intelligence world would know that the content was sensitive.”

His Democratic counterpart, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who also read them, told us that Clinton didn’t originally send any of the e-mails and that they were largely from her staff, although she did sometimes reply. Feinstein said the intelligence community is being overly cautious by designating the e-mails as top secret.

“There’s no question that they are over-classifying this stuff,” she said.

Clinton’s discussion of classified programs on an unclassified e-mail system is hardly rare. The issue, called “spillage,” has plagued the government for years. It can apply to anything from a spoken conversation about intelligence programs outside of a secure facility, to printing out a document with classified information on an unsecure printer.

Still, it is forbidden. The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual says “transmitting classified information over a communication channel that is unauthorized for the level of information being transmitted” is a “security violation.” Such violations must be investigated by the State Department’s own bureaus of human resources and diplomatic security. Punishment can vary from a letter of reprimand to loss of security clearance, according to the manual.

When asked about the status of Clinton’s security clearance, State Department spokesman John Kirby said: “The State Department does not comment on individuals’ security clearance status. We will say, however, that generally speaking there is a long tradition of secretaries of state making themselves available to future secretaries and presidents. Secretaries are typically allowed to maintain their security clearance and access to their own records for use in writing their memoirs and the like.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment.

During the Obama administration, it has not been automatic for officials to lose their security clearance while an investigation is underway. Just last week, the Washington Post reported that the chief of naval intelligence, Vice Adm. Ted Branch, had his security clearance suspended because he is wrapped up in a Justice Department investigation into contracting corruption. He has not been able to read, see, or hear classified information since November 2013. Branch has not been charged with any crime and continues to serve in that post.

But when then-CIA director David Petraeus came under FBI investigation at the end of 2012, his security clearance was not formally revoked. After he resigned, his access to classified information was suspended, according to U.S. officials. In that case, Petraeus had provided notebooks with highly classified information to his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell, whose security clearances did not permit her to receive it.

Unlike Broadwell, officials familiar with the e-mails tell us that Clinton and her e-mail correspondents were cleared to receive the information that has been classified after the fact. Steven Aftergood, who heads the project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, told us, “It’s entirely possible for information to start out as unclassified and to be classified only when the question of public disclosure arises.”

William Leonard, who oversaw the government’s security classification process between 2002 and 2008 as the director of the Information Security Oversight Office, told us this kind of “spillage” was common. “The bottom line is this, if you have the opportunity to pore through any cleared individual’s unclassified e-mail account, it’s almost inevitable you would find material that someone, some way would point out should be classified.” He also said that in Clinton’s case, “there is no indication that she deliberately disregarded the rules for handling classified information so I see no reason why she should not remain eligible for a security clearance.”

Nonetheless, Leonard added that Clinton’s decision to use the private e-mail server as secretary of state “reflected exceedingly poor judgment, and those that advised her on this did not serve her well.”

The FBI investigation may determine that neither Clinton nor her aides broke the law, but Clinton herself has said she used poor judgment. It’s an open question how that poor judgment will affect her access to state secrets, during and after the FBI’s investigation.

The Other Chapter of the Clinton’s and Chelsea’s Father-in-Law

Posted on February 3, 2016February 3, 2016 by Denise Simon

Clinton White House passed up pardon for Chelsea’s father-in-law

Ed Mezvinsky asked Bill Clinton to spare him ‘a long prison term,’ according to newly revealed records.

Politico: Encounters between potential in-laws can often be awkward, but this untold chapter in Clinton family history may take the cake.

President Bill Clinton once had the opportunity to save his daughter’s future father-in-law from spending five years behind bars, according to never-before-revealed White House files. But the asked-for reprieve never came.

In the waning days of Clinton’s presidency, federal prosecutors and the FBI were bearing down on former Rep. Ed Mezvinsky (D-Iowa), who had fallen for a series of Ponzi schemes and pulled in nearly $10 million money from other investors to cover his losses.

Mezvinsky would not be formally indicted until March of 2001, but records released last week by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock and obtained by POLITICO show Mezvinsky and his then-wife — ex-Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D-Pa.) — pleaded with the former president for a presidential pardon to head off the looming federal case.

“I have real reason to believe that without a pardon, charges will be brought against me in the very near future, and that I will then be faced with a long and difficult process of defending myself, and ultimately the prospect of a long prison term,” Mezvinsky wrote. “I am humbled and saddened at having sullied my reputation and that of my family, and having disappointed the many honorable and decent people who had confidence in me. I am prepared to try to make amends as best I can.”

Margolies-Mezvinsky’s missive to the president discusses her husband’s history of service in politics and for the community, but is vague about the nature of his alleged wrongdoing.

“He is a man who in public service and his private life has worked tirelessly as an advocate for the poor, the underprivileged, and underserved. But he is also a man who now finds himself in a precarious position, where a federal investigation has already blemished a stellar career, a life of high-minded public service dedication to humanitarian causes. It is for this reason that I write personally to you to seek clemency for Ed,” Margolies-Mezvinsky wrote.

It is unclear whether Clinton ever saw the letters, which turned up in the files of the White House’s counsel’s office.

Asked about the letters, Margolies-Mezvinsky — now Chelsea Clinton’s mother-in-law — said this week that she doesn’t believe the Clinton White House ever acted on the request.

“No action was taken … which is a matter of public record. To my knowledge, we never received any reply from the White House,” the former congresswoman said in an email to POLITICO.

A spokesman for the former president did not reply to a query Tuesday about whether the pardon request ever reached him.

Chelsea Clinton and the Mezvinskys’ son Marc married in 2010. However, their families had been friendly since at least the early 1990s. The future couple first met in 1993 when both families were attending the prestigious annual Renaissance Weekend gathering in South Carolina.

When Chelsea was touring colleges in 1997, Marc Mezvinsky, then a sophomore at Stanford, showed her around the campus. Their friendship developed over their college years, though they didn’t start formally dating until she moved to New York after graduation.

Congresswoman Margolies-Mezvinsky achieved national prominence in 1993 by providing what was seen as the critical vote for President Bill Clinton’s budget and tax bill. Republicans chanted, “Good-bye, Margie,” as she cast the high-profile vote.

Margolies-Mezvinsky’s first term indeed turned out to be her last. Despite significant efforts by Clinton to rescue her re-election bid, she lost to her GOP opponent by a 45-to-49 percent margin.

Bill Clinton has always seemed indebted to Margolies-Mezvinsky for the sacrifice she made. “I really didn’t want Margolies-Mezvinsky to have to vote with us,” the former president wrote in his 2004 memoir. “She was one of the very few Democrats who represented a district with more constituents who’d get tax hikes than tax cuts, and in her campaign she’d promised not to vote for any tax increases … She had earned an honored place in history, with a vote she shouldn’t have had to cast.”

After Mezvinsky’s defeat in 1994, Clinton named her as deputy chair of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. World Conference on Women in Beijing. First Lady Hillary Clinton wound up serving as head of the delegation, which made waves in China for its assertiveness.

The Clintons remained close to Margolies-Mezvinsky as she ran unsuccessfully for Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania in 1998 and for the U.S. House again in 2000. She dropped out of the latter race after filing for bankruptcy in the wake of the financial chaos resulting from her husband’s bizarre investment schemes, including one classic swindle that has been run out of Nigeria for decades. (In 2014, she again mounted a bid for Congress, but came up short in the Democratic primary despite strong backing from the former first couple.)

In the letters about the potential pardon, there are hints that Margolies-Mezvinsky was closer to the president than her husband was. His letter is signed, “Edward Mezvinsky,” while hers is signed, simply, “Marjorie.”

Whatever President Clinton’s inclinations towards the family, Mezvinsky’s pardon request may have simply come too late. A 22-page White House summary of pending pardon and commutation requests in early December 2000 makes no mention of Mezvinsky.

The pardon request reviewed by POLITICO is marked as received on January 12, 2001. The date, just eight days before Clinton left office, has been underlined.

Former White House officials say the pardon process descended into a degree of chaos in those final days. In his final hours in office, Clinton issued 176 pardons and commutations. Some went to individuals close to Clinton, like his brother Roger, and to people targeted in independent counsel investigations the president viewed as unfair. The most controversial pardons went to financiers Marc Rich and Pincus Green, who had been living in Switzerland for years to avoid facing a federal indictment.

Some of those pardons and commutations were issued even though individuals had never applied through the official process at the Justice Department.

It’s unclear whether Mezvinsky ever did so, but such an application would have been futile. Since he hadn’t even been charged, the Justice Department would have summarily rejected his application.

Clinton ultimately issued just one pre-trial pardon, blocking a prosecution of former CIA Director John Deutch for having classified information on his home computer. Deutch’s pardon also came on Clinton’s last day as president.

A federal prosecutor said in a 2007 interview that as Ed Mezvinsky swindled investors in the late 1990s he sometimes used his association with the Clintons as a talking point.

“When he thought it would help, he would call and say, ‘I’m spending the weekend with the Clintons,’ ” Robert Zauzmer told the New York Times.

The grand jury indictment filed in 2001 is a bit more vague, but hints at similar conduct. “Mezvinsky succeeded in defrauding others and gaining their confidence in part by stressing his lengthy experience in national and international affairs, and his acquaintance with prominent political figures,” the indictment says.

Zauzmer told POLITICO this week that he was unaware of Mezvinsky’s pre-trial pardon bid. “It wasn’t brought to my attention,” the prosecutor said. “I probably would not have any comment on it, even if it had been.”

Mezvinsky’s pardon request parallels an argument he attempted to make after his indictment: namely that his judgment was clouded by his extensive use of the anti-Malarial drug Lariam while traveling to Africa.

“The long-term cognitive effects of this medication were devastating in how they affected my cognitive ability to absorb and evaluate information in a formal way and how I exercised my reasoning powers” he wrote to President Clinton.

In court, Mezvinsky’s lawyers argued that his exposure to the medicine and his affliction with biploar disorder so affected his thinking that he should be allowed to mount a “mental health defense.” U.S. District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, rejected that effort.

“No expert on Mezvinsky’s behalf was in a position to say that at any given time during the twelve-year history of the alleged schemes to defraud that Mezvinsky did not have a capacity to deceive,” the judge wrote. “People like Mezvinsky are not out of touch with reality.”

A few months later, Mezvinsky pled guilty.

“Ed had a very, very bona fide psychiatric condition,” said Bryant Welch, an attorney and psychologist on the defense team. “I had the head of Harvard bipolar disorder clinic and the head of the Penn bipolar disorder clinic who had both evaluated it and confirmed it and the judge just disallowed the defense.”

Margolies -Mezvinsky’s decision to back her then-husband’s request for a pardon seems generous in light of some of the facts of the case. Her elderly mother, Mildred Margolies, was one of those Mezvinsky was eventually charged with swindling. The indictment claims he transferred more than $300,000 from his mother-in-law’s brokerage accounts for his own use.

The Mezvinskys divorced in 2007 while he was serving his sentence. Some of the restitution he owes remains unpaid.

Efforts to reach Ed Mezvinsky for comment were unsuccessful. An attorney for the 79-year-old ex-congressman, Stephen LaCheen, said he was not aware of any pre-trial pardon request.

Press reports said Mezvinsky planned to attend the wedding of his son Marc to Chelsea Clinton in 2010. However, Margolies—who dropped her former husband’s name after the divorce—reportedly walked her son down the aisle alone at the wedding. In an interview just before the event, the groom’s father said he was trying to put his legal troubles behind him.

“It was a terrible time, and I was punished for that and I respect that and I accept responsibility for what happened, and now I’m trying to move on,” Ed Mezvinsky told the TV show “Inside Edition.”

Sid Told Hillary: Get a Grand Jury on Eric Cantor

Posted on February 3, 2016February 3, 2016 by Denise Simon

New State Department Emails Reveal Blumenthal Advised Clinton that former Rep. Eric Cantor Committed a Possible ‘Felony’ by Disclosing Petraeus Classified Information

‘Will a grand jury be empaneled by the Justice Department? When will Senator Patrick Leahy, chair of the Judiciary Committee… begin an investigation of this matter?’ – November 13, 2012

Blumenthal advised top Obama debate advisor that Romney would ‘falsify, distort, and mangle facts;’ advised Clinton on Libya turmoil disclosed in ‘internal govt discussions high level’

JW: (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on January 7, 2016, it obtained a new batch of documents from the Department of State, including a “Confidential” memo from Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal to the former secretary of state suggesting that a grand jury and the Senate Judiciary Committee should investigate whether former Rep. Eric Cantor or his staff violated the Espionage Act by disclosing classified information related to the FBI investigation of former CIA Director David Petraeus.

According to the Blumenthal-to-Clinton email, if classified information was discussed by Cantor, his staff, or anyone “inside or outside the bureau,” it “is a felony” in violation of the Espionage Act. Many legal analysts now believe that if the FBI concludes that Clinton kept classified information on her non-state.gov server, that may be also be a criminal violation of the Espionage Act.

The documents also contain an email to Clinton in which Blumenthal sent a copy of a “Confidential” memo to top Obama 2012 presidential debate advisor Ron Klain warning that GOP candidate Mitt Romney would “falsify, distort, and mangle facts” in the final campaign debate. The Blumenthal memo was sent to Klain and copied to Clinton just four days before the final debate.

The documents include an email sent after the Benghazi attack in which Blumenthal informs Clinton of his “Latest Libya intel” regarding the turmoil in that country. Though barred by the Obama administration from being an official State Department advisor to Clinton, Blumenthal – who at the time was also employed by the Clinton Foundation – claimed to have “a very sensitive source” providing him “internal govt discussions high level” concerning Libyan internal security.

The new emails, also available on the State Department website, were obtained by Judicial Watch in response to a court order Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on May 6, 2015, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00692), seeking the following:

Communications between officials, officers, or employees of the Department of State and members of Congress, Congressional staff members, or Congressional members or staff members of the U.S. House of representatives Select Committee on Benghazi concerning the use of non-“state.gov” email addresses by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton regarding the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The timeframe for this request is September 11, 2012, to January 31, 2013.

The State Department’s records include a November 13, 2012, email from Blumenthal to Clinton in which he speculates about former Rep. Eric Cantor’s dealings with then FBI Director Robert Mueller concerning the agency’s investigation of former CIA director David Petraeus. In the email, Blumenthal raises the possible need for both a grand jury and a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of possible violations of the Espionage Act by Cantor and his staff if classified information was made public:

From: Sidney Blumenthal
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2012 9:13 AM
Subject: More questions. Sid

Who else in the Congress besides congressmen Reichert and Cantor knew of the Petraeus investigation before it became public? How many congressional staffers were informed? What roles did they play in deciding who to inform about it? What were their communications among themselves and with others outside their offices if any? Did any of them discuss the matter with anyone in the Romney-Ryan campaign?

Why was Cantor intent on informing FBI Director Mueller of the existence of an FBI investigation that was already resolved?…

What were the internal discussions between Cantor and his staff on his referral to Mueller?…

***

Was the supposedly rogue FBI agent, described in the Washington Post as motivated by his “worldview,” acting alone? Did he discuss the investigation with any individual either inside or outside the bureau before he went to Reichert and Cantor?

Disclosure of an espionage investigation is a felony. Will a grand jury be empaneled by the Justice Department?

When will Senator Patrick Leahy, chair of the Judiciary Committee and a former FBI agent, begin an investigation of this matter?

From: H <HDR22@clintonemailcom>
To: ‘sbwhoeop [Redacted]
Sent: Tue,Nov 13, 2012 9:23 am
Subject: Re: More questions. Sid

What was his “worldview” and why would he think hurting P furthered it? Why would Cantor want to hurt P (beloved by Rs)?

The records obtained by Judicial Watch also include an October 19, 2012, email from Blumenthal to Clinton in which he sends a copy of a lengthy “Confidential” memo to Klain expounding upon how to defeat Mitt Romney in the third and final 2012 presidential debate:

From: Sidney Blumenthal
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 10:32 AM
To: H
Subject: H: fyi, see especially point about bush. Sid

Romney will inevitably falsify, distort and mangle facts on a range of subjects from Libya to the defense budget. But why is this debate different from all other debates? In the dedicated foreign policy debate, the stakes are higher—America’s role in the world. That makes Romney’s errors even more consequential and potentially threatening. And that must be an essential predicate of Obama’s point when he exposes Romney’s falsehoods. When Romney lies on domestic policy it’s shameful, but when he lies on foreign policy it’s dangerous.

***

Romney’s attack line on Libya is not only false, as exposed in the last debate. (Obama here can joke that Romney apparently wants to rerun the last debate but this time without Candy Crowley present to call him out. Romney will become angry and nonplussed.) His attack line is a reheated leftover of the Bush era attacks on Democrats designed by Karl Rove as weak on terrorism, which were themselves repackaged old Republican attacks from the Cold War. It’s all nostalgia….

***

Then, really stick in the shiv by having Obama say that he was somewhat surprised that Romney in the last debate did not give President George W. Bush credit where credit is due—for example, breaking with the neoconservatives around Vice President Cheney by adopting the surge in Iraq led by current CIA director David Petraeus that prepared the groundwork for Obama’s own policy in Iraq.

An email from Blumenthal to Clinton contains a lengthy “Confidential” memo in which he provides his “latest Libya intel” from “internal govt discussions high level.” The memo, later forwarded by Clinton to then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, reveals that more than a year after the Obama/Clinton assisted overthrow of Qaddafi, ostensibly intended to bring about a peaceful transition, the country remained at the mercy of the same terrorist groups that attacked the Benghazi consulate. Claiming that his information comes from a “very sensitive source,” Blumenthal informed Clinton of the following:

From: Sidney Blumenthal
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:20 AM
To: H
Subject: H: latest Libya intel; internal govt discussions high level. Sid

On the morning of January 15, 2013 Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zidan was informed by Interior Minister Ashour Shuwail and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Mohamed Abdulaziz that Italy plan to close its consulate in Benghazi and reduce the size of its embassy in Tripoli following attacks on the consulate itself and the Italian consul general. Shuwail reported that the attacks were carried out by Eastern militia forces associated with Ansar al Islam, which, although put under pressure by the National Libyan Army (NLA) following the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in September 2012, continues to operate in and around that city.

***

According to a very sensitive source, General Hassi disagrees with the NLA analysis that the Sabha attack was not aimed at Magariaf specifically, noting that there were five prior assassination attempts against Magariaf in 2012, and that he is a target for a diverse collection of enemies, including former Qaddafi forces, groups like Ansar al Sharia, and even his political adversaries in the GNC. Accordingly, Hassi intends to establish new programs to train a detachment of presidential bodyguards, and his own anti-terrorism personnel.

“It is beyond ironic that Hillary Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal, her secret Clinton Foundation adviser at the State Department, discuss criminal prosecutions of Republicans for the handling of classified information over the Petraeus scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And it is disturbing that then-Secretary of State Clinton was involved in advising the Obama reelection campaign on how to continue lying about the Benghazi attack. No wonder Hillary Clinton tried to hide these email records rather than disclose them years ago as required by law.”

###