NASA Employees Caught Buying Child Porn, Escape Prosecution, Now Their Names Are Being Kept Secret

NASA Employees Caught Buying Child Porn From Site Which Showed Three-Year-Olds Being Abused, But They Escape Prosecution And Now Their Names Are Being Kept Secret – Daily Mail

.

.
NASA employees were caught buying child pornography from a criminal ring in Eastern Europe that distributed images of minors as young as three, it can be revealed.

An investigation by Daily Mail Online found 16 staff members from the space agency paid for pictures and videos of children in sexual situations, but were never prosecuted.

Their names have never been released because of government guidelines which protect their privacy – prompting fears some of the culprits are still employed by NASA.

The probe found that in 2010, the employees paid for the pornography using personal credit cards or PayPal while working for the government.

Their actions were uncovered during Project Flicker – an investigation by the FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) into American citizens buying child pornography from Belarus and Ukraine.

The investigation began in 2007 when more than 33,000 images of minors being abused flooded into the country.

Investigators identified more than 5,200 citizens across the country who had paid for a subscription to illicit websites in order to access the content.

In 2010 it was revealed that 264 of these worked for the Pentagon as either employees or contractors. Some of them worked for the NSA and had top security clearance.

But the Daily Mail Online can reveal for the first time that NASA employees were also identified in the sickening scheme in the same year.

Transactions from the space agency workers were discovered after a FBI special agent tipped off investigators.

However their names have been redacted in documents obtained by Daily Mail Online via a Freedom of Information Act request from NASA’s Office of Inspector General.

Therefore it is not known whether they were disciplined or sanctioned within the department – meaning they could still be working for the government.

When the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) investigated the Pentagon employees identified in the scheme, they only investigated 52 of the suspects and 212 people on ICE’s list were never questioned at all.

Some had highest available security clearance.

After the probe was completed just 10 were ever charged with viewing or purchasing child pornography – prompting fears some of those caught could still be working for the military.

It is not known whether any of the NASA employers were questioned, but it is clear they were not prosecuted – as their names have not been revealed.

If they had been found guilty of a crime, their names would not have been redacted in the disclosed files.

A spokesman for NASA told Daily Mail Online they would not be commenting beyond what was stated in the FOIA documents.

A spokesman from Immigration and Customs Enforcement said: ‘In 2006, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) opened an investigation into the criminal network behind hundreds of child pornography websites.

‘The investigation, called Project Flicker, was conducted in collaboration with other U.S. and international law enforcement partners around the world, and identified 30,000 customers in 132 countries – resulting in hundreds of convictions in the U.S. and 16 arrests in Belarus and the Ukraine.

‘The criminal rings involved used a variety of online and traditional payment methods, elaborate defense measures and a franchise business model that provided access to images and videos of sexually exploited boys and girls, some as young as 3 years old.

‘HSI’s Cyber Crimes Center distributed more than 5,000 domestic leads to field offices around the country and shared more than 4,000 foreign leads with its law enforcement partners via HSI’s attaché offices.

‘HSI is a leading federal law enforcement agency combating the sexual exploitation of children. HSI conducts investigations under Operation Predator, a nationwide initiative to protect children from sexual predators, including those who possess, trade and produce child pornography; who travel overseas for sex with minors; and who engage in the sex trafficking of children.

‘HSI encourages the public to report suspected child predators and any suspicious activity through its toll-free hotline at 1-866-DHS-2ICE. This hotline is staffed around the clock by investigators.’

The FBI said they would not be adding to the ICE’s statement.

The latest disclosure comes after Daily Mail Online investigations unearthed shocking breaches of computer guidelines inside the Department of Education the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services.

.

.

Leftist Corruption Update: Evidence Points To Ongoing Cover-Up, Collusion Between DHS And State Department (Video)

A New State Dept Smoking Gun Points To Ongoing Cover-Up, Collusion Between DHS And State Dept – Universal Free Press

.

.
Every day the mountain of evidence that is being hidden and the amount of effort needed to perpetuate the ever-widening cover-up continues to increase. There is certainly no shortage of regulatory violations and other, at best questionable, conduct being engaged in at the State under Hillary Clinton and during the days since she left.

A new violation of procedures intended to protect our nation’s secrets is revealed by a reporter during a briefing held by paid State Department paid liar and former Rear Admiral now disgracing his service, John Kirby.

The reporter raises the issue of the State Department’s failure to submit “legally required information regarding Secretary Clinton’s email server to the DHS during her term as Secretary.” He asks Kirby if he’s familiar with it at all, with him naturally stating that he is not, whether that is true or not it buys time. Obstructionists such as those employed by the State Department always want as much time as they can get.

The reporter says it was a 2010 DHS program called the “Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation Program,” under which DHS was to receive every thirty days a list of systems and vulnerabilities from all government agencies. He says, “Evidently there is some reporting that they didn’t get that from State regarding that server.”

He asks Kirby if he’s “familiar at all with that,” to which Kirby predictably replies that he is not. Asked if he would “take it,” Kirby agrees but says, “I don’t know when I’ll be able to get back to you on it. Some of these issues are under review and under investigations, so there may be a real limit here as to what we can do in terms of detail on that.”

What Kirby is telling him is that unless some of his colleagues start pressing for it or unless it is picked up somehow by the mainstream media, he won’t be answering the quite legitimate question. He says that ongoing investigations or reviews might be a problem, but certainly admitting that such a program exists would in no way interfere with either nor would divulging whether that policy had been followed and if not where the failure had occurred.

What Kirby is doing is covering up. It’s now what he gets paid to do, to assist those engaging in criminal conduct in shielding their anti-American activities from the American people.

This is a potentially huge smoking gun, in that during, perhaps throughout, the four year tenure of Clinton as Secretary of State, the practice was either to not report based upon a recognized security breach or to report the deviation and violations with complicity in both agencies to its existence and continuance.

Just who those individuals involved were and the basis for their decisions would be some very telling and relevant information. The process left a decision-making trail that would indicate both intent and culpability of multiple parties involved.

It’s not surprising that Kirby claimed to not know anything about it while also assuming that it was under review or investigation. He didn’t have time to get his story straight but he’d better. This is probably a question he’ll be asked again, and something else he’s going to have to cover up for in order to “serve his country.”

.

.

.

Leftist Treason Update: Senators Who Took Money From Iran Lobby Now Back Insane Nuclear Deal

Traitor Senators Took Money From Iran Lobby, Back Iran Nukes – Front Page

.

.
Senator Markey has announced his support for the Iran deal that will let the terrorist regime inspect its own Parchin nuclear weapons research site, conduct uranium enrichment, build advanced centrifuges, buy ballistic missiles, fund terrorism and have a near zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb.

There was no surprise there.

Markey had topped the list of candidates supported by the Iran Lobby. And the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) had maxed out its contributions to his campaign.

After more fake suspense, Al Franken, another IAPAC backed politician who also benefited from Iran Lobby money, came out for the nuke sellout.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the Iran Lobby’s third Dem senator, didn’t bother playing coy like her colleagues. She came out for the deal a while back even though she only got half the IAPAC cash that Franken and Markey received.

As did Senator Gillibrand, who had benefited from IAPAC money back when she first ran for senator and whose position on the deal should have come as no surprise.

The Iran Lobby had even tried, and failed, to turn Arizona Republican Jeff Flake. Iran Lobby cash had made the White House count on him as the Republican who would flip, but Flake came out against the deal. The Iran Lobby invested a good deal of time and money into Schumer, but that effort also failed.

Still these donations were only the tip of the Iran Lobby iceberg.

Gillibrand had also picked up money from the Iran Lobby’s Hassan Nemazee. Namazee was Hillary’s national campaign finance director who had raised a fortune for both her and Kerry before pleading guilty to a fraud scheme encompassing hundreds of millions of dollars. Nemazee had been an IAPAC trustee and had helped set up the organization.

Bill Clinton had nominated Hassan Nemazee as the US ambassador to Argentina when he had only been a citizen for two years. A spoilsport Senate didn’t allow Clinton to make a member of the Iran Lobby into a US ambassador, but Nemazee remained a steady presence on the Dem fundraising circuit.

Nemazee had donated to Gillibrand and had also kicked in money to help the Franken Recount Fund scour all the cemeteries for freshly dead votes, as well as to Barbara Boxer, who also came out for the Iran nuke deal. Boxer had also received money more directly from IAPAC.

In the House, the Democratic recipients of IAPAC money came out for the deal. Mike Honda, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Iran Lobby backed the nuke sellout. As did Andre Carson, Gerry Connolly, Donna Edwards and Jackie Speier. The Iran Lobby was certainly getting its money’s worth.

But the Iran Lobby’s biggest wins weren’t Markey or Shaheen. The real victory had come long before when two of their biggest politicians, Joe Biden and John Kerry, had moved into prime positions in the administration. Not only IAPAC, but key Iran Lobby figures had been major donors to both men.

That list includes Housang Amirahmadi, the founder of the American Iranian Council, who had spoken of a campaign to “conquer Obama’s heart and mind” and had described himself as “the Iranian lobby in the United States.” It includes the Iranian Muslim Association of North America (IMAN) board members who had fundraised for Biden. And it includes the aforementioned Hassan Nemazee.

A member of Iran’s opposition had accused Biden’s campaigns of being “financed by Islamic charities of the Iranian regime based in California and by the Silicon Iran network.” Biden’s affinity for the terrorist regime in Tehran was so extreme that after 9/11 he had suggested, “Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran”.

Appeasement inflation has since raised that $200 million to at least $50 billion. But there are still no strings worth mentioning attached to the big check.

Questions about donations from the Iran Lobby had haunted Kerry’s campaign. Back then Kerry had been accused of supporting an agreement favorable to Iran. The parameters of that controversial proposal however were less generous than the one that Obama and Kerry are trying to sell now.

The hypothetical debates over the influence of the Iran Lobby have come to a very real conclusion.

Both of Obama’s secretaries of state were involved in Iran Lobby cash controversies, as was his vice president and his former secretary of defense. Obama was also the beneficiary of sizable donations from the Iran Lobby. Akbar Ghahary, the former co-founder of IAPAC, had donated and raised some $50,000 for Obama.

It’s an unprecedented track record that has received very little notice. While the so-called “Israel Lobby” is constantly scrutinized, the fact that key foreign policy positions under Obama are controlled by political figures with troubling ties to an enemy of this country has gone mostly unreported by the mainstream media.

This culture of silence allowed the Iran Lobby to get away with taking out a full-page ad in the New York Times before the Netanyahu speech asking, “Will Congress side with our President or a Foreign Leader?”

Iran’s stooges had taken a break from lobbying for ballistic missiles to play American patriots.

Obama and his allies, Iranian and domestic, have accused opponents of his dirty Iran deal of making “common cause” with that same terror regime and of treason. The ugly truth is that he and his political accomplices were the traitors all along.

Democrats in favor of a deal that will let a terrorist regime go nuclear have taken money from lobbies for that regime. They have broken their oath by taking bribes from a regime whose leaders chant, “Death to America”. Their pretense of examining the deal is nothing more than a hollow charade.

This deal has come down from Iran Lobby influenced politicians like Kerry and is being waved through by members of Congress who have taken money from the Iran Lobby. That is treason plain and simple.

Despite what we are told about its “moderate” leaders, Iran considers itself to be in a state of war with us. Iran and its agents have repeatedly carried out attacks against American soldiers, abducted and tortured to death American officials and have even engaged in attacks on American naval vessels.

Aiding an enemy state in developing nuclear weapons is the worst form of treason imaginable. Helping put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists is the gravest of crimes.

The Democrats who have approved this deal are turning their party into a party of atom bomb spies.

Those politicians who have taken money from the Iran Lobby and are signing off on a deal that will let Iran go nuclear have engaged in the worst form of treason and committed the gravest of crimes. They must know that they will be held accountable. That when Iran detonates its first bomb, their names will be on it.

.

.

*VIDEO* Hitlery’s Email Scandal In Two And A Half Minutes


.
H/T Universal Free Press

.

.

Shattering New Evidence Reveals Obama Spent $500M To Train Jihadi Elite Force Which Now Partners With Al-Qaeda Group

Shattering New Evidence Reveals Obama Spent $500M To Train Jihadi Elite Force Which Now Partners With Al-Qaeda Group – Walid Shoebat

Obama’s $500 million plan to combat Bashar Al-Assad and ISIS forces in Syria created an elite force called “Regiment-30”. While Fox News revealed the program only gained 54 applicants, new evidence reveals that there were “thousands of outside forces” who joined Regiment-30, who are now also joining Al-Nusra terror front in Syria. The U.S-appointed Regiment-30’s main leader, as ironclad evidence reveals, is one code-named Abu Iskandar and he has now sent out an official appeal, including airing an explosive T.V interview, confirming they joined the notorious terrorist Al-Nusra Front which carried out massacres against Christians in Adra and Maaloula in Syria. Here is how the story goes:

As soon as the U.S-backed Regiment-30 was dispatched, their commander Nadim Al Hassan and his deputy Farhan Al Jassem, along with 18 others (this would be third of the U.S. trained regiment), were “abducted” and re-educated by the terrorist organization Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria. Al-Nusra was designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization and are known for massacring Christians.

The Pentagon denied the claim of the abduction of a third of this U.S.-appointed regiment. This complete lie by the Pentagon was not only flatly refuted by Reuters [1], but one official document, including an interview with the main leader of the U.S.-backed Regimen-30, First Lieutenant Abu Iskandar, reveals receiving the best of training and declares his appeal to Al-Nusra, reminding the group of its unity agreement with Al-Nusra to join forces:

.

.
The pertinent part of the plea states:


“The leadership in Regiment-30 is calling upon (and for the second time) our brothers in Al-Nusra to stop these exercises [abducting Regiment 30 operatives] and stop the bloodshed and to keep our unity [agreement] intact“.

.

.
This plea to keep a “previous unity agreement”, cemented between Regiment-30 and Al-Nusra, was also exposed from sources coming directly from the Middle East. Jenan Moussa, an Arab journalist, who was able to penetrate the headquarters of the top ranking official in the U.S. appointed Regiment-30, Lieutenant commander Abu Iskandar, reveals an amazing tale showing how this U.S. appointed team was again begging Al-Nusra terror front to keep its previous arrangements and promises in preserving the unity coalition agreement that the two had made. The clear evidence from the U.S. appointed commander spilling the beans on everything, his intentions to only use the U.S. and his previous agreement to join forces with Al-Nusra and more can be watched here. Shoebat.com translated most of the interview showing the pertinent lines.

.

.
Jenan first introduces the scene by stating:

”…they were showing me all the weapons provided by the U.S…. it is the first time that a journalist was able to get to the headquarters [of Regiment-30] which is located in Northern Aleppo”.

Abu Iskandar speaks of when Al-Nusra had attacked and abducted ten from Regiment-30 operatives on July 12, 2015 adding that: (see 1:50)

“we had arranged previously with Al-Nusra and agreed never to combat each other and we would never give any information to the allies about Al-Nusra. We are not the arm of the U.S. in Syria and we are not against Al-Nusra Front, the opposite is the truth, they [Al-Nusra] are our brothers and we personally know them… they might accuse us of being agents of the West but we are agents for our country… we are both the same sons and both sides Al-Nusra and ours who were killed are [Jihadi] martyrs…”

Jenan then asks about the detail for the collaboration and arrangements between Regiment-30 and the terrorist group Al-Nusra Front (begin at 4:17). Abu Iskandar replies:

“We are forced to make arrangements with all other fighting groups [including Al-Nusra] and we say that before we came here a week ago that we met with Al-Nusra, and four months ago we met Al-Nusra, which in turn expressed admiration for the [U.S.-led Regiment 30] program. In fact they welcomed us… our arrangements with Al-Nusra is to collaborate militarily. We are not only 54, we are thousands… We were then shocked why they kidnapped Nadim, our leader… we are not 54, we are thousands, we have ground troops on land helping us.”

The “thousands” revealed by Abu Iskandar are “defensive forces” added in by the leadership of Regiment-30. “Al-Nusra released four already” says Abu Iskandar, emphasizing that the broken unity between Al-Nusra and Regiment-30 was simply a skirmish and that both sides mended their differences.

Jenan then asks to reveal what type of weaponry Regiment-30 is using, adding that “information has been revealed that some of your weapons [provided by the allies] are now in the hands of Al-Nusra. What did they [U.S] provide you?” Abu Iskandar denied that any weapons fell in the hands of Al-Nusra and that Al-Nusra released all whom they kidnapped.

Jenan then asks (at 8:11) “Don’t you think that the Americans just dumped you here to die?” Abu Iskandar smiles, and Jenan adds “what can 54 do against all these huge numbers of the other extremist sides, especially that you are agents of the U.S. you have been already honed in on.”

Abu Iskandar replies (see 8:30):

“The Americans, you in the media keep talking about them, the Americans are only part of this alliance. They did give us aid and lots of services, but the bigger enemy [besides the U.S.] is Bashar who is defunct politically”.

Al-Nusra is known to behead Christians.

SOURCES

[1] Patrick Poole, PJMedia reported “From the Reuters report: The al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front has abducted the leader of a U.S.-backed rebel group in north Syria, opposition sources and a monitoring group said, in a blow to Washington’s efforts to train and equip fighters to combat Islamic State. A statement issued in the name of the group, “Division 30″, accused the Nusra Front of abducting Nadim al-Hassan and a number of his companions in a rural area north of Aleppo. It urged Nusra to release them. A Syrian activist and a second opposition source said most of the 54 fighters who have so far completed a U.S.-led train and equip programmed in neighboring Turkey were from Division 30. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based group that reports on the war, said the men were abducted while returning from a meeting in Azaz, north of Aleppo, to coordinate efforts with other factions. The opposition source said they were abducted on Tuesday night. The Telegraph is also reporting: Al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadists kidnapped the commanders of a US-trained rebel faction operating in northern Syria on Wednesday, sources said, in another blow for the Pentagon’s train-and-equip program for Syrian rebels. A statement issued Wednesday by the Division 30 Infantry group accused the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, of taking the Division’s commander, Colonel Nadim Al-Hassan, and his companions in the northern countryside of Aleppo province. “[The Division] demands that the brothers in the Nusra Front release the colonel… and his companions with the utmost speed so as to preserve the blood of the Muslims and… so as not to weaken the frontlines with side disputes between the brothers of one side,” said the statement, which was released on Division 30′s official page on social media.

.

.

After Contaminating River With Orange Sludge, EPA Delivers Replacement Water For Navajo Farms In Dirty Oil Tanks

EPA Draws Ire Of Navajo Nation After Water Arrives In Dirty Oil Tanks – Washington Times

The EPA spill that contaminated rivers in Colorado and New Mexico was bad enough, but now Navajo Nation officials are fuming after a delivery of water for livestock and crops arrived in dirty oil tanks.

Navajo Nation president Russell Begaye’s finger came up brown and oily after he ran it inside the spigot of a water tank, one of nine delivered by an EPA contractor to Shiprock, New Mexico, in the aftermath of the accident that sent orange mining waste down the Animas and San Juan rivers.

“This is what they expect our animals to drink and to use this and pollute our farmland, our canals?” said Mr. Begaye in video posted Wednesday on his Facebook page.

“This is totally unacceptable. How can anybody give water from a tank like this that was clearly an oil tank and expect us to drink it, our animals to drink it? And to contaminate our soil with this?” said Mr. Begaye. “It’s just wrong. Clearly, it’s wrong.”

In separate statements Thursday, the EPA and its contractor, Triple S Trucking in Aztec, New Mexico, told KOB-TV in Albuquerque that they will investigate the problem.

“Triple S Trucking has received assurances that each of the tanks that were used were steam cleaned and inspected prior to use at Shiprock,” said the company’s statement. “Triple S Trucking will continue to work cooperatively to investigate this complaint about contamination of the agricultural water.”

The episode comes as another black eye for the EPA, which is already under investigation for accidentally triggering the 3-million-gallon torrent of wastewater from the Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colorado, and then waiting 24 hours before reporting it.

“Every new development of the EPA spill story is worse than the last,” said Jonathan Lockwood, head of the free-market group Advancing Colorado.

In another video, Mr. Begaye draws a cup of water from the tanker’s spigot that comes up speckled with oily debris.

“It just angers us,” he said. “We told them to haul all this stuff off.”

.

.
Navajo and agency officials have agreed that Friday will be the last day for EPA water deliveries for farmland and livestock, according to the EPA.

“EPA will work closely with the Navajo Nation in the coming weeks to ensure that a long-term monitoring plan for the San Juan River is implemented,” said the EPA in a Thursday statement. “In addition, EPA is positioned to provide technical assistance in flushing irrigation ditches on the Navajo Nation.”

The Navajo Nation had refused to turn on its intakes from the San Juan River until its own environmental agency gave the water a clean bill of health. Other communities in Colorado and New Mexico reopened their valves last weekend after EPA testing found the Animas and San Juan rivers at pre-spill conditions.

The Interior Department and the EPA’s Office of Inspector General are investigating the Aug. 5 accident.

.

.

So, What Did The Author Of The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause Have To Say About Birthright Citizenship?


.
AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SECTION 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

SECTION 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

SECTION 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

SECTION 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

————————————————————————————————————————–

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” – Senator Jacob M. Howard, author of the Section 1. citizenship clause

I think that pretty much settles the anchor babies issue right there.

.

Dozens Of Emails Were ‘Born Classified,’ Undermining Hitlery’s Claim

Dozens Of Clinton Emails Were ‘Born Classified,’ Undermining Candidate’s Claim – Daily Caller

.
…………

.
Hillary Clinton sent and received dozens of emails that contained “foreign government information,” meaning that it was “born classified,” according to a new report from Reuters.

The finding, which Reuters based on a review of the Clinton emails that have been publicly released by the State Department, deals yet another heavy blow to the Democratic presidential candidate’s repeated claim that she did not send or receive emails with classified information when she was secretary of state.

The inspector general for the Intelligence Community has already found that two emails that traversed Clinton’s email server contained information that was “top secret” at the time it was sent. After that revelation, Clinton revised her claim, saying that she did not handle sensitive information that was marked as such when it was exchanged.

Reuters determined that at least 30 email threads from 2009 bear classification markings which indicate that the information – which is marked “confidential” – is “foreign government information.”

Clinton sent at least 17 of those emails, which are now redacted with a 1.4(b) code, the National Archives and Records Administration’s classification for foreign information, a category which includes any information written or spoken in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts

One of those is an email Clinton sent on Nov. 10, 2009 to her longtime friend, Sidney Blumenthal. In the exchange, Clinton refers to a recent trip to Berlin.

“Lots of good exchanges w leaders,” she wrote. The rest of the email is redacted and classified as “confidential.” It was sent from Clinton’s private email account to Blumenthal’s aol.com account, which was hacked in 2013.

.

.
Clinton’s reference to her exchanges with foreign leaders could fit into the “foreign government information” category.

The information is also classified as soon as it is generated, a former NARA official told Reuters.

“It’s born classified,” said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government’s Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO).

“If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it’s in U.S. channels and U.S. possession,” Leonard continued.

Reuters notes that while its findings do not undermine Clinton’s claims that the emails she sent and received did not have classification markings on them when they were received, standard nondisclosure agreements issued by the federal government warns officials that not all classified information is marked as such when exchanged.

Reuters also points to a series of presidential executive orders handed down since 2003 which have emphasized that information that foreign governments share with U.S. officials on the condition of confidentiality is the only type that is “presumed” to be classified.

That clause comes to play in a November 2009 email that a staffer for David Miliband, the British foreign secretary at the time, sent to Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.

Miliband’s aide pressed for confidentiality, writing that his boss “very much wants the Secretary (only) to see this note.”

.

.
The rest of the email – five pages worth – is redacted. Abedin forwarded the message to Clinton’s email address, hdr22@clintonemail.com, and wrote: “Another note from milliband that he doesn’t want to send through the system.”

A spokeswoman for an unnamed foreign government included in the Clinton emails told Reuters that information was shared in confidence with Clinton and her staff.

“If so, it appears this information should have been classified at the time and not handled on a private unsecured email network, according to government regulations,” according to Reuters.

.

.

Obama Hiding Secret Letters To Foreign Governments Promising Not To Penalize Them For Doing Business With Iran

Senators: Obama Admin Hiding Secret Iran Deal Letters – Washington Free Beacon

.

.
Two leading U.S. senators are calling on the Obama administration to release secret letters to foreign governments assuring them that they will not be legally penalized for doing business with the Iranian government, according to a copy of a letter sent Wednesday to the State Department and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Sens. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) and Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) disclosed in the letter to the State Department that U.S. lawmakers have been shown copies of several letters sent by the Obama administration to the Chinese, German, French, and British governments assuring them that companies doing business with Iran will not come under penalty.

The Obama administration is purportedly promising the foreign governments that if Iran violates the parameters of a recently inked nuclear accord, European companies will not be penalized, according to the secret letters.

Congress became aware of these promises during closed-door briefings with the Obama administration and through documents filed by the administration under a law requiring full disclosure of all information pertaining to the accord.

The issue of sanctions on Iran has become a major issue on Capitol Hill in the weeks since the Obama administration agreed to a deal that permits Iran to enter the international community in exchange for temporarily constraining its nuclear program.

Iran will receive more than $150 billion in sanctions relief as part of the deal and many of its military branches will be removed from international sanctions designations.

“The documents submitted by the Administration to Congress include non-public letters that you sent to the French, British, German, and Chinese governments on the consequences of sanctions snap-back,” Kirk and Rubio wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry.

“These letters appear to reassure these foreign governments that their companies may not be impacted if sanctions are re-imposed in response to Iranian violations of the agreement,” they claim. “While Administration officials have claimed that this is not the case, we think it is important for the American public to be able to read your assurances to foreign governments for themselves as their elected representatives review this deal in the coming weeks.”

Kirk and Rubio are demanding that the Obama administration release these letters to the public so that the full nature of the White House’s backroom dealings are made known.

“We therefore request the Administration to publicly release these letters, which are not classified, so that the full extent of the Administration’s non-public assurances to European and Chinese governments can be discussed openly by Congress and analyzed by impartial outside experts,” they write.

“Given the conflicting interpretations hinted at by the deal’s various stakeholders, it would also ease congressional review of the deal if you were to receive assurances from the other members of the P5+1 about the guidance they will provide to companies about the inherent risks of investing in Iran due to Iran’s ongoing support for terrorism and use of its financial system for illicit activities and the potential for sanctions to snap back if Iran violates the nuclear agreement,” the letter states.

As Iranian companies and government entities are removed from sanctions lists, they will be permitted to do business on the open market. A number of governments, including the Russia and Italy, have already expressed interest in partnering with Iran.

U.S. lawmakers remain concerned that if Iran violates the nuclear accord, sanctions will not be reimposed in a meaningful way.

“The conditions under which foreign investment in Iran would proceed under the nuclear agreement remain unclear,” Kirk and Rubio wrote. “On July 23, 2015, Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that companies that have invested in Iran would ‘not be able to continue doing things that are in violation of the sanctions’ if sanctions snap back.”

“Foreign investment in Iran will involve long-term contracts in many cases, however, and some interpretations of the Iran agreement indicate these contracts might be protected from the snap-back of sanctions by a so-called ‘grandfather clause,’” they write.

Under the terms of the agreement, sanctions on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a paramilitary force known to commit acts of terrorism across the globe, will be lifted.

A multi-billion dollars financial empire belonging to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei also will be removed from sanctions lists, according to the parameters of the deal.

.

.

Big Surprise! Hitlery Aides’ BlackBerrys Likely Destroyed

Clinton Aides’ BlackBerrys Likely Destroyed – The Hill

.

.
State Department BlackBerry devices issued to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin have likely been destroyed or sold off, the department said in a court filing on Wednesday.

Mills and Abedin “were each issued BlackBerry devices,” department Executive Secretary Joseph Macmanus wrote in the filing.

The department, however, “has not located any such device,” and believes that they would have been destroyed or removed from the department’s control.

“Because the devices issues to Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin would have been outdated models, in accordance with standard operating procedures those devices would have been destroyed or excessed,” Macmanus added.

State Department spokesman John Kirby confirmed later on Wednesday afternoon that the two former officials’ devices were returned to the department after they left office.

“They belong to the United States government, and when you leave an agency you just turn it in,” Kirby said. “So yes, they were turned in. Where they are now I couldn’t begin to tell you.

“It’s also likely, because this was a while ago, that those devices may have been destroyed,” he added. “I don’t have the records of it because they were old and outmoded and often times we purchase new devices” in those circumstances.

In the same court filing, the State Department confirmed its previous claim that Clinton used a personal BlackBerry during her time in office that was not issued by the federal government.

The State Department “does not believe that any personal computing device was issued by the department to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and has not located any such device at the department,” Macmanus wrote.

News of the Clinton aides’ devices adds to the growing scrutiny on the Democratic presidential front-runner and two of her top advisors, both of whom have been drawn into the fire surrounding the Clinton email furor.

The criticism has been a major drag on Clinton’s presidential campaign, and has provided a nearly endless supply of ammunition to her critics – including some Democrats.

Wednesday’s filing came as part of a lawsuit from the conservative organization Judicial Watch, which is looking for documents related to Abedin’s employment arrangement while she served in the State Department.

“The questions just keep popping up,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “Every time the State Department tries to justify its stonewalling, one more bit of information arises.”

A hearing in the case before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is scheduled for Thursday afternoon.

.

.

Did Hitlery Sell Classified U.S. intelligence?

The Real Email Question: Did Hillary Clinton Sell US Secrets? – Red State

.

.
While the media is focusing your attention on the shiny object that is her email server, the real story is not being told. The circumstantial evidence indicates that Hillary Clinton, or members of her inner circle with her connivance, purloined highly classified US intelligence and either sold it, traded it, or used it for personal gain. This is not a conspiracy theory and it is not hyperbole. Stick with me for a moment.

The smokescreen

Via the AP:

On Monday, the inspector general for the 17 spy agencies that make up what is known as the intelligence community told Congress that two of 40 emails in a random sample of the 30,000 emails Clinton gave the State Department for review contained information deemed “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information,” one of the government’s highest levels of classification.

The AP story, along with much of the rest of the media is trying to give two impressions:

First, the Clinton abstracted classifed information and included it in her emails, again AP

Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.

Second, that there is all kinds of confusion about security classification

Nothing in the message is “lifted” from classified documents, the officials said, though they differed on where the information in it was sourced. Some said it improperly points back to highly classified material, while others countered that it was a classic case of what the government calls “parallel reporting” – different people knowing the same thing through different means.

We’ve all seen this behavior before with Clinton and her confederates in the media. Rose Law Firm records? Cattle futures? Whitewater? First it is “nothing to see here, move on.” Next it is “it is all so complicated, how could a somewhat addled old lady possibly keep it straight?”

According to the Intelligence Community IG this is what was found in the documents David Kendall turned over on the famous “thumb drive” :

.

.
Focus your attention on the last line. Now let’s see what this means let’s go to John Schindler of 20committee.com writing at The Daily Beast:

• TOP SECRET, as the name implies, is the highest official classification level in the U.S. government, defined as information whose unauthorized release “could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security or foreign relations.”

• SI refers to Special Intelligence, meaning it is information derived from intercepted communications, which is the business of the National Security Agency, America’s single biggest source of intelligence. They’re the guys who eavesdrop on phone calls, map who’s calling whom, and comb through emails. SI is a subset of what the intelligence community calls Sensitive Compartmented Information, or SCI. And these materials always require special handling and protection. They are to be kept in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF, which is a special hardened room that is safe from both physical and electronic intrusion.

• TK refers to Talent Keyhole, which is an intelligence community caveat indicating that the classified material was obtained via satellite.

• NOFORN, as the name implies, means that the materials can only be shown to Americans, not to foreigners.

If you are interested in the permutations of security classifications at the TS level, this is a good primer.

The focus here is TK. This document the IC IG is talking about is satellite imagery. That is all it could have been. The Keyhole-series satellite is a recon satellite that produces imagery. It doesn’t produce anything else. What the IG found is not a passing reference to classified information or something State produced independently.

How did it get there?

The information we are talking about had to have originated on a highly secure network, one that was certified to handle SCIF-level information. (See page 43 for details) At some point it migrated from a SCIF to a highly secure network to Clinton’s email to her server. To get the document from the secure channel to the non-secure channel requires conscious effort. IT CANNOT HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT. This is evidenced by the fact that it appears someone stripped classifications from documents:

The claims come after the Clinton campaign stuck to the argument that the Democratic presidential candidate, while secretary of state, never dealt with emails that were “marked” classified at the time.

“Hillary only used her personal account for unclassified email. No information in her emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them,” campaign Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri said in a statement to supporters Wednesday.

But a State Department official told Fox News that the intelligence community inspector general, who raised the most recent concerns about Clinton’s emails, made clear that at least one of those messages contained information that only could have come from the intelligence community.

“If so, they would have had to come in with all the appropriate classification markings,” the official said.

The official questioned whether someone, then, tampered with that message. “[S]omewhere between the point they came into the building and the time they reached HRC’s server, someone would have had to strip the classification markings from that information before it was transmitted to HRC’s personal email.”

This seems to be true because the Clinton campaign is pushing the “retroactive classification” story line and the IC IG implies that the images have been properly marked for their report which implies they were not properly marked when recovered.

Say what?

Now we have a situation where a person or persons downloaded highly classified images in a SCIF environment, or scanned hard copies of documents in a SCIF (cleared persons can bring electronic devices into a SCIF and there are dozens of scanner apps for smartphones and tablets. Clinton and her clique would undoubtedly be cleared.), ported those electronic files over to a non-secure computer and emailed them to someone using Hillary Clinton’s server. These particular images were emailed by or to Hillary Clinton.

If you want to stop now just remember this:

The information the IC IG is talking about a) could not have accidentally ended up in Clinton’s email, b) it was altered to remove security classifications, and c) there has to be a reason someone selected this information, from among the wealth of top secret information Clinton had access to, to steal.

Why would anyone do that?

Now that we’ve dismissed the idea that the classified material was classified post facto, or it was mentioned in passing and accidentally ended up in Hillary’s email, the question becomes one of a) why anyone would remove highly classified material from a secure environment, b) strip the security markings on highly classified satellite imagery and c) send it via un-secure email. These answers go to motive and state of mind. They wanted to sanitize the imagery as much as possible so no casual observer could tell it was classified (which asks another why? question which we will get to) and it was sent via un-secure email because the intended recipient did not have SCIF access.

What we know for certain is that Clinton could not have been contemplating saving this information for use in her memoirs because her memoirs would require State and Intelligence review and someone would have identified the imagery as TS//TK.

The beginning of a trail…

We know that Hillary Clinton relied to some degree on intelligence briefings sent to her by her loyalist and vicious attack poodle, Sid Blumenthal. This arrangement came to light when Blumethal’s AOL account (I am not making that up) was accessed by a Romanian hacker nicknamed ‘Guccifer.’ Via Politico:

Sidney Blumenthal did not write or know the source of any of the Libya intelligence he passed on to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the top Clinton ally told investigators on the House Select Committee on Benghazi Tuesday in a closed-door deposition.

Blumenthal, subpoenaed by the committee, also did not verify any of the intelligence he forwarded to the nation’s top diplomat. Instead, Blumenthal was copying and pasting memos from Tyler Drumheller, a former CIA operative who was looking into a Libya-related business venture, and sending them to Clinton, two people familiar with his testimony told POLITICO.

“One of the folks providing her the largest volume of information was simply and merely a conduit of someone who… may have had business interest in Libya,” said panel Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) 80% (R-S.C.) at the end of a nearly nine-hour interview. “We have a CIA, so why would you not rely on your own vetted source intelligence agency? In this case, there was no vetting, no analysis of credibility whatsoever.”

And:

In her early months in office, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in contact with unofficial adviser Sidney Blumenthal more often and on a wider range of topics than was previously known, a set of about 3,000 Clinton emails released Tuesday night by the State Department revealed.

While Blumenthal’s role as a provider of off-the-books intelligence reports on Libya has stirred controversy, the newly disclosed emails show he also acted as an intermediary with officials involved in the Northern Ireland peace process and shared advice with Clinton on issues from Iran to British politics to how to blame China for the breakdown of global climate talks.

Blumenthal claims he didn’t actually know anything, that he was only an intermediary passing information from a former CIA official, Iraq War critic (I know, those are redundant terms) and would-be political player named Tyler Drumheller.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had access to the world’s top intelligence agencies and their resources, but at the most turbulent moment of her tenure as the nation’s top diplomat, she received a stream of intelligence on Libya and the Benghazi attack by a former CIA official working outside the government, sources said.

Since his retirement, Drumheller has also contributed to various Democratic politicians, according to records maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics. In 2005, he contributed a combined $800 to the Senate campaigns of former Sens. Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu, and donated $500 to Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-New Jersey, in 2011, the Center for Responsive Politics said.

And…

We know at least two Clinton cronies followed her to State: Cheryl Mills (Chief of Staff) and sweet Huma Abedin (Deputy Chief of Staff). They also had Clinton foundation email addresses. Both Mills and Abedin held the status of ‘special employees’ which allowed them to hold other jobs while working at State. Mills was on the board of NYU’s Abu Dhabi campus, general counsel for NYU, and on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation. Abedin worked for an investment consultancy called Teneo Holdings and was also on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation. We don’t know their security access but it would be safe to say they saw everything Hillary did.

What happened to the imagery?

Either Clinton sent top secret material via her private email to herself to archive for grins or the Clinton server was only a way station on its way somewhere else. Simply keeping the images for some future use doesn’t make sense to me as it is a high risk-low payoff action. The more likely scenario is that something was done with the images, something that benefited one or more Clintons.

A logical route would be Clinton gets info from Blumenthal who gets info from Drumheller. Clinton sends info to Blumenthal who sends info to Drumheller.

But if Blumenthal, or someone like him, handled the outgoing classified information did they also act as a bag man, collecting money for the imagery?

What did Drumheller, or someone like him, get for his efforts if he received the imagery? Was he merely a bit player at the fringe of Democrat politics who was releasing his inner Walter Mitty by sending bulls*** intel analyses to Hillary? Maybe in hopes of become Director of Central Intelligence after her coronation? Did he get paid by Clinton? Or was the operation a quid pro quo where he received classified materials that he could sell to others and curry favor and impress others to gain access to other political players? Did someone in Abu Dhabi get the images? Or did they end up at Teneo Holdings to help bolster some investment decision? One of these answers is better than the others.

…or it could have been run of the mill Clinton corruption

Alternatively, once could ask were these images and other information used to sweeten the pot for various kleptocrats and dictators who paid extortionate amounts of money for speeches by Bill Clinton? Suppose a Third World dictator… let’s imagine in Central Asia… paid Bill Clinton… let’s just throw a number out there… $500,000 for a speech. Suppose as part of the deal that Clinton client also received satellite imagery or signal intercepts that increased their life expectancy. Is there any evidence of this? No. But neither is there any proof it didn’t happen. As we learned during the administration of GHW Bush, it is not the quality of the evidence that requires an investigation, rather it is the seriousness of the allegation.

Searching for a fall guy

Clinton’s story is “I didn’t know squat.” That is as plausible as Obama’s Justice Department wants to make it. But either someone gave her the images and she sent them or they had log in access to her email and sent them for her. Her only real defense, given her access to classified material and a Keyhole satellite image would have been instantly recognizable, is that someone used her email to send it.

But how did they get into Hillary’s email? Did Hillary handle the images? I don’t think she had the technical chops – and is way too smart – to scan/download satellite imagery, strip the security classification, and email them. Did Cheryl Mills, an attorney, do this? Lawyers do stupid stuff all the time but usually it has the patina of cleverness attached. That leaves Huma.

With no security classification, Sid Blumenthal has plausible deniablity. He can say he got the images (this is assuming that at some point he did receive them) but assumed they were unclassified.

This makes one logical fall guy Tyler Drumheller. Drumheller would instantly recognize the Keyhole imagery so stripping the security classification wouldn’t muddy the water much for him if it ever went to court. But anyone he gave/showed the imagery to would not necessarily know the source which could provide some degree of cover. Unfortunately, we will never know Mr. Drumheller’s true role in this as he visited Fort Marcy Park died of pancreatic cancer on August 2, 2015.

.

.

More Bad News For Hitlery

Potential Classified Clinton Emails Grow To More Than 300 – Daily Caller

.

.
The State Department is referring 305 of Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails to the intelligence community to review for classified information, the federal government reported in a court filing on Monday.

“Out of a sample of approximately 20% of the Clinton emails, the [Intelligence Community] reviewers have only recommended 305 documents – approximately 5.1% – for referral to their agencies for consultation,” State Department attorneys told U.S. District Court judge Emmet Sullivan, according to The Washington Times.

The State Department has reviewed about 6,000 of the approximately 30,000 emails Clinton handed over in December. If reviewers continue to find emails with secret information at the current rate, more than 1,500 of Clinton’s emails could potentially contain highly classified material.

The government’s revelation comes after the Intelligence Community inspector general, I. Charles McCullough, told Congress earlier this month that his agency had determined that two emails that traversed Clinton’s private email server contained information that was “top secret” – the highest classification level.

That finding prompted the FBI to intervene and gain control of the private email server Clinton used to maintain her personal email account during her tenure at State. The agency also commandeered thumb drives containing copies of Clinton’s emails that her attorney, David Kendall, had stored in a safe in his office.

The State Department has already redacted and released 60 Clinton emails which contain information that is classified as “confidential” – the lowest category. The agency insists that the information was not classified at the time it was sent and stored on Clinton’s server.

Some of those emails were sent by Clinton herself, including one she sent in Nov. 2009 to her longtime friend, Sidney Blumenthal, about former U.S. ambassador Joe Wilson.

.

.
Clinton has downplayed the entire email controversy as a right-wing conspiracy. At a campaign event in Iowa on Friday, she said she “won’t get down in the mud” with Republicans. But she has also walked back some of her most adamant claims about her handling of classified material.

In March, she said at a press conference that “there was no classified material” on her server. But as the investigation has progressed, she’s changed her tune. Last month she said: “I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.”

After the McCullough’s finding of “top secret” information was revealed, Clinton and her team have turned to claiming that none of the emails were “marked” classified at the time they were sent or received.

Clinton has also attempted to portray herself as a willing participant in the email inquiry.

In a radio interview conducted over the weekend, she claimed that if it wasn’t for her, the emails never would have been made public.

“Because if I had not asked for my emails all to be made public, none of this would have been in the public arena,” she said.

The Republican operative group America’s Rising called that claim false, pointing out that Clinton handed over her emails only after the State Department sought them in response to the congressional investigation into the Benghazi attacks. Clinton had been out of office nearly two years when she finally provided the emails. The off-the-books email operation was only made public in a New York Times article in March. Clinton had also said that she would not turn over her private email server to a third-party. The hardware has also been scrubbed, her attorney has said.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
ABC: “Highly Likely” A Backup Of Hillary’s Original Server Files Exists – Hot Air

Hillary Clinton visited the Iowa State Fair this weekend, trying to pass off the FBI and Inspectors General probe into her e-mail system as nothing more than partisan politics. She even joked about having a Snapchat account where messages disappear on their own. If this ABC News report is correct, though, Hillary won’t be laughing for long. Platte River Services, the company to which the Clintons entrusted the server after she left office, believes that a backup of her data is “highly likely” to exist. And if it does, the 31,000+ e-mails that Hillary and her team deleted may not be gone after all (via the Daily Caller):

.

.

JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Out in Iowa this weekend, Hillary Clinton joked about the thousands of e-mails she deleted from her time as secretary of state.

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I recently launched a Snapchat account. I love it. I love it. Those messages disappear all by themselves. (LAUGHTER)

KARL (voice-over): But her infamous private server is now in the hands of the FBI, which is intensifying its investigation into the handling of classified information in her e-mails. According to sources familiar with the investigation, it’s already been determined that at least two of the e-mails included information that’s top secret, some of it from so-called signals intelligence, among the most sensitive intelligence there is. Investigators are also trying to determine if the Chinese or Russians were able to get access to Clinton’s private e-mails.

COL. STEVE GANYARD, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Anybody that works around this level of classification knows the sensitivity. It’s not something you can talk around and it’s always obvious.

KARL (voice-over): But in the most intriguing new development, Platte River Networks, the Colorado company that set up Clinton’s server, told ABC News it’s highly likely that a full backup of the server was made, meaning those thousands of e-mails she deleted may still exist.

It seems exceedingly odd to hear Hillary cracking jokes about disappearing messages. She’s trying to sell the idea that this is a partisan nothingburger, which is a strange tack to take when the investigation has been taken up by Barack Obama’s Department of Justice. Let’s also not forget that the intelligence community that has been outraged by this conduct hardly qualifies as a GOP-friendly outfit, as George Bush and Dick Cheney can attest. It’s like hearing Richard Nixon make jokes about wiretaps while the House prepared articles of impeachment, only Nixon was smart enough not to try that, at least in public. What’s the message supposed to be here – that voters should celebrate her impunity towards transparency and secure handling of classified materials? I guess that makes sense in the context of Hillary’s desire for a coronation, but don’t expect most Americans to be laughing along with her.

If the FBI finds a backup at Platte River Services of Hillary’s original e-mail database, the Snapchat jokes will dry up quickly. It seemed odd that such a firm wouldn’t have made backups, which would be another moment of incompetence for Hillary and her team in their attempt to clean up the e-mail stash. Once the FBI gets a backup copy, then the fun will truly begin. The House will want access to the complete set of data, and if they or the DoJ discover responsive materials within those that got trashed, then all sorts of new problems begin for Hillary Clinton – including a potential perjury charge. The State Department will be forced to comply with a number of FOIAs stalled by Hillary’s use of a secret e-mail server, and if there is any indication of influence peddling in connection to the Clinton Foundation or Bill Clinton’s speeches within her e-mails, Hillary may not be the only Clinton in legal trouble.

Perhaps Hillary should laugh while she can, but it’s either false bravado or irrational denial at this point.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Woodward On Clinton Emails: ‘Reminds Me Of The Nixon Tapes’ – Breitbart

.

.
Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward said of Hillary Clinton’s emails, “It, in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes” on Monday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Woodward stated that allowing Clinton and her lawyers to decide whether to turn over information was “unprecedented,” and “follow the trail here. You know, there are all these emails. Well, they were sent to someone, or someone sent them to her. So, if things have been erased here, there’s a way to go back to who originated these emails, or who received them from Hillary Clinton. So, you’ve got a massive amount of data. It, in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes. Thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively hers – his, that he was not going to get them. Hillary Clinton initially took that position, I’m not turning this over. There’s going to be no cooperation. Now, they’re cooperating. But, this is – this has to go on a long, long time, and the answers are probably not going to be pretty.”

Earlier he said, “It’s extraordinary. And, again, it’s the volume. 60,000 emails, and Hillary Clinton has said 30,000 of them, half, were personal and they were deleted. Who decided that? What’s on those emails? I would love to have all 60,000, read them, it would be a character study about her personal life, and, also, what she did as secretary of state. And let’s step back for a moment, the big question about Hillary Clinton is, who is she? Is she this secretive, hidden person, or is she this valiant public servant? Look at those 60,000 emails, and you’re going to get some answers. And there’s a hydraulic pressure always in the system here. You’ve got the FBI, you’ve got the inspector generals, you’ve got lots of people in government who are furious, because they spent hours being trained, like the example of Madeleine Albright. You have to be careful about this. Hillary Clinton went in – I mean, what was the origin? Who knew about this idea of using a private server? I mean, when I first found about that, it’s unimaginable.”

Woodward added, “for Hillary Clinton to go out, as she did, in recent days, and say, [paraphrasing] ‘This is politics. This is dirty politics. They’re trying to smear me in an unfair way,’ that dog will not hunt, at all. You have got Barack Obama’s government now investigating her and looking at this. Now, at the same time, nothing’s been proven to be illegal and [Ed] Rendell there had a good point that, you know, kind of slow down. I think, in the media and political environment we’re in, where everything is driven by impatience and speed, that’s going to not be possible. But, they’re going to have to get some answers.”

Woodward concluded, in response to a question about the responsibilities of officials to ensure classified material doesn’t get out, “the first level of scrutiny is common sense. And, you know, in the world where Petraeus was dealing, either as a general or as CIA director, or Hillary Clinton was dealing [at the] State Department, almost everything is classified one way or another. And so you have to have some systems to protect it, and you have to use common sense.” He also stated that it’s “easier to describe the creation of the universe” than say how material becomes classified. And “the idea of the server, and this excuse, oh, it was all for convenience, isn’t going to work.”

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.

.

Your Daley Gator Hillary Clinton Crime Spree News Roundup

Hillary’s State Department Routinely Hid Emails On Purpose – Big Government

.

.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department routinely failed to preserve its own emails in order to intentionally hide them from official records.

Clinton-era email use at the State Department was fraught with widespread, intentional concealment, according to an October 2014-March 2015 semiannual report to Congress filed by the State Department’s office of inspector general (OIG).

Only a fraction of the messages sent by email were stored as “record emails,” according to the report.

“The review of the State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset (SMART) and Record Email found that, out of the more than 1 billion emails sent in 2011, employees created just over 61,000 official emails; and they created even fewer – 41,000 – in 2013,” the inspector general found. “OIG recommended that the Department establish policies governing usage and that system designers engage with focus groups to enhance the system’s efficiency.” (p. vii)

Clinton’s administration did nothing to teach people how to store emails and oversaw the widespread cover-up of emails that should have been kept.

“A 2009 upgrade in the Department’s system facilitated the preservation of emails as official records. However, Department employees had not received adequate training or guidance on their responsibilities for using those systems to preserve ‘record emails,’” according to the OIG report.

“Record email usage varied widely across bureaus and missions. The Bureau of Administration needed to exercise central oversight of the use of the record email function. OIG found that some employees did not create record emails because they did not want to make the email available in searches or feared that this availability would inhibit debate about pending decisions.”

Former Secretary Clinton has turned over thumb drives and a private email server containing her emails from her tenure at the State Department. An inter-agency government task force led by the Department of Justice and the FBI is currently investigating how classified information ended up on Clinton’s server, and whether foreign agents were able to obtain any of the information on Clinton’s server.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
CNN National Security Analyst Unloads On Hillary Over Email Scandal: ‘I Wonder Whether She Is Capable Of Being President’ – Daily Caller

.

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
Hillary Clinton’s email scandal should disqualify her from the Oval Office.

At least so says former CIA operative and CNN national security analyst Bob Baer, who is not known for being a political partisan.

“If this was on her server and it got into her smart phone, there’s a big problem there,” Baer said during an appearance on CNN International Saturday, noting that the sensitivity of the information reportedly found on Clinton’s private server was likely more secret than what Edward Snowden pilfered.

“Seriously, if I had sent a document like this over the open Internet I’d get fired the same day, escorted to the door and gone for good – and probably charged with mishandling classified information,” Baer said.

“If this in fact were on her hand held [phone] – was sent to her or she forwarded it in any way – I wonder whether she is capable of being president,” he added.

Pressed by the host as to whether he really thought this situation was a “deal breaker” for Clinton’s presidential candidacy, Baer said, “As a national security employee, a former one, yes.”

“I can’t tell you how bad this is,” he went on. “A lot of things get talked about, a lot of gossip, but having documents like this sent across the Internet, it could be hacked very easily and probably were hacked, is a transgression that I don’t think the president of the United States should be allowed to, you know, have committed.”

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Number Of Hillary Clinton’s Emails Flagged For Classified Data Grows To 60 As Review Continues – Washington Times

While media coverage has focused on a half-dozen of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal emails containing sensitive intelligence, the total number of her private emails identified by an ongoing State Department review as having contained classified data has ballooned to 60, officials told The Washington Times.

That figure is current through the end of July and is likely to grow as officials wade through a total of 30,000 work-related emails that passed through her personal email server, officials said. The process is expected to take months.

The 60 emails are among those that have been reviewed and cleared for release under the Freedom of Information Act as part of a open-records lawsuit. Some of the emails have multiple redactions for classified information.

Among the first 60 flagged emails, nearly all contained classified secrets at the lowest level of “confidential” and one contained information at the intermediate level of “secret,” officials told the Times.

Those 60 emails do not include two emails identified in recent days by Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III as containing “top-secret” information possibly derived from Pentagon satellites, drones or intercepts, which is some of the nation’s most sensitive secrets.

State officials and the intelligence community are working to resolve questions about those and other emails with possible classified information, a process that isn’t likely to be completed until January.

That will be right around the time Mrs. Clinton is slated to face voters in the Iowa caucuses in her bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

As the number of suspect emails grows and the classification review continues, it is clear that predictions contained in a notification Mr. McCullough sent Congress this summer is likely to hold true: Mrs. Clinton’s personal emails likely contained hundreds of disclosures of classified information.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
How Did Hillary’s Lawyers Search A Server No Longer In Her Possession – Legal Insurrection

There is a time gap which may hold the key to Hillary’s hide-and-seek email game.

According to the Washington Post and other reporting, a Colorado server company obtained possession of Hillary’s server in 2013, transferred the data, leaving a blank server with no usable data at a storage facility in New Jersey.

Yet, in a letter filed on August 12, 2015 with the federal Court in the Judicial Watch FOIA litigation regarding Huma Abedin’s outside employment, Hillary’s lawyer, David Kendall. represented that Hillary did not ask counsel to review her emails until late 2014. [Full embed at bottom of post.] He also confirmed that the Colorado company has had possession of the original server since 2013.

.

.
* * *

.

.
David Kendall letter Clinton Emails 8-12-2015 excerpt 2

So how could Hillary’s lawyers review a server no longer in Hillary’s possession, and which had been wiped clean?

It’s worth noting that at her March 10, 2015, UN press conference, when a reporter noted that some people suggested an independent review of the server, Hillary did not say that she no longer had the original server or that it had been wiped clean.

Instead, she said “the server will remain private.”

The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private…

.

.
(transcript)

It is that original server that apparently has been turned over to the federal government. Plus a thumb drive, which purportedly only has work-related emails.

If the data was transferred to some other server, where is that one?

On Friday, August 14, 2015, the State Department is required to provide additional information to the Court.

Maybe that will shed some light.

But I’m not hopeful.

Judicial Watch Foia Case Huma Abedin – Defendant’s August 12, 2015 Status Report

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Fox Poll: Two Percent Of Voters Think Hillary Told The Truth About E-mail Server, And Only Three Percent Of Democrats – Hot Air

Six months ago, Hillary Clinton insisted that her private e-mail system contained no sensitive material, and that the federal government had no need of her server. With federal investigators trying to track down all of the records from her private e-mail server and revelations about Top Secret/compartmented material on her unauthorized system, Hillary’s public statements look like lies to a majority of those polled in the latest Fox News survey. In a poll of 1,008 registered voters, 58% say Hillary lied about the e-mails, and 54% believe she damaged national security:

A Fox News poll released Friday finds a 58 percent majority thinks Clinton “knowingly lied” when she announced in a March press conference that no emails on her private server contained classified information. A third says there is “another explanation” for internal government investigators determining secret info was in fact on Clinton’s server (33 percent).

Moreover, by a 54-37 percent margin, voters feel Clinton put our national security at risk by using a private email server.

The poll gave three options: Clinton lied, There’s another explanation, and Clinton told the truth. Only 2% overall think Hillary told the truth, a staggeringly bad number, and only 33% overall think there’s another explanation than Hillary lying. On option 3, the internals on this poll are instructive. The highest that Clinton told the truth polls in the demographics is 5% among black voters, where 63% choose another explanation. Among Democrats, the number is a whopping three percent. And among younger voters – who are presumably very familiar with e-mail – the “Hillary’s honest” option didn’t get enough responses to register.

Frankly, this question is designed to let respondents get off the hook for deciding whether Hillary lied or not. The middle option of another explanation implies incompetency – not exactly a good look for a presidential candidate – or some milder form of dishonesty. And yet, not many voters took the middle option. Self-described liberal, Democrats, and black voters all had majorities choosing the less-bad option, but almost none of them chose told the truth.

Instead, majorities in almost all other demos believe Hillary lied, even when given a softer option. Younger voters under 35 years of age were especially harsh on this judgment at 63/30/0, but the next age demo (35-54) was almost as dismissive, 61/31/2. In a rare show of consensus, those with (59/34/1) and without (58/33/2) college degrees agree on Hillary’s dishonesty. Two-thirds of independents believe she flat-out lied (67/23/2), and even a majority of women agree (51/40/2).

The responses to the question of harm to national security fall into the same pattern. This was presented as a yes/no, and 54% overall chose yes. The key demos all have yes majorities:

* Independents – 54/36
* Women – 50/40
* College degree – 53/38
* No college degree – 55/37
* 18-35YOs – 61/34

In other words, she’s rapidly approaching Richard Nixon levels of trust in, say, August 1973 or so.

A couple of other notes in the poll will have an indirect impact on Hillary, who’s going to be a continuity candidate based on her participation in the Obama administration. A recent trend toward the positive in Barack Obama’s job approval reversed itself in this poll, the first taken since the Iran deal was announced. He slid from a 46/46 in the beginning of July to 42/51, his worst showing since March. Voters want Congress to reject the Iran deal 31/58, and substantially more of them believe Iran can’t be trusted, 18/75, which is actually a slight improvement from the historical trend. With that hanging in the air, Hillary would have had trouble gaining trust from voters anyway – but the e-mail server scandal all but moots the point now.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related videos:

.

.

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

More August headlines:
.

Exclusive: Hillary’s IT Contractor Did Not Have Proper Security Clearance – Daily Caller


The Countless Crimes Of Hillary Clinton: Special Prosecutor Needed Now – Sidney Powell


Tech Company Which Maintained Hillary’s Secret Server Was Sued For ‘Illegally Accessing’ Database And ‘Stealing White House Military Advisers’ Phone Numbers’ – Daily Mail


Hillary Clinton Emails Contained Signal Intelligence From Spy Satellites – Washington Times


*VIDEO* Judge Andrew Napolitano Describes Hillary Clinton’s Crimes


FBI Investigation Of Hillary’s Emails Is ‘Criminal Probe’ – New York Post


Judge Orders Hillary Clinton To Answer For ‘Home-Brew’ Server – Gateway Pundit

.
.

.

*VIDEO* Judge Jeanine Pirro Explains In Detail How Hitlery Has Committed Multiple Crimes


.

.

Yet Another Reason Why Hitlery Should Be In Prison

Exclusive: Hillary’s IT Contractor Did Not Have Proper Security Clearance – Daily Caller

.
…………

.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton entrusted her email server to an IT firm that was not cleared to handle classified materials, according to the chief spokesman for the Defense Security Service.

The DSS is an arm of the Defense Department and is the only federal agency authorized to approve private sector company access to sensitive or confidential material.

The agency reviews and approves private contractors to assure they have secure facilities and approves security clearances for employees to clear them for access to sensitive or classified materials.

Since 2013, Clinton used Platte River Networks, a small Denver-based company, to upgrade and maintain her private email server at her home in Chappaqua, New York.

About 13,000 companies have received FCL or facility-wide clearance. But Platte River is not one of them.

“Platte River is not cleared” to have access to classified material, stated Cindy McGovern, chief public affairs officer for DSS in a telephone interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, told the DCNF that the Platte River involvement “raises serious questions” about the security surrounding Secretary Clinton’s server over the last two years.

“The revelation that Secretary Clinton used a private company, Platte River Networks, to maintain her personal server raises questions about what steps the company took to preserve and secure sensitive information in Secretary Clinton’s email,” Johnson said.

The DSS provides clearances to 30 federal departments and agencies, including the State Department.

Alex McGeorge, the head of threat intelligence at the IT cybersecurity firm Immunity told TheDCNF that all facilities approved for access to classified materials need a “SCIF” – or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility – also known as a hardened room.

“It’s a room that is resistant to eavesdropping and unauthorized entry limited to personnel with security clearances. That would be a room that where data coming in and out of the room is tightly controlled,” he said.

According to the Associated Press, the intelligence community inspector general reported to Congress Monday that Hillary’s emails contained at least two messages with information considered Top Secret.

For servers that contain Top Secret information, “you would have to have very compartmentalized clearance to see. Those standards are much higher,” McGeorge said.

The DSS current mission is carried out under the National Industrial Security Program (NISP), the rules of which were established by President Clinton in 1993 with Executive Order 12829.

Platte River has not responded to requests for comment from TheDCNF.

.

.

Illegal Alien Arrested For Distributing Meth In Billings, MT Has Been Deported 14 Times So Far

Illegal Alien Deported 14 Times Arrested For Transporting Meth In Billings, MT – Weasel Zippers

.

.
The border is secure.

Via KRTV

An illegal immigrant who prosecutors said has been deported from the U.S. more than a dozen times was arraigned in Yellowstone County District Court Thursday on drug charges.

Alejandro Gonzales Marquez, 37, denied Thursday the charge of felony criminal possession with intent to distribute.

Deputy Chief County Attorney Juli Pierce said Marquez had already been deported 14 times when Montana Highway Patrol troopers arrested him on a Billings highway in July.

Marquez does not speak or understand any English and had to be assisted in court by a translator.

According to court records, Marquez was the passenger in a vehicle on Interstate 90 when an MHP trooper pulled the vehicle over for obstructed plates.

The trooper reported smelling a strong odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle and asked the driver to perform a field sobriety test.

In the vehicle, the trooper allegedly found more than one pound of methamphetamine along with a loaded 9 mm semi-automatic pistol.

Keep reading

.

.

Leftist Incompetence Update: Russia And Iran ‘Already Violating’ Nuclear Deal

Royce: Russia And Iran ‘Already Violating’ Nuclear Deal – CNS

.

Qods Force chief Qassem Soleimani attends a meeting of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders in Tehran on September 17, 2013. (AP Photo/Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader, File)

.
The U.S. must call both Russia and Iran to account for “already violating” the nuclear agreement, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) said Thursday. He was responding to a reported trip to Moscow by Iran’s Qods force commander, who is subject to U.N. travel sanctions.

“[Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani] is the chief commander for Iranian foreign forces outside of Iran who carry out their assassinations and carry out their attacks,” Royce told CNN.

“And the fact that he would violate the sanctions prior to it being lifted upon him, by jumping the gun – this gives us the opportunity to call the Russians to account, and the Iranians to account, for already violating this agreement,” he said. “And we should do so.”

As a P5+1 partner, Russia – a U.N. Security Council permanent member – is supposed to help enforce the nuclear agreement which the six powers negotiated with Tehran.

Following reports that Soleimani traveled to Moscow last month and met with President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, Iran deal critics are asking: If Russia gets away with hosting him, what does that say about its likely response to any future Iranian cheating on the nuclear agreement?

Although the Obama administration agreed as part of the nuclear deal that U.N. sanctions against Soleimani and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Qods Force will be lifted, it says that will only happen in “phase two” of the agreement’s implementation – in about eight years’ time.

Any travel abroad by him ahead of that point would be in violation of the U.N. travel ban, under which all member states are required to deny him entry.

In a letter to President Obama, Royce has requested “a determination of whether the travel of Soleimani took place, its purpose, and whether it was in violation of United Nations sanctions.”

“Since the Iran agreement was signed, senior administration officials have testified that there would be no relaxing of sanctions against Iran for terrorist activity,” he wrote. “The reported free travel of Qassem Soleimani and the continuing arming of Iranian proxies throughout the Middle East is a direct challenge to that commitment.”

State Department spokesman John Kirby told a press briefing Thursday that Secretary of State John Kerry in a phone conversation with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov “raised concerns about the travel to Moscow by IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani.”

Later in the briefing, however, Kirby revised his wording, saying he could not independently confirm that the visit had indeed taken place, but that Kerry “has seen the reports of the travel and expressed his concerns [to Lavrov] about those reports.”

Fox News first reported on the alleged visit last week, citing unnamed Western intelligence sources.

Then Reuters reported that an “Iranian official, who declined to be identified,” confirmed that the trip had taken place, saying Soleimani had discussed “regional and bilateral issues and the delivery to Iran of S-300 surface-to-air missiles and other weapons.”

Russian state news agency RIA Novosti, however, quoted a Kremlin spokesman as denying the claim (although the report’s wording left open the possibility that the denial was specifically in relation to a Soleimani-Putin meeting, rather than about whether the visit took place at all.)

Soleimani’s name appears on a list of Iranian individuals and entities in line for sanctions relief, annexed to the nuclear agreement.

Hours after the deal was announced in Vienna on July 14, a senior administration official, briefing reporters on background, was asked about Soleimani’s inclusion.

“IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani will not be delisted at the United Nations at phase one; he will be delisted at the U.N. at phase two when the underlying designation authority terminates,” the official said.

That would only occur “after eight years into the deal, so sanctions are not being lifted early on Qassem Soleimani,” the official said.

Since then, Kerry has stressed that U.S. sanctions – as opposed to U.N. ones – against Soleimani will “never” be lifted.

Soleimani is accused of directing Shi’ite militias that carried out deadly attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq during the war there. According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman nominee Gen. Joseph Dunford, he was responsible for the deaths of at least 500 U.S. soldiers and Marines in Iraq.

.

.

New Poll Spells Trouble For Establishment RINO Leaders Mitch McConnell And John Boehner

New Poll Spells Trouble For Establishment RINO Leaders – Politistick

.

.
A new poll from Gallup poll indicates that establishment RINO leaders, Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, are facing a growing problem of bipartisan discontent among Americans, showing that their “go along to get along” attitude with the dictatorial Obama regime and radical leftist Democrats is backfiring more than the squishy and unprincipled duo could have ever imagined.

The new poll, conducted August 5-9, shows that only 23% of Americans view John Boehner favorably, a new all-time low for him. Among Republicans, still an overwhelming number disapprove of Boehner, known for his uncontrollable crying outbursts, with only 37% having a favorable view.

Backroom dealing, back-biting RINO Mitch McConnell, who is so charismatic that nearly four in 10 Americans (37%) have never heard of him, didn’t fair much differently.

McConnell, who became the Senate leader in January following a string of campaign promises that have already been broken, has only a 22% approval rating among Americans, with only 34% of Republicans finding McConnell favorable.

Both Boehner and McConnell have come under fire for supporting the funding of Obamacare, Planned Butcherhood, Obama’s illegal amnesty, as well as failing to fight to stop granting Obama fast-track trade authority.

Late July, conservative Congressman Mark Meadows from North Carolina launched a new resolution on the House floor, filing a historic motion requesting that establishment RINO Speaker of the House John Boehner vacate his position as speaker.

The blistering resolution stings Boehner with charges of causing the power of the legislative branch to shrink under his reign, as well as punishing members who vote in a way contrary to what Boehner desires.

McConnell’s decline falls on the heels of 2016 presidential candidate, principled constitutional conservative fighter Ted Cruz’s historic July takedown of the conniving RINO on the Senate floor for various lies (yes, he actually used the unpopular word that’s rarely used in D.C., “LIED”) McConnell has told to his fellow Republicans, the American people and the media in order to conceal his dirty dealings that support the Obama regime and big government.

To grasp the significance of Boehner and McConnell’s poor showing, their favorability ratings are even worse than hated California Communist Nancy Pelosi’s were while she was Speaker of the House prior to Boehner assuming the helm in 2010. In October of 2010, Gallup points out that Pelosi was viewed favorably by 26% of Americans, a higher score than either Boehner or McConnell. The weak leaders are also nipping at the heels of highly unpopular leftist and then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who in October of last year was viewed favorably by only 21% of Americans.

Cruz’s powerful smackdown of establishment elitist McConnell last month included pointing out that the results in the Senate under McConnell’s leadership have not been one iota different than if Democrat Harry Reid were still in charge:

“There is a profound disappointment among the American people because we keep winning elections and then we keep getting leaders who don’t do anything they promised.

The American people were told ‘if only we have a Republican majority in the House, things will be different.’

Well, in 2010 the American people showed up in enormous numbers and we got a Republican majority in the House — and very little changed. Then the American people were told, ‘you know, the problem is the Senate. If only we get a Republican majority in the Senate and retire Harry Reid as majority leader, then things will be different.’

Well, in 2014 the American people rose up in enormous numbers, voted to do exactly that. We’ve had a Republican majority in both houses of Congress now for about six months.

What has that majority done?

First thing we did, in December, is we came back and passed a $1 trillion ‘cromnibus’ plan filled with pork and corporate welfare. That was the very first thing we did. Then this Republican majority voted to fund Obamacare, voted to fund President Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty. And then leadership rammed through the confirmation of Loretta lynch as Attorney General.

Madam President, which of those decisions would be one iota different if Harry Reid were still majority leader? Not a one. Not a one. This Senate operates exactly the same — the same priorities.

“It’s not that this majority doesn’t get things done. It does get things done, but it listens to one and only one voice,” Cruz said on the Senate Floor during his epic speech. “That is the voice of the Washington Cartel, of the lobbyists on K Street, of the big money and big corporations,” he asserted.

.

.

The Countless Crimes Of Hillary Clinton: Special Prosecutor Needed Now (Sidney Powell)

The Countless Crimes Of Hillary Clinton: Special Prosecutor Needed Now – Sidney Powell

.
…………

.
After years of holding herself above the law, telling lie after lie, and months of flat-out obstruction, HIllary Clinton has finally produced to the FBI her server and three thumb drives. Apparently, the server has been professionally wiped clean of any useable information, and the thumb drives contain only what she selectively culled. Myriad criminal offenses apply to this conduct.

Anyone with knowledge of government workings has known from inception that Hillary’s communications necessarily would contain classified and national security related information. Thanks to the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, it is now beyond dispute that she had ultra-Top Secret information and more that should never have left the State Department.

Equal to Ms. Clinton’s outrageous misconduct is that of the entire federal law enforcement community. It has long chosen to be deliberately blind to these flagrant infractions of laws designed to protect national security – laws for which other people, even reporters, have endured atrocious investigations, prosecutions, and some served years in prison for comparatively minor infractions.

It’s high time for a special prosecutor to be named to conduct a full investigation into Ms. Clinton’s likely commission of multiple felonies, including a conspiracy with Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and possibly others, to violate multiple laws.

While the FBI and Department of Justice have willfully ignored Hillary Clinton’s outrageous conduct, they didn’t hesitate a minute to investigate and prosecute former CIA Director and national hero, General Petraeus. He was just tarred, feathered and ridden out of the CIA on a rail for sharing some information (his own notebook) with his biographer who was both in the military and had a top secret clearance. Yet, Petraeus did not have a secret server set up to house his classified and top secret information or digital satellite imagery; he destroyed nothing; and, there was no “leak.” But that’s not all.

During the same years that Hillary was communicating about national security and world affairs off the grid, the Department of Justice has had no qualms threatening news reporters and prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage Act. To hell with the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent, even the New York Times reported that this administration prosecuted more reporters and whistleblowers for “espionage” than all prior administrations put together.

Remember Fox news reporter James Rosen? The Holder Justice Department not only seized his emails immediately and without his knowledge, they suggested he was a criminal “co-conspirator” in a leak case – under the Espionage Act – which carries a ten-year term of imprisonment.

And they quickly indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senator Menendez on extremely stretched or tortured views of vague criminal statutes and factual allegations of conduct that may well not be criminal. Senator Menendez can’t vacation with his best friend but Hillary Clinton and her “Foundation” can accept millions of dollars from foreign governments seeking to curry her favor.

Yet there’s been no criminal investigation of Ms. Clinton and her cabal? They couldn’t seize her server months ago while it contained all the emails? They couldn’t put a stop to it from the beginning?

Oh right, I forgot. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Ms. Clinton had declined to allow an Inspector General at the State Department during her entire tenure – so there was no internal oversight. And oh yes, her name is Clinton, and she has long deemed herself above the law. The rules only apply to everyone else.

But wait, there’s still more. The current Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, Leslie Caldwell, and her Chief of the Corporate Fraud Section, Andrew Weissmann, destroyed Arthur Andersen and its 85,000 jobs on unfounded charges of obstruction of justice for destroying documents the Supreme Court said it had no legal obligation to keep. The laws governing Ms. Clinton’s obligations are clear. Nonetheless, they haven’t even convened a grand jury to look into Ms. Clinton’s longstanding assertion that she wiped her server clean – of documents she was legally required to keep?

On top of that, there can be little doubt that Eric Holder and other high-ranking FBI and DOJ officials themselves wrote Ms. Clinton at Clintonemail.com – not to mention countless communications with the President and “All His Muses” – Counter-terrrorism advisor Lisa Monaco, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and then White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler (not to mention Valerie Jarrett) – about Benghazi and all other top secret and classified issues. The DOJ hasn’t subpoenaed the emails from any of the recipients – or the internet service providers? Or looked for them on the backup government servers of the accounts of all the recipients? And the State Department still today is making statements defending her?

Not only did Ms. Clinton deliberately demonstrate disdain for the Federal Records Act and nullify the protections of the Freedom of Information Act, she violated the Espionage Act by having information relating to the national defense on her server at all. And her deliberate disregard for national security made the job of all hackers that much easier.

As Andy McCarthy explained it in the National Review:

In fact, the espionage act – which regulates the handling of intelligence by government officials – does not refer to classified information; it refers to information relating to the national defense. Moreover, it does not prohibit solely the transmission of such information; it criminalizes the communication, delivery, or transmission of that information; causing communication, delivery, or transmission of that information; permitting the removal of that information from its proper place of custody through gross negligence; permitting that information to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed through gross negligence; or, failing to make a prompt report to superiors in the government when an official knows that the information has been removed from its proper place of custody, communicated to someone not authorized to have it, lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed. See also Title 18 United States Code Section 2071 (prohibiting destruction of records).

Aside from that, her knowledge and intent do not matter under some of these statutes and are indefensible under others. General Petraeus certainly had no criminal intent, and neither did any of the reporters.

Ms. Clinton, however, established her entire system to avoid the law and in violation of the Espionage Act – as she and her co-conspirators removed all records from the State Department from its inception. Compounding her crimes, she knowingly and willfully destroyed whatever she wanted to destroy – despite or more likely because of – the incriminating information it contained and in the face of the Benghazi investigation.

There’s still more. The countless false statements are crimes under 18 United States Code Section 1001 – both by Ms. Clinton to Congress (“no classified information”) and in writing by Cheryl Mills to the State Department and just filed with Judge Sullivan – in which she states: “On matters pertaining to the conduct of government business, it was her practice to use the officials’ government email accounts.” We already know that Ms. Clinton used her personal server exclusively.

Title 18 United States Code Section 1001 makes it a crime for anyone to “knowingly and willfully” falsify, conceal, or cover up “a material fact,” or make “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or misrepresentation,” etc. Countless people are convicted felons under this statute – some for offenses that would never occur to anyone even to be a crime. And these are just a few of the possible statutes that it would appear to any federal prosecutor that she and her corrupt cabal violated.

As Lt. Col. Ralph Peters had the guts to say last night on FoxNews, “Hillary Clinton is a criminal.” Military heroes who have risked their lives for this country have gone to prison for less.

The Department of Justice’s selective prosecutions have been well-document. Its favoritism and targeting practices must end.

As discussed on NewsMaxTV’s Hardline last night, it’s time for a national outcry for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate and indict Ms. Clinton’s flagrant violations of some of our most important laws. Anyone else would have been arrested by now.

Until there is a massive change in this country, justice is a game.

.

.