Category Archives: U.S. Constitution

What you Need to Know About the Visa Waiver Program

Posted on by

There are 38 countries that participate in the State Department Visa Waiver Program. There are very few conditions for people traveling to the United States from those countries to enter our country. There are countless problems with this program most of which is those that over-stay and never go home.

Europe has an unspeakable problem with Islamic State sympathizers and those from the UK are allowed to travel to the U.S. without any real conditions.

To make America safer immediately a first step is to suspend this program immediately and for at least two years.

Have no fear…yeah sure. The program is getting tighter security measures.

DHS Announces Security Enhancements to Visa Waiver Program

By: Amanda Vicinanzo, Senior Editor

Just days ago, Adil Batarfi, one of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s (AQAP) senior commanders, issued a threat against America and the West if they continue to blasphemy Islam. Amid these continued calls for terrorist attacks on the homeland, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced new security enhancements to the US Visa Waiver program (VWP).

The VWP is administered by DHS and enables eligible citizens or nationals of designated countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for 90 days or less without first obtaining a visa. The VWP constitutes one of a few exceptions under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in which foreign nationals are admitted into the United States without a valid visa.

To enhance the security of the program, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson announced a number of additional or revised security criteria for all participants—both current and new members— in the VWP. The new criteria include the following:

  • Required use of e-passports for all Visa Waiver Program travelers coming to the United States;
  • Required use of the INTERPOL Lost and Stolen Passport Database to screen travelers crossing a Visa Waiver country’s borders; and
  • Permission for the expanded use of U.S. federal air marshals on international flights from Visa Waiver countries to the United States.

“As I have said a number of times now, the current global threat environment requires that we know more about those who travel to the United States,” Johnson said. “This includes those from countries for which we do not require a visa.”

Johnson said the new enhancements build on a number of changes implemented last September. DHS required travelers from the 38 VWP countries where a visa is not required for US entry to provide additional passport data, contact information and other potential names or aliases in their travel application submitted via the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) before they could travel to the US.

DHS took steps to improve the program in the wake of the adoption of United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 2178 last September, which urged member nations to do more to address the growing threat of foreign terrorist fighters.

“The security enhancements we announce today are part of this department’s continuing assessments of our homeland security in the face of evolving threats and challenges, and our determination to stay one step ahead of those threats and challenges,” Johnson said. “And, it is our considered judgment that the security enhancements we announce today will not hinder lawful trade and travel with our partners in the Visa Waiver Program. These measures will enhance security for all concerned.”

Homeland Security Today reported earlier this year that lawmakers have become concerned that the program could be used as a gateway for terrorists to enter the United States. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, called the VWP the “Achilles’ heel of America,” saying citizens from visa waiver countries could travel to Syria to fight for jihadist groups and return home to conducts attacks.

A UN report from earlier this year revealed that the number of foreign fighters leaving their home nations to join extremist groups in Iraq, Syria and other nations has hit record levels, with estimates of over 25,000 foreign fighters coming from nearly 100 countries.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, has raised similar concerns. During an interview with CBS’ “Face the Nation,” McCaul said, “We have a visa waiver-free system where they can fly in the United States without even having a visa. We need to look at all sorts of things like that.”

However, defenders of the program believe VWP is critical to national security. At a speech at The Heritage Foundation, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff made the case for continuing the VWP.

“Now is not the time to handicap or dismantle our intelligence collection programs … that have literally been at the cornerstone of protecting the United States since 2001.” VWP is “a plus-plus for our national security and our economic security,” Chertoff said.

IRS: Lois Lerner, Texas and Abraham Lincoln

Posted on by

Lerner Lincoln Email

From the Federalist:

“As you can see, the Lone Star State is just pathetic as far as political attitudes are concerned,” Lerner’s friend Mark Tornwall wrote in 2014.

“Look my view is that Lincoln was our worst president not our best,” Lerner responded, according to USA Today. “He should’ve let the south go. We really do seem to have 2 totally different mindsets.”

Finance Committee Releases Bipartisan IRS Report

Committee Concludes Two-Year Investigation into the IRS’s Treatment of Tax-Exempt Organizations

WASHINGTON – Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) today released the Committee’s bipartisan investigative report detailing their investigation into the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) treatment of organizations applying for tax-exempt status after the Committee voted to report out the findings in a closed executive session.  As required by law, members were briefed by Committee staff with 6103 authority to review private taxpayer information in a number of closed-door briefings on the findings and recommendations of the report before the vote.

“This bipartisan investigation shows gross mismanagement at the highest levels of the IRS and confirms an unacceptable truth: that the IRS is prone to abuse,” Hatch said.  “The Committee found evidence that the administration’s political agenda guided the IRS’s actions with respect to their treatment of conservative groups.  Personal politics of IRS employees, such as Lois Lerner, also impacted how the IRS conducted its business.  American taxpayers should expect more from the IRS and deserve an IRS that lives up to its mission statement of administering the tax laws fairly and impartially – regardless of political affiliation. Moving forward, it is my hope we can use this bipartisan report as a foundation to work towards substantial reforms at the agency so that this never happens again. ”

“The results of this in-depth, bipartisan investigation showcase pure bureaucratic mismanagement without any evidence of political interference,” said Wyden.  “Groups on both sides of the political spectrum were treated equally in their efforts to secure tax-exempt status.  Now is the time to pursue bipartisan staff recommendations to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”

Bipartisan findings of the report include:

  • During the years 2010 to 2013, IRS management failed to provide effective control, guidance and direction over the processing of applications for tax-exempt status.
  • Top IRS managers did not keep informed about the applications involving possible political advocacy and thereby forfeited the opportunity to provide the leadership that the IRS needed to respond to the legal and policy issues presented by these applications.
  • Lois Lerner, who headed the Exempt Organizations Division, became aware of the Tea Party applications in early 2010, but failed to inform her superiors about their existence.  While under Lerner’s leadership, the Exempt Organizations Division undertook no less than seven poorly planned and badly executed initiatives aimed at bringing the growing number of applications from Tea Party and other groups to decision.  Every one of those initiatives ended in predictable failure and every failure resulted in months and years of delay for the organizations awaiting decisions from the IRS on their applications for tax-exempt status.
  • The Committee also found that the workplace culture in the Exempt Organizations Division placed little emphasis or value on providing customer service.
    • Few if any of the managers were concerned about the delays in processing the applications, delays that possibly harmed the organizations ability to function for their stated purposes.
  • The Committee made a number of recommendations to address IRS management deficiencies as follows:
  • The Hatch Act should be revised to designate all IRS, Treasury and Chief Counsel employees who handle exempt organization matters as “further restricted.”  “Further restricted” employees are precluded from active participation in political management or partisan campaigns, even while off-duty.
  • The IRS should track the age and cycle times of applications for tax-exempt status to detect backlogs early in the process and allow management to take steps to address those backlogs.
  • The Exempt Organizations Division should track requests for assistance from both the Technical Branch and the Chief Counsel’s office to ensure the timely receipt of that assistance.
  • A list of over-age applications should be sent to the Commissioner on a quarterly basis.
  • Internal IRS guidance should require that employees reach a decision applications no later than 270 days after the IRS receives that application.  Employees and managers who fail to comply with these standards should be disciplined.
  • Minimum training standards should be established for all managers within the EO Division to ensure that they have adequate technical ability to perform their jobs.

Issuance of the report was delayed for more than a year after the IRS belatedly informed the Committee that it had not been able to recover a large number of potentially responsive documents that were lost when Lois Lerner’s hard drive crashed in 2011.

  • By failing to locate and preserve records, making inaccurate assertions about the existence of backup data, and failing to disclose to Congress the fact that records were missing, the IRS impeded the Committee’s investigation.  These actions had the effect of denying the Committee access to records that may have been relevant and, ultimately, delayed the investigation’s conclusion by more than one year.

A table of contents for the appendix can be found here. The appendicies can be found below:

Part 1 here.

Part 2 here.

Part 3 here.

Part 4 here.

A timeline can be found here.

Additional views from Chairman Hatch can be found here. A summary can be found here.

Additional views from Ranking Member Wyden can be found here. A summary can be found here.

 

Background:

On May 20, 2013, the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee sent a detailed, 41-question document request to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking information about the alleged targeting by the IRS of certain social welfare organizations applying for tax-exempt status based on those organizations’ presumed political activities. That letter marked the beginning of a bipartisan investigation by the Committee into the IRS’ activities related to the review of tax-exempt applications and related issues raised by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) in his May 14, 2013, report.

In June 2014, the Committee learned that Lois Lerner had experienced a hard drive failure in 2011, which raised questions about the IRS’s ability to produce all the documents necessary to complete the Senate Finance Committee investigation. As a result, Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden asked TIGTA to investigate the matter. Specifically, TIGTA looked into: 1) what records the IRS lost; 2) if there was any attempt to deliberately destroy records, or otherwise impede congressional and federal investigations; and 3) whether any of the missing information can be recovered.

TIGTA provided their findings to the Committee on June 30, 2015.

Upon completing the report, Committee investigators had interviewed more than 32 current and former IRS and Treasury employees and reviewed nearly 1.5 million pages of documents.

Suing Soros Over Voter ID and His $$ in Hillary’s Camp

Posted on by

This spooky dude just wont go away. He has made a lifetime out of subverting all that which has made America great. This campaign season, some are taking real notice and you should as well.

Group Files to Help States Fighting Soros-Backed Voter ID Lawsuits

FreeBeacon: Top Clinton campaign lawyer also behind challenges to voter ID laws ahead of 2016 elections

An election integrity group has filed motions to assist three states that have been hit with anti-voter ID lawsuits.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election group headed by attorney J. Christian Adams, is seeking to appear alongside the states in court to defend their laws. The group seeks to “provide an understanding of this national strategy and the national implications” of the lawsuits in a way “any singular defendant is unlikely to provide.”

The foundation says the voter ID lawsuits are a coordinated national attack on integrity that can change the outcome of elections.

Lawsuits targeting the three states are being led by Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer and are fueled with money from liberal billionaire George Soros. Many anticipate that the effort will expand to other states as the 2016 elections approach.

“These three coordinated national attacks on election integrity were filed because partisan interests realize process rules can change election outcomes,” Adams said. “Some political candidates prefer elections with dirty rolls and unverified individuals casting ballots at the same time they register to vote. But most Americans do not.”

The motions filed by the group seek to “prevent treasured civil rights statutes such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 from being turned into partisan weapons to leverage federal power over state elections merely to advantage one political party and disadvantage another.”

Adams hopes to assist the states against the lawsuits that were launched in Ohio this past May and in Wisconsin and Virginia in June

Marc Elias, a partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm Perkins Coie and a top campaign lawyer for Hillary Clinton, filed the lawsuits against the three states. The anti-voter ID challenges are backed with millions of dollars from George Soros.

Elias first contemplated taking action against multiple states with voter identification laws in January 2014. When Soros learned of what Elias had planned, the liberal billionaire put $5 million behind the efforts.

“We hope to see these unfair laws, which often disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in our society, repealed,” Soros told the New York Times at the time.

Elias is working independently on the lawsuits although they are supported by the Clinton campaign. The Washington Free Beacon previously sought comment from both Elias and Soros’s press office on their multi-state effort challenging the laws. Neither returned the inquiries.

“This is a national strategy to affect the outcome of a national election,” Adams told the Free Beacon.

In June, as the lawsuit submissions were underway, Clinton began publicly stepping up her attack on voter identification laws.

During a June 4 speech at historically black Texas Southern University, Clinton called on Republicans to stop “fear-mongering” over a “phantom epidemic” of election fraud.

“I call on Republicans at all levels of government with all manner of ambition to stop fear-mongering about a phantom epidemic of election fraud and start explaining why they’re so scared of letting citizens have their say,” Clinton said during her speech to a half-empty arena at the university.

Clinton also called for a universal, automatic voter registration system for 18-year-olds and expressed her support for extending early voting up to 20 days before an election.

As of March 25, 2015, a total of 34 states have passed voter identification laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of the 34 states, 32 currently have laws that are enforced.

Elias and Soros are expected to bring additional lawsuits in other states as part of their national campaign.

Soros and Hillary and Money

Soros helps pro-Clinton Super PACs to $24 million haul

Politico in July: A trio of pro-Hillary Clinton groups raised more than $24 million in the first half of the year, including $2 million each from billionaires George Soros and Haim Saban, POLITICO has learned.

Priorities USA Action, a super PAC dedicated to airing ads supporting Clinton and attacking her opponents, revealed Thursday that it raised $15.6 million during the first half of the year, including $2 million from Hollywood mogul Saban and $1 million from financier Soros.

American Bridge 21st Century, an opposition research super PAC founded by Clinton enforcer David Brock, raised $7.7 million — including $1 million from Soros — an official with the group said Wednesday. A linked non-profit group called American Bridge 21st Century Foundation – which is not required to disclose its donors – raised an additional $1 million, the official said.

The super PAC numbers are an encouraging development for Clinton, whose campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination announced Wednesday that it had raised $45 million during her first three months in the race.

Clinton is a fundraiser par excellence, and her ability to raise money for her own campaign was never in doubt.

The fundraising ability of the pro-Clinton super PACs, however, was less clear.

Clinton’s allies early this year had privately fretted that supportive super PACs were struggling to raise money amidst internecine squabbling and reluctance among some of the Democratic Party’s wealthiest backers.

But the early fundraising details from Priorities and American Bridge — which will be fleshed out more completely in mandatory reports due at the Federal Election Commission before a July 15 deadline — suggest some of the party’s core mega-donors are stepping up to the plate.

According to sources in Democratic finance ciricles, Priorities collected big checks from Democratic Hollywood stalwarts including DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg and producer J.J. Abrams and his wife Katie McGrath, and cause donors like California investor Herb Sandler and Boston philanthropist Barbara Lee. It got some organized labor cash as well, with a check coming from the union representing plumbers and pipefitters.

Soros’s checks in particular send an important signal. The Hungarian-born investor is one of the few Democratic donors who has shown a willingness to drop eight-figures in an election cycle, having donated more than $20 million in 2004 to groups that tried to oust then-President George W. Bush. After the failure of that effort, Soros dialed back his big-money political spending, but he is still closely watched by other rich Democrats as a bellwether donor.

An adviser to Soros said his boss also gave $1 million this year to America Votes, a liberal non-profit group that mobilizes voters around issue and election campaigns. But Soros has not decided how much to donate overall in 2016, or how to divvy up his big political checks among groups, the adviser said.

 David Brock

 Rodell Millineau

The $7.7-million super PAC haul for American Bridge — which has played a key role in defending Clinton against GOP attacks — marks its largest six-month fundraising haul since the group was formed in 2011. The cash came from 55 donors, for an average contribution of $140,000, and it came at an important time in the preliminary stages of the big-money cash race.

Guy Cecil, Priorities’ chief strategist, wrote supporters Thursday morning stressing the importance of raising big money more than six months before the first nominating contests.

“It may seem early to many of us, but with the amount of money pouring in from the far right wing, the time has come for our side to kick things into high gear,” Cecil wrote in an email first reported by The New York Times. “We have a lot of work to do in the months ahead, but we are starting to see some real momentum.”

The super PACs supporting Clinton’s prospective GOP rivals like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas are raking in huge checks or commitments from their side’s billionaires. New York hedge fund manager Bob Mercer is the leading backer behind a network of pro-Cruz super PACs that boasted of raising $31 million while Miami businessman Norman Braman is considering donating as much as $25 million to a super PAC backing Rubio. Mega-donor cultivation is shaping up an essential aspect of the 2016 presidential campaign because super PACs have begun assuming some of the roles traditionally played by campaigns.

Unlike campaigns – which are limited to maximum donations of $5,400 this election cycle – super PACs can accept checks of unlimited amounts, thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling and a subsequent lower court decision that struck down key political spending restrictions.

While super PACs are still barred from coordinating their spending strategies with the campaigns they’re trying to help, operatives in recent years have pioneered techniques for ensuring complementary efforts.

American Bridge 21st Century, for instance, in 2013 launched a project called Correct the Record, that has been filling many of the functions of a traditional campaign rapid-response operation, providing real-time push-back against GOP attacks on its website and via email for use by Clinton’s defenders. The group became a stand-alone super PAC in May, splitting off from American Bridge, and hinting at plans to work even more closely with Clinton’s campaign.
Note: American Bridge is one of the most left-wing political action committees on record as noted by Open Secrets.org. The treasurer of American Bridge is Rodell Mollineau, who previously worked for the Obama re-election campaign. The largest mission of American Bridge is to hire trackers, these are boots on the ground armies that follow all republican politicians, whether they be governors, congress-people, senators or even state house legislators. They report back their surveillance reports often twisting actual words, events and objectives. This nefarious political action committee is well known by the republicans where they often put out red-alerts and you can read more here.

 

 

 

 

Low Information Millionaires Donate to Both Sides

Posted on by

Wealthy people make stupid political decisions, decisions good for their business and it stops there such that their friendly and personal relationships makes it difficult to counter.

If you seek some names with big money not often known, then read on.

Hillary Clinton’s Mega-Donors Are Also Funding Jeb Bush

Racetrack owners, bankers, and chicken kings: Meet the ultra-rich bankrolling the Bush and Clinton dynasties. A special report by Vocativ and The Daily Beast.

For some wealthy donors, it doesn’t matter who takes the White House in 2016—as long as the president’s name is Clinton or Bush.

More than 60 ultra-rich Americans have contributed to both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton’s federal campaigns, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by Vocativ and The Daily Beast. Seventeen of those contributors have gone one step further and opened their wallets to fund both Bush and Clinton’s 2016 ambitions.

After all, why support just Hillary Clinton or just Jeb Bush when you can hedge your bets and donate to both? This seems to be the thinking of a group of powerful men and women—racetrack owners, bankers, media barons, chicken magnates, hedge funders (and their spouses). Some of them have net worths that can eclipse the GDPs of small countries.

Larry Noble, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, told The Daily Beast that it’s a common practice among a small number of people.

“Some of them will say they believe in the process, but the truth is you usually see them giving to people who will be most helpful to them if [the politician] gets into office,” he said. “They are not necessarily Republicans or Democrats, they are business people first.”

Some of them said personal connections are driving the double donations. Many work in industries that depend on the federal government for their continued operation. A few have had brushes with the law. One donor said he’s soured on Hillary, and is now on Team Jeb. Another claimed that he gave to Clinton by mistake.

John Tyson, chairman of Tyson Foods, is a long-time—and promiscuous—political player. This year alone, his company spent half a million dollars lobbying Congress on everything from immigration reform and fuel taxes to food safety regulations. He himself has given $25,000 each to the political action committees supporting Clinton and Bush’s 2016 candidacies, according to the data parsed by Vocativ.

In the late 1990s Tyson was embroiled in political scandal when then-Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy was accused of illegally accepting gifts from major food corporations—several of which were given by Tyson, then a senior employee. Espy was acquitted, and John Tyson was granted immunity in exchange for his cooperation.

The company eventually paid a $6 million settlement to the government, and two Tyson Foods employees were sentenced to prison. (Both were later pardoned by President Clinton.)

Until not too long ago, David Stevens, the CEO of the real estate lobbying group the Mortgage Bankers Association, was in the government himself. Stevens served in the Obama administration as the assistant secretary for housing and as Federal Housing Administration (FHA) commissioner at the Department of Housing and Urban Development from July 2009 to April 2011.

But that doesn’t mean he’s completely onboard with his fellow administration alum.

“I want to focus on candidates who best represent issues of housing and issues important to me and are not extreme, especially on the social issues that are important to me,” he said.

Stevens has given $2,700 to Hillary For America and $1,000 to Jeb 2016. He said he has watched with great concern about the increased polarization of both parties.

But at the end of the day, Stevens conceded it’s also about access.

“While [Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush] don’t make commitments, obviously, I want to make sure my views are presented to them, because they are considered more center-left or center-right,” he said.

Richard Parsons, the former head of Time Warner and now a senior adviser at Providence Equity Partners Inc., has donated the maximum $2,700 to both the Clinton and Bush presidential campaigns.

His résumé reflects dual political loyalties.

He’s served every Republican president since Richard Nixon and in 1997 was appointed to a task force by President George W. Bush to help study the best way to overhaul social security.

However, he also advised then-President-Elect Obama as part of the Economic Transition Team in 2008. Parsons did not return attempts for comment.

James R. Borynack, the owner of Wally Findlay Galleries—noted for its long history and expertise in European art—was shy about saying why he wasn’t choosing sides.

“[Borynack] has no detailed comments at this time, other than to support both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush equally as presidential candidates,” a spokeswoman said.

Two Barclays employees have each donated $2,700—the legal maximum—to both the Clinton and Bush campaigns. One is Brett Tejpaul, a managing director at Barclays Capital who has also given $25,000 to the Jeb-affiliated super-PAC Right to Rise. The other is Robert Foresman, head of Barclays’s business in Russia.

Foresman’s Russia ties include the state-owned energy company that is one of Putin’s biggest levers against the West. Russia’s state-owned Gazprom provides critical gas to nearly two dozen European countries—and has shut off energy to countries in dispute with Russia. In the early 2000s, Foresman was nominated as a candidate to the board of directors of Gazprom, but was never actually appointed to the board, according to the company’s website.

Double donors Shawn Seipler, CEO of the nonprofit Clean the World Global, and textile magnate James Richman both make issues of economic justice central to their public presence. Richman is part of the Patriotic Millionaires, a left-leaning group of more than 200—you guessed it—millionaires who vow to support legislation to reduce income inequality.

Michael Granoff, a principal at Maniv Energy Capital, was once a strong supporter of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Granoff worked on Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in the early ’90s and donated to Hillary Clinton’s Senate and 2008 presidential campaign.

But Granoff but has since soured on the Democratic Party’s foreign policy decisions—particularly on Iran. And that’s led to a change of heart about supporting the former Secretary of State.

“I have nothing but continuing admiration for Hillary Clinton and her lifetime commitment to serving the public,” he wrote in a February The Times of Israel blog post. “But she deeply disappointed me recently when she aligned herself with the Administration’s threat to veto a Congressional bill to strengthen Iranian sanctions.”

Granoff said his post only rings more true now. He’s made his devotion to Jeb clear by donating $2,700 to his campaign and $25,000 to Right to Rise, according to Vocativ’s analysis of donors’ data.

The mix of donations also exposed a seemingly common practice of wealthy individuals donating at the request of clients and friends.

One Wall Street donor, who asked to remain anonymous because he considered the donation to Hillary “embarrassing,” said he gave money to her Senate race after a bundler friend asked him for a contribution. He noted he asked the bundler friend to donate to a Republican in return.

Robert Burlington, a prominent Florida attorney whose firm counts Exxon Mobil, Union Labor Life Insurance Company, and Merck as clients, told The Daily Beast that his donations to the candidates also had more to do with personal relationships than politics.

“My donations arose from a request from client (Clinton) and from a friend (Bush), rather than my affiliation with either party. But for the relationships with my client and my friend, respectively, I would not have donated to any candidate,” he said, adding that he and his wife prefer to donate to children’s charities.

Burlington said that while he doesn’t plan to give any more money to any candidate, he will quietly root for Bush.

“He was a strong leader of Florida while he was our state’s governor, and he has integrity,” he said. “I will not be too disappointed, however, if Hillary Clinton is elected because she has relevant experience and we will benefit from having a woman as president.”

At least one donor initially claimed to not remember the Clinton donation.

“I never donated to Hillary,” said Bradford Freeman, a major fundraiser for both George W. Bush presidential campaigns.

Reminded of his $2,300 donation in 2007, he said, “Well, that would have been Hillary against Obama [in the primary]…I don’t recall, but I may have.”

In fairness, his one time donation to Hillary might be forgettable after the $1 million he gave Right to Rise.

Freeman, whose investment firm Freeman Spogli won a $50 million commitment from the Florida pension system during Bush’s tenure (and paid the former governor $45,000 for a speech after he left office, according to The New York Times), told The Daily Beast he was all in for the former Florida governor.   There is much more, click here to read the rest of the story.

FBI Finally Investigating Hillary’s Server

Posted on by

The company that supports Hillary’s server operation is: http://platteriver.com/

FBI looking into the security of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail setup

WaPo: The FBI has begun looking into the security of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail setup, contacting in the past week a Denver-based technology firm that helped manage the unusual system, according to two government officials.

Also last week, the FBI contacted Clinton’s lawyer, David Ken­dall, with questions about the security of a thumb drive in his possession that contains copies of work e-mails Clinton sent during her time as secretary of state.

The FBI’s interest in Clinton’s e-mail system comes after the intelligence community’s inspector general referred the issue to the Justice Department in July. Intelligence officials expressed concern that some sensitive information was not in the government’s possession and could be “compromised.” The referral did not accuse Clinton of any wrongdoing, and the two officials said Tuesday that the FBI was not targeting her.

Kendall confirmed the contact, saying: “The government is seeking assurance about the storage of those materials. We are actively cooperating.”

A lawyer for the Denver company, Platte River Networks, declined to comment, as did multiple Justice Department officials.

 

The inquiries are bringing to light new information about Clinton’s use of the system and the lengths she went to install a private channel of communication outside government control — a setup that has emerged as a major issue in her presidential campaign.

For instance, the server installed in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home as she was preparing to take office as secretary of state was originally used by her first campaign for the presidency, in 2008, according to two people briefed on the setup. A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, had been using in the house.

The inquiries by the FBI follow concerns from government officials that potentially hundreds of e-mails that passed through Clinton’s private server contained classified or sensitive information. At this point, the probe is preliminary and is focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton’s campaign, declined to comment on the FBI’s actions. He noted that Clinton has called repeatedly for the State Department to release her e-mails to the public, a process that is ongoing.

In a statement, Merrill said that Clinton “did not send nor receive any emails that were marked classified at the time. We want to ensure that appropriate procedures are followed as these emails are reviewed while not unduly delaying the release of her emails. We want that to happen as quickly and as transparently as possible.”

The controversy over Clinton’s e-mail dates to the summer of 2014, when, according to government officials, State Department lawyers realized they didn’t have access to some of her records as they prepared responses to congressional requests related to the 2012 attacks on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya.

In October 2014, the State Department asked four former secretaries to turn over e-mails in their private possession. In December, Clinton handed over 55,000 pages of e-mails, which she said represented all of her work-related correspondence. She has said she deleted all other e-mails she had sent or received as secretary of state, indicating that they dealt only with personal matters.

In March, the New York Times reported that Clinton exclusively used a private e-mail system. Clinton has said she handled her
e-mail this way for the convenience of carrying just one phone.

Critics say Clinton’s private server arrangement put her discussions with some aides outside the reach of government investigators, congressional committees and courts seeking public records from the State Department.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), wrote a letter to FBI Director James B. Comey on July 24 asking him what steps his office had taken to ensure that classified information held on Kendall’s thumb drive, and once kept on Clinton’s server, was being properly secured. A State Department official said that once the agency identified classified material in the e-mails in May, it instructed Clinton’s lawyers on “appropriate measures for physically securing” the e-mails.

Responsibility for setting up and maintaining the server that handled personal e-mail communications for Bill and Hillary Clinton passed through a number of different hands, starting with Clinton staffers with limited training in computer security and eventually expanding to Platte River.

In 2008, responsibility for the system was held by Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to the former president who served as a personal assistant and helped research at least two of his books. Cooper had no security clearance and no particular expertise in safeguarding computers, according to three people briefed on the server setup. Cooper declined to comment.

“The system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches,” Hillary Clinton said in March.

Those briefed on the server setup say the device installed for Bill Clinton was deemed too small for the addition of a sitting Cabinet official. Instead, a server that had been purchased for use by Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign was installed at the Chappaqua home.

With the new server came an additional specialist: Bryan Pagliano, who had served as her campaign’s IT director. According to federal campaign finance records, Pagliano was paid by Clinton’s Senate leadership PAC through April 2009. The next month, he went to work for the State Department as an IT specialist, a department official said. The people briefed on the server indicated that he continued to act as the lead specialist responsible for it.

The e-mail system was not always reliable, these people said, with Pagliano summoned at various times to fix problems. Notably, the system crashed for days after New York was hit by Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

That led to new conversations about the need for better security, durability and a more professional setup, according to these people. In 2013, the Clintons hired Platte River to maintain the data.

Merrill, the Clinton spokesman, declined to respond to detailed questions about the setup of the server.