Lois Lerner Goes Free ~ Impeach Loretta Lynch

Per the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Press Release:

Chairman Chaffetz Responds to DOJ’s Investigation of the IRS

  

WASHINGTON—Today, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) issued the following statement after the Department of Justice announced there will be no charges against former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official Lois Lerner, and the investigation will be closing:

“This announcement is a reminder that the Obama administration continues to refuse to hold anyone accountable at the IRS. Over two years ago, TIGTA conducted an audit confirming the IRS was targeting conservative organizations because of their political beliefs. While DOJ may have closed its investigation, as a coequal branch of government, Congress will continue to seek accountability for the American people. A clear message must be sent that using government agencies to stifle citizens’ freedom of speech will not be tolerated. If the administration won’t send that message, Congress will.”

Background:

Earlier this year, Chairman Chaffetz, along with 51 members of Congress sent a letter to President Obama calling for the removal of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. Additionally, the Oversight Committee released a video outlining a timeline of key events in the targeting scandal.

*** in 2014 from Judicial Watch, in part:

IRS Had “Secret Research Project” For Conservative Donor Lists

Judicial Watch continues to blow the lid off of the Obama administration’s increasingly feeble attempts to cover up its deliberate targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election. And the latest batch of emails JW has obtained in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit portrays an agency potentially willing to go to any lengths to bring down the president’s political opponents – including misusing the private, confidential information of those who dared contribute to the groups the IRS had targeted.

But, we really shouldn’t be surprised, should we? This is an administration whose chief executive has repeatedly acted as if he is above the law. All he needs to govern, he claims, is “a pen and a phone.” His IRS agency, it turns out, has put both to extensive use in harassing and hamstringing conservative organizations – and, perhaps, even individuals it thought might have had a negative impact the president’s efforts to retain office in 2012.

On September 4, we released a new batch of IRS email documents revealing that under former IRS official Lois Lerner, the agency seems to acknowledge having needlessly solicited donor lists from non-profit political groups. According to a May 21, 2012, memo from the IRS Deputy Associate Chief Counsel: “such information was not needed across-the-board and not used in making the agency’s determination on exempt status.” Outrageously, it wasn’t until one year later, on May 10, 2013, that Lerner finally conceded that the requests for donor names were “not appropriate, not usual.” (These remarks by Lerner were staged and were the first IRS admission of its improper targeting of Obama’s perceived enemies.)

Not surprisingly, the new documents JW obtained also reveal that 75% of the groups from which the lists were solicited were apparently conservative, with only 5% being liberal. So, Lerner and her IRS collaborators knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the donor lists they had wrongly solicited would be filled with the names of those who had opposed the Obama policies.

These new smoking gun documents came in response to a court order from our October 2013 FOIA lawsuit (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)) filed against the IRS after the agency unlawfully refused to respond to four FOIA requests dating back to May 2013. The emails are contained in the sixth batch of documents the IRS has been forced to produce in response to the Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit. Much more here.

Why the U.S. Will Continue Funding the Palestinian Authority

BDS in London is taking part in the protests and violence in Israel.

WashingtonExaminer: With all the recent yet constant violence in Jerusalem and the West Bank in Israel, the culprit for the incitement and bloody conflict is at the hands of the Palestinians. The United States for years has provided funding and will continue to do so even with Israel’s blessing. The ‘why’ is even more terrifying.

Why the U.S. won’t cut off aid to Palestinians

Lawmakers want to reduce or eliminate the $500 million a year in aid and security assistance the United States gives to the Palestinian Authority amid evidence that its leaders are inciting violence against Israelis.

While that might be satisfying in some ways, concerns that a cutoff would make the situation worse are likely to win out. Israeli officials oppose such a move, fearing that it may cause the Palestinian Authority to collapse.

“Israel doesn’t want a collapse because it will collapse in Israel’s lap,” David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday.

Still, the problem of anti-semitic incitement in Palestinian society, much of it officially created and encouraged, remains a serious obstacle to a peaceful settlement of the basic conflict with Israel and the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.

The issue is at the center of talks this week between Secretary of State John Kerry and leaders in the region, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Jordanian King Abdullah II.

“We have to stop incitement, we have to stop the violence. And I think it’s critical,” Kerry said before his meeting Thursday with Netanyahu in Berlin. He’s set to meet with Abbas and Abdullah on Saturday.

The Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday adopted a bipartisan resolution calling on Abbas to “discontinue all official incitement and exert influence to discourage anti-Israel and anti-semitic incitement in Palestinian civil society.”

It also directs the State Department to track and publicize incidents of incitement by Palestinian authorities.

But there’s a bipartisan desire in Congress for a more active U.S. approach to the problem. At a hearing before Thursday’s vote, experts gave lawmakers options besides an aid cutoff.

“The problem is we’ve been condemning incitement for decades but we never do anything about it.” said Elliott Abrams, a former top adviser in the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, who argued for targeting the personal finances of Palestinian leaders who incite violence, and barring them from the United States.

Abbas “keeps doing it because he never pays a price for doing it,” Abrams said. “It’s a very cynical game. And as long as he pays no price, he’ll keep it up.”

He and others also suggested U.S. officials target the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which is dominated by Abbas’ Fatah movement, by closing its office in Washington and cutting off funding to incitement activities.

The PLO is “a bloated and opaque organization that has consistently stymied democracy,” said Jonathan Schanzer, vice president for research at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

The United States also needs to think beyond the leadership of Abbas, who’s in the tenth year of a four-year term largely because there are no good alternatives to his rule, and nurture a new generation of Palestinian leaders, he said. More here.

The genesis of the recent violence per Congressional testimony:

by: Foundation for Defense of Democracies

A Third Intifada?

Mr. Chairman, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has flared again. The violence can best be characterized as a concerted campaign of knife attacks against Israeli civilians and military personnel, peppered with other attempts at vehicular homicide and even bombings. Since October 1, eight Israelis have been killed while dozens have been wounded in no less than 44 attacks.  It’s unclear yet whether we can call this a third intifada. For it to be characterized as such, it would require the full backing of Palestinian leaders across the political spectrum. Despite the incitement of both the Fatah and Hamas factions, it’s safe to say that neither has committed fully to an all-out conflict right now with Israel. I will explain below why they are holding back.

Temple Mount Tensions

Mr. Chairman, the Palestinian narrative right now focuses on their rage over purported Israeli attempts to change the status quo on the Temple Mount/Haram ash-Sharif, the site holy to both Jews and Muslims. There are troubling signs that this unrest was premeditated. Indeed, it looks like the resumption of the unrest that erupted in June 2014 before last summer’s 50-day war between Israel and Hamas. The name given to the unrest, then as today, was the “Jerusalem Intifada.” The epicenter of that violence, then as today, was the Temple Mount.

The Temple Mount is one of the thorniest issues in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It is a deeply meaningful and holy site to both Muslims and Jews. Keeping the peace at this site has been a delicate issue since Israel conquered the Old City in 1967. The Israelis control the territory, but they have allowed for Jordan, with input from Palestinian religious authorities, to administer the site.  For years, Israeli law prohibited Jews from praying on the site, but Israel’s Supreme Court overruled this in 1993.  In recent years, the number of Jews that have gained access to the site during hours proscribed by Israel and the administering authorities has increased. This includes some Israeli politicians and religious groups who seek to assert Israeli sovereignty.  But according to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, access to the Temple Mount compound is still overwhelmingly Muslim. Indeed, over the last year, there have been approximately four million entries by Muslims, 200,000 by Christians, and just 12,000 by Jews.

To be clear, the status quo has not changed. Israel controls access to the site as a means to maintain the delicate peace, but it does not involve itself in matters of religious practice or prayer. Yet, over the last year, a disturbing pattern has developed. Palestinian elements, apparently led by the PLO, have led an effort to stoke religious tensions at the sensitive site with wild reports that Israel is trying to “Judaize” or undermine Muslim rights to pray there. At the forefront of this campaign to foment hate is WAFA, a news agency effectively controlled by the PLO. As one Arab newspaper noted, WAFA is one of the Palestinian “governmental media institutions.”

In January of this year, the chairman of the PLO’s Jerusalem Affairs Department, Ahmed Qurei, warned of an Israeli plan to register the al-Aqsa Mosque as an Israeli state property to be officially run by the so-called Tabu (land registration) office. The Al-Aqsa Foundation for Endowment and Heritage (AFEH) claimed this was setting the stage for a Jewish synagogue over parts of the holy Mosque. Qurei further stated that Israel was “Judaizing” the mosque and re-building the “alleged” Jewish Temple. “This is the most serious [action taken by Israel] that jeopardizes the future of the holy city,” he said.

The following month, WAFA cited Qurei warning about assessments made by Israeli engineers and contractors for new archeological excavations under the Temple Mount. In a press release, Qurei said that the Israeli government was trying to “empty the area [of] its indigenous citizens as a prelude to take over the land for the sake of settlement expansion.”  The PLO news agency, WAFA, added to the tensions claiming that nearly a thousand Israelis “stormed” the al-Aqsa compound during the previous month.

In March, WAFA issued a report stating that Jewish settlers were preparing to storm the al-Aqsa compound. The report alleged, “Jewish groups that define itself by the name of the alleged ancient Temple are preparing for the Jewish holiday Passover by mobilizing the largest number of settlers to enter Al-Aqsa Mosque and perform religious prayers in its yards.”  This was followed by a report that Israeli police, “physically assaulted and beat up [a ten-year-old girl], who along with other worshipers chanted religious slogans against a group of Jewish fanatics who entered the Mosque to perform religious rituals.”

The wild and unsubstantiated charges continued through the spring. WAFA in April claimed that, “Jewish settlers…broke into Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound through [the Dung Gate] bridge, and toured its yard under the heavy protection of Israeli police units.” In May, the PLO mouthpiece claimed several Palestinians were arrested “at the gates of al-Aqsa Mosque compound in the Old City for chanting religious slogans to fend off settlers’ attempts to tour the mosque’s yards. The two elders…were physically assaulted by the police before they were arrested.”

During the summer, the Palestinian leadership called for an emergency Islamic summit “in light of latest Israeli escalations at al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem.”  This came on the heels of reports that Israel had seized land adjacent to the eastern wall of the al-Aqsa mosque,  and that settlers were continuing “attacks against al-Aqsa mosque,”  and insulting the Prophet Mohammed while on the al-Aqsa compound.

In September, Mahmoud Abbas complained to the UN General Assembly that, “extremist Israeli groups are committing repeated, systematic incursions upon Al-Aqsa Mosque, aimed at imposing a new reality and dividing Al-Haram Al-Sharif.”  Soon after, Hamas declared a “day of rage” in the West Bank. Several Palestinians were wounded in clashes with Israelis.  Abbas took this as a cue to warn of an “intifada that we don’t want” if escalations at al-Aqsa continue.

As violence gripped Jerusalem, WAFA continued to complain that, “Jewish fanatics resumed their provocative visits to al-Aqsa Mosque.”  The rhetoric has only increased, fanning the flames of conflict as Palestinians have taken to lone-wolf style attacks to stab Israelis on the streets.

In an effort to calm tensions, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently ordered police to prevent Israeli ministers and members of Knesset from entering the Temple Mount.  The Israelis continue to make it clear that even when Jews visit the Temple Mount, they are not to pray there. Israeli security personnel enforce this strictly. However, the PLO continues to fan the flames of conflict. Their problem appears to be the very presence of Israelis and Jews on the Temple Mount.

– See more at: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/testimony/words-have-consequences-palestinian-authority-incitement-to-violence#sthash.h7XR057c.dpuf

 

 

Smoking Gun in Hillary/Benghazi Hearing Was Chelsea

The first attack happened and Hillary left the State Department and went home. While at home she had people telling her people were missing and dying. If one of your diplomatic posts was attacked would you leave the office and go home? When questioned about being alone at home during the attack, Hillary laughed.

But, Chelsea knew first the Benghazi attackers were Ansar al Sharia…..then Hillary told the same to the Libyan and Egyptian government…..oh then those pesky talking points about the video was the other track at the same time where the White House was calling YouTube while brave and fighting Americans were still on the roof and 2 at the mission post had already died.

Attkisson: Within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Clinton emailed her daughter, Chelsea, that Americans had died at the hands of an al-Qaeda like group. Al-Qaeda is the Islamic extremist terrorist group that was led by Osama bin Laden. Clinton also informed Egypt’s prime minister and Libya’s president that the attacks were “preplanned” and “had nothing to do with” an anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube.

That is perspective and real when the Democrats whined all day about how much money has been spent on the Gowdy Benghazi Commission. Isn’t live priceless? Not so much with those Democrats.

All the Democrats are claiming victory today as is Hillary’s team as she never had a meltdown. But real details and facts don’t matter except to those seeking and finding the truth in verified evidence.

  1. Post Qaddafi, Hillary took a play it by ear posture in Libya, hence the lack of email traffic on the topic as noted with visual stacks of emails today in the hearing.
  2. The people in Libya and especially Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have Hillary’s email address and actually never spoke to her by phone after he was sworn in as Ambassador, replacing Ambassador Cretz who was removed from the country due to WikiLeaks cables. Perhaps Ambassador Stevens should have just coordinated more security by asking Blumenthal, as he was forced to responded to forwarded emails by Hillary, that originate by Sidney Blumenthal.
  3. Oh, Hillary NEVER had a computer at the State Department.
  4. While the attack was going on, Hillary issued an official written statement that it WAS an attack, but what about that video thing that went on for weeks including Susan Rice on all the Sunday talk shows?
  5. One of the security contractors was operating in Libya without a contract and license.
  6. There were more than 600 requests for more security, none got to Hillary? No country summary went to Hillary discussing Libya as a failing country?
  7. Benghazi was originally a temporary mission, soon to be a permanent facility, so she never signed a waiver exempting Benghazi from meeting security standards mandated by law.
  8. Congressman Pompeo of Kansas asked Hillary about Marc Turi and the weapons bound for the Transnational Council. Her response was she knew nothing about Turi or the weapons, but that discussion and the list of weapons were in her emails.
  9. No one was disciplined or fired over Benghazi failures.
  10. Chris Stevens was my friend but he never asked me for an increase in security, he couldn’t as he had no way to contact me other than go through my people at the State Department.

In closing, Hillary’s entire legal team handled the email sorting and the servers, she said she had no role. Did those lawyers all have security clearance to do that? Nah….and so it goes.

Taliban WAS in that Hospital when Bombed, but…

The U.S. took the blame for the bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, but the question is why?

The Geneva Convention has rules and declares that internationally recognized medical insignia must be flown on the roof, but what was on the roof was NOT the recognized logo or insignia at the time of the bombing.

Afghan defense minister says Taliban hid in bombed hospital

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP)— Afghanistan’s acting defense minister said Monday that the Doctors Without Borders hospital bombed by U.S. forces in the northern city of Kunduz was being used by insurgents as a “safe place.” More here.

Yet, there was a much bigger problem at the time when the Afghanis called in the airstrike:

Army intelligence system allegedly down during hospital attack

Associated Press via ArmyTimes: WASHINGTON — The Army’s $5 billion intelligence network, which is designed to give commanders battlefield awareness but has been criticized for years as a boondoggle, was not working in Afghanistan during the recent American air attack on a hospital, according to a member of Congress who has been in touch with military whistleblowers.

Significant elements of the Distributed Common Ground System, a network of computers and sensors designed to knit together disparate strands of intelligence, were off line in Afghanistan when U.S. commanders approved an air strike Oct. 3 that killed 22 staff, patients and others at a Doctors without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Rep. Duncan Hunter wrote Tuesday to Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

“The purpose of DCGS is to enable commanders and service members to ‘see and know’ the battlefield and prevent incidents like the airstrike on the hospital in Kunduz,” wrote Hunter, a California Republican, combat veteran and armed services committee member who has been a persistent DCGS critic.

“Senior Army leaders have gone to extraordinary lengths in recent years to deny evidence of the failures of the DCGS program, and I am asking for your help to prevent them from doing so following this tragic incident,” he wrote.

Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It’s unclear whether the breakdown of key DCGS systems contributed to the decision to approve the air attack, which Pentagon officials say was a mistake. But the coordinates of the hospital were entered into an intelligence database that is part of the DCGS intelligence network, according to a U.S. official who would not be quoted because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.

The Army over the years has touted DCGS as having “saved lives” with its ability to fuse together various intelligence sources, including drone footage, mapping software, human source reports, social media and eavesdropping transcripts. But independent Army testers repeatedly have questioned the system’s effectiveness. One testing report in 2012 said it was “not survivable,” meaning it was at risk of failing in combat.

The Associated Press has reported that special operations intelligence analysts knew the Doctors without Borders facility was a hospital, and were circulating intelligence reports about possible enemy activity at the site. Some of those analysts were using a commercial software system made by Palantir, a Silicon Valley company that competes with DCGS, according to an Army official who would not be quoted because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

President Barack Obama apologized for the air attack to Dr. Joanne Liu, the international president of Doctors without Borders, who has called for an independent international investigation. U.S., NATO and Afghan investigations are looking into the matter. The U.S. has offered to compensate the families of those killed and injured.

Pentagon officials have said the military did not intentionally target the hospital, but they have not explained why the Army analysts who knew it was a medical facility were not able to convey that intelligence to commanders who approved the air strike.

Among the elements of DCGS that were not working, service members told Hunter, were the intelligence fusion server, which is supposed to allow seamless information sharing across various Army elements, and the cloud, which is supposed to offer connectivity to units in the field.

Hunter told Carter that his sources say they fear for their careers if they speak out publicly, because “members of Army leadership have previously gone to great lengths to protect this system and its proponents.”

“Army Brigade commanders have told me of intimidation and threats after saying in writing that DCGS ‘translates into operational opportunities missed and lives lost,’ Hunter wrote to Carter. “Such actions are indicative of a climate that is contradictory to a transparent and objective assessment of the facts with respect to this system.”

The Assignment of the CIA Annex in Benghazi

We keep asking what the CIA annex was actually tasked with doing in Benghazi. It was nothing nefarious but more to control what Hillary and her team were doing. Remember, the CIA is subservient to the White House and State Department. The Hillary-Benghazi testimony on Thursday is not about emails or the server. That track has already been established. The thrust of the questions will center on exactly what Hillary’s State Department intended to do about Libya after Qaddafi. Questions will be about mission pieces coming into play and being installed for deposing Qaddafi with regard to buying back weapons and buying others that were NOT bound for Syria but for the Transnational Council to take over the Qaddafi regime with particular emphasis on Tripoli and Benghazi. As noted from Politico below, this is the posture taken by Gowdy as his team.

Politico: The seven GOP members of the panel aim to strike the right balance during Thursday’s hearing with the former secretary of state. They’re hoping a professional approach, coupled with tough questions about security in Libya, U.S. foreign policy under Clinton and her email practices will help put to rest accusations that they’re ideologues bent on hurting the Democratic front-runner in the polls — or that the panel is a waste of taxpayer money. The hearing, which could last, sources say, until 8 p.m. or 9 p.m., will delve into U.S. policy toward Libya under Clinton, who encouraged U.S. support of the rebels fighting Qadhafi. Republicans want to know what the goal of that policy was and whether she was trying to make Libya a centerpiece of her foreign policy.

Gowdy said he’s particularly interested in asking Clinton about “the increase in violence juxtaposed with the decrease in security” at the mission that was attacked, because “it’s counterintuitive.”

A 1999 report after the East African embassy bombings recommended that the secretary of state take a “personal and active role” in security issues, Republicans — including Gowdy — have noted. Clinton, however, has testified previously that she was not aware of Stevens’ requests for more protection. And while it’s unclear whether the panel has any evidence suggesting that she was, Gowdy says there’s still the issue of “why” those pleas for help didn’t reach her.

When it comes to the machinery that Hillary’s team, it does involve weapons and the contracts and routes they took to reach the destination of Libya, all while doing so against rules and sanctions. Hillary may be actually guilty of much more than we can begin to define.

*** The facts begin to surface:

Washington Times – Tuesday, October 20, 2015
The State Department initially approved a weapons shipment from a California company to Libyans seeking to oust Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 even though a United Nations arms ban was in place, according to memos recovered from the burned-out compound in Benghazi.

The documents, obtained by The Washington Times, show U.S. diplomats at the Benghazi compound were keeping track of several potential U.S.-sanctioned shipments to allies, one or more of which were destined for the Transitional National Council, the Libyan movement that was seeking to oust Gadhafi and form a new government. At least one of those shipments, kept in a file marked “arms deal,” was supposed to come from Dolarian Capital Inc. of Fresno, California, according to an end use certificate from the State Department’s office of defense trade controls licensing that was contained in the file.
The shipment was to include rocket launchers, grenade launchers, 7,000 machine guns and 8 million rounds of ammunition, much of it new and inexpensive hardware originally produced in the former Soviet bloc of Eastern Europe, according to an itemized list included in the end use certificate.

Dolarian Capital, part of a small network of U.S. arms merchants that has worked with U.S. intelligence, confirmed one of its licensing requests to ship weapons via Kuwait to Libya was approved by the State Department in spring 2011 and then inexplicably revoked before the armaments were sent. “Dolarian Capital submitted the end user certificate in question to the U.S. Department of State for review and issuance of a license to transfer the arms and ammunition to Libya. The U.S. Department of State responded with a approval, which was revoked shortly thereafter,” one of its attorneys said in a statement issued to The Washington Times. “As a result no arms or ammunition was shipped or delivered to Libya under the end user certificate.”

Nonetheless, the existence of the documents and the temporary approval of at least one U.S. arms shipment provides the most direct evidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department was aware of efforts to get weapons into the hands of rebels seeking to oust Gadhafi.

Mrs. Clinton is set to testify Thursday during a highly anticipated appearance before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

The Obama administration has been ambiguous about the exact role the United States played in arming the rebels who overthrew Gadhafi, even as arms merchants and former CIA officials have stated publicly that a covert program facilitated such weapons transfers through a network of friendly weapons brokers and third-party countries.

The issue is sensitive because a U.N. ban on weapons shipments to Libya was in place at the time, although the State Department had the authority to deem a specific shipment in the United States interest and permit its transference, officials said.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach declined to comment Tuesday, as did the CIA public affairs office.

To date, the public evidence of U.S. involvement in weapons trafficking to Libya has been episodic.

Reuters reported in 2011 that President Obama signed a special presidential directive that authorized covert U.S. action to destabilize Gadhafi and stand up a new regime, up to and including facilitating weapons transfers if it was deemed in the U.S. interest.

The New York Times, quoting anonymous officials, reported a year later that the Obama administration gave its secret blessing to some weapons shipments to Libyan rebels routed through Qatar during the height of the country’s revolution.

Fox News this summer quoted a former CIA official as providing testimony in a court case that the U.S. almost certainly ran a covert weapons operation to help arm the Libyan rebels.
But to date, no evidence has emerged publicly that the State Department had direct knowledge or involvement in reviewing potential shipments.

The Benghazi documents, however, show that U.S. diplomats in the consulate were monitoring a series of potential exports in spring and summer 2011 to third-party countries and that one or more were likely to land in Libya.

For instance, a June 28, 2011, email chain contained in a file titled “arms deal” documents an exchange among State Department employees about eight export licensing application numbers, indicating one or more of the shipments involved Libya’s Transitional National Council.

“DRL recommends BA L181-11 T6-F RWA — need decision from higher level on TNC,” reads one of the notations in the email.

DRL stands for the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and TNC is the interchangeable acronym for the Transitional National Council, the NATO-supported Libyan rebel government.

The email also references the office of defense trade controls licensing, the State directorate in charge of registering arms exports.

The Dolarian Capital papers, dated May 18, 2011, include an end-user certificate that outlines a long list of heavy former Eastern-bloc weaponry and artillery to be shipped from the California-based arms dealer first to Kuwait, and then to Libya.

“This is to certify the following items are to be delivered by Dolarian Capital, Inc. [of] Fresno, California, United States and secured by M/s Specter Consultancy Services G.T.C. [of] Kuwait City, Kuwait to the Ministry of Interior of the Translational [sic] Government of Libya. The Ministry of Interior has agreed the items are for the exclusive disposition of the Ministry of Interior of the Translational [sic] Government of Libya and will not be re-exported or transferred to any third countries,” the certificate reads.

Just one month earlier, Mrs. Clinton privately endorsed inside the State Department the idea of using arms merchants to help the Libyans. “Fyi. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in an email to her most senior aides.

Dolarian Capital and other U.S. arms merchants — all legally registered with the State Department — have worked with U.S. intelligence over the years to move covert shipments into hot spots around the globe such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Nigeria.

It applied for several State Department licenses to ship weapons to Libya, but only one got approved and then only temporarily before being revoked. The one export listed in the certificate was among the smaller shipments the company proposed for Libya, according to people familiar with the applications. In each instance, State and other U.S. agencies were directly aware the end destinations for the weapons were in Libya.

Dolarian Capital also is listed in court records as the source of weapons for another U.S. arms dealer, Marc Turi, who sought permission to ship weapons to Libya during the same time frame. Mr. Turi since has been charged criminally with making false statements in his application for those shipments, and has publicly asserted that Mrs. Clinton’s State Department and other U.S. officials sanctioned his involvement.

His attorney, J. Cabou, told The Times on Tuesday his client intends to show the United States facilitated the possible weapons shipments to Libya, which never occurred.

Mr. Turi strongly believes he had the permission of the U.S. government to engage in the actions for which he is now charged with and he is vigorously trying to prove that fact,” Mr. Cabou said in a phone interview.

Supporting Mr. Turi’s case is a former CIA officer named David Manners, who has told a federal judge in the case that “It was then, and remains now, my opinion that the United States did participate, directly or indirectly, in the supply of weapons to the Libyan Transitional National Council (TNC).”
The end-user certificate for the one Dolarian transfer, obtained by The Times, details an itemized list of Soviet developed weapons including 10 Konkrus missile launchers, 6,900 RPK, AKM, SPG-9 machine guns and 100 grenade launchers. It also included two Soviet SVD sniper rifles and nearly 8 million rounds of ammunition.

An authorization letter signed by TNC Defense Minister Omar Hareery accompanied the certificate “call[ing] upon” TNC Interior Minister Esam M.T. Shibani and representatives from Specter Consultancy GTC to “supply all military surplus and hardware to the Transitional National Council of Libya [and] provide military and security consultancy for both civilian and government elements within Libya.”

The sensitivity of U.S. involvement in arming the Libya rebels stems from a U.N. embargo.

On March 17, 2011, the U.N. passed Resolution 1973, which imposed a no-fly zone over Libya and also established a panel of experts to monitor the arms embargo.

However, on March 27, 2011, only days after the intervention began, Mrs. Clinton argued that the arms embargo could be disregarded if shipping weapons to rebels would help protect civilians, a claim that came under immediate fire from British defense officials who disagreed with her interpretation of international law.

“We’re not arming the rebels. We’re not planning to arm the rebels,” British Defense Secretary Liam Fox told the BBC the same day Mrs. Clinton hinted otherwise.

In February, The Times published as part of a series on the 2011 NATO intervention classified Libyan intelligence reports including a 16-page weapons list corroborated by Gadhafi aide and U.S. intelligence asset, Mohammed Ismael.

The weapons list revealed where and when arms were brought to both terror and jihadi groups in Libyan cities including the rebel fortress of Benghazi by the country of Qatar. It did not detail the weapons’ point of origin, but in February 2012 Qatari officials sent a letter to the U.N. “categorically” denying they had “supplied the revolutionaries with arms and ammunitions.”

Tape recordings obtained and released by The Times earlier this year depicting secret calls between a U.S. intelligence asset and members of the Gadhafi family revealed the then Libyan regime believed NATO was helping Qatar and other countries illegally smuggle arms across their country’s borders to aide rebel forces in an attempt to destabilize Libya.

In a May 2011 telephone call between U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and heir apparent Seif Gadhafi, Mr. Gadhafi alleged illegal arms shipments were coming into his country.

Mr. Kucinich, an outspoken critic against the Libyan intervention who has since retired from the Congress, told the Times he would not be surprised to learn the U.S. violated the arms embargo.

“Violating the arms embargo to send heavy weapons to Libyan rebels was a phase in engineering a crisis to establish a pretext for U.S. intervention and overthrow of the Libyan government, a very dirty business indeed,” Mr. Kucinich said.

The U.N. Security Council unanimously reinforced the embargo in May when the 15-member panel declined a request from the TNC for fighter jets, attack helicopters and munitions, fearing the weapons could get into the wrong hands.

This blogger has written about the operations in Benghazi, 3 days directly after the attack:

https://founderscode.com/look-who-hillary-hired-for-benghazi-help/admin/

https://founderscode.com/13-hours-of-benghazi-hat-tip-to-the-heroes-rip-to-the-heroes/admin/

https://founderscode.com/wall-street-and-5th-avenue-planned-for-benghazi/admin/

https://founderscode.com/tanto-explains-13-hours-of-benghazi/admin/

https://founderscode.com/the-chase-in-benghazi/admin/