Participants: Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Rand Paul and Jeb Bush
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign said the GOP front-runner plans to skip the Fox News debate Thursday in Des Moines, the final one before the Iowa caucuses, in the latest turn in its long-running dispute with the TV network.
Mr. Trump told reporters Tuesday he would likely skip the televised event. Shortly afterward, his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, said the candidate had decided to bypass the debate.
“He is definitely not participating in the Fox News debate on Thursday,” Mr. Lewandowski said.
The announcement came amid a long-running public spat between Mr. Trump and the network. The billionaire businessman had threatened to boycott the debate if Fox’s Megyn Kelly served as a moderator, calling her “biased.”
A Fox News spokesman later Tuesday criticized Mr. Trump’s decision not to participate in the debate, calling it “near unprecedented.”
“We’re not sure how Iowans are going to feel about him walking away from them at the last minute, but it should be clear to the American public by now that this is rooted in one thing – Megyn Kelly, whom he has viciously attacked since August and has now spent four days demanding be removed from the debate stage,” the spokesman said.
“Capitulating to politicians’ ultimatums about a debate moderator violates all journalistic standards.” The spokesman added that Mr. Trump is still welcome to attend Thursday’s debate and would be “treated fairly,” but added: “He can’t dictate the moderators or the questions.”
Aside from Mr. Trump, seven other Republican candidates are slated to appear on the prime-time stage.
Earlier in the day, Fox News issued a tongue-in-cheek news release, suggesting that a presidential candidate should be prepared to deal with those he thinks will treat him unfairly.
“We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president – a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings,” a Fox News spokesman said.
At a news conference here, Mr. Trump took credit for the high ratings that Republican presidential debates have drawn and presumed advertising revenue Fox News has earned from the events. He also said he had called on Fox News to donate a portion of the revenue to wounded warriors and suggested that while the rest of the GOP field appeared on stage Thursday, he would use the time to raise money for wounded veterans himself.
“Why should I make Fox rich?” he said. “Let me make the wounded warriors rich. Let me make the veterans rich.”
“Let’s see how they do with the ratings… We’ll have our own event,” he said.
Donald Trump’s campaign announced Wednesday that the GOP front-runner will hold a “special event” to benefit veterans during Fox News’ Republican debate.
The event on Thursday, hosted at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, will start with a pre-program at 8 p.m. ET, and the main event will start at 9 p.m. ET, a statement said.
No other information was provided, with the statement only saying “additional details to follow.”
The Obama administration on Thursday eased visa rules for certain European travelers who have visited terror hotspots in the Middle East and Africa, a move certain to rile congressional lawmakers who sought the restrictions.
The revised requirements announced Thursday pertain to changes in the Visa Waiver Program passed by Congress. Lawmakers had sought new restrictions to tighten up the program – which allows visa-free travel for residents of eligible countries – in order to prevent Europeans who have joined ISIS from entering the U.S.
The administration implemented the changes Thursday – but with some changes of its own.
As called for by The Visa Waiver Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, the administration is mostly excluding nationals of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Sudan as well as travelers who have visited the countries since Mar. 1, 2011 from the program. Instead, they’ll have to apply for a visa in order to travel to the United States.
But under the revised requirements, some Europeans who have traveled to those four countries in the last five years may still be allowed to travel to the United States without obtaining a visa if they meet certain criteria.
The administration announced Thursday that it will use its waiver authority – granted to it in the legislation – to give waivers to travelers who traveled to the terror hotspots as journalists, for work with humanitarian agencies or on behalf of international organizations, regional organizations and sub-national governments on official duty.
Likely to cause ire among congressional Republicans is an additional waiver for people who have traveled to Iran “for legitimate business-related purposes” since the conclusion of the Iran nuclear deal in July. The administration also offers waivers for individuals who have traveled to Iraq for business as well.
Citizens of 38 countries, mostly in Europe, are generally allowed to travel to the United States without applying for a visa. But they still have to submit biographical information to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, or ESTA.
The Homeland Security Department said waivers for some ESTA applicants will be granted on a “case-by-case” basis. Those travelers who are denied visa-free travel can still apply for visa through a U.S. embassy in their home country.
Republicans reacted angrily to the waivers, saying the Obama administration had exploited the limited authority and has compromised national security.
“President Obama and his administration’s decision to abuse their limited waiver authority and allow scores of people who have traveled to or are dual nationals of countries like Iraq and Syria flies in the face of reason and congressional intent,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said in a statement.
“The Obama Administration is essentially rewriting the law by blowing wide open a small window of discretion that Congress gave it for law enforcement and national security reasons,” Goodlatte said.
The new restrictions had previously been criticized by the Iranian government that the U.S. is violating the nuclear deal by penalizing legitimate business travel to the country.
Even Alan Dershowitz – a liberal lawyer who moves in the same criminally degenerate social circles as Bill Clinton – has had enough of the totalitarian political correctness that prevails on college campuses:
Political correctness (a.k.a. cultural Marxism) is a poisonous ideology explicitly intended to degrade and destroy our culture. The only way to maintain it as the prevailing ideology is through thuggery. Unfortunately, most people are weak enough to submit to intellectual intimidation, rather than thinking for themselves.
A former Department of Homeland Security agent says that an investigation he was conducting into a fundamentalist Islamic group operating in the U.S. may have helped stop San Bernardino jihadi Syed Farook had the government not shut down his probe.
During an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly on Thursday, Philip Haney said that in 2012 as an agent with U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s National Targeting Center, he opened an investigation into a Sunni Islamic group called, Tablighi Jamaat, a subset of the fundamentalist Deobandi movement.
But Haney said that just a year into the investigation it was shut down State Department and the Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
The reason the investigation was quashed? Because the federal government did not want to profile Islamic groups, Haney told Kelly.
In the process of shutting down Haney’s inquiry, the feds also deleted his files, which included information on an organization with ties to Farook’s mosque, San Bernardino’s Deobandi movement-affiliated Dar-al-Uloom al-Islamia.
And Farook’s wife and accomplice, Tashfeen Malik, went to school at Pakistan’s al-Huda, which also has ties to the Deobandi movement.
As the global intelligence group Stratfor has reported, Talighi Jamaat has been linked to a number of attempted terrorist attacks targeting the U.S.
Members of the sect were tied to the Oct. 2002 Portland Seven case and the Sept. 2002 Lackawanna Six case. Members were also involved in an Aug. 2006 plot to bomb airliners en route from London to the U.S. and attempted bombings in London and Glasgow, Scotland in July 2007. Stratfor also reported that Talighi Jamaat affiliates were involved in the the July 7, 2005 bombings. That attack left 52 dead and more than 700 injured.
Haney said that had his investigation been allowed to develop, Farook may have ended up on the federal government’s terror radar or on the government’s no-fly list. And if that had occurred, Farook would not have been able to connect with Malik. The jihadists reportedly met in 2013. She came to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia last year on a fiancee visa and married soon after.
“Either Syed would have been put on the no-fly list because association with that mosque, and/or the K-1 visa that his wife was given may have been denied because of his association with a known organization,” Haney told Kelly.
Haney turned whistleblower in 2013 after meeting with DHS’ inspector general. In turn, DHS and the Justice Department investigated him, though found no wrongdoing, The Federalist reported.
In Sept. 2014, Haney had his security clearance revoked as well as his access to work databases.
According to Fox’s Trace Gallagher, the Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the story but said that Haney’s story is missing many details.
Haney’s claim comes amid reports that investigators believe that Farook was in the same social circle as a Riverside, Cal. man who was arrested in 2012 in a plot to recruit for al-Qaeda. That recruiter, Soheil Kabir, was convicted of providing material support to terrorists and sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Farook had reportedly planned an attack in 2012 but got spooked after that recruiting ring was busted.
The terrorists were arrested trying to board a plane to Germany.
Police said one of the suspects had a hand-drawn picture of a planned route from Turkey to Germany, via Greece, Serbia and Hungary.
Via : FOX and Friends
Turkey’s state-run news agency says authorities have detained eight people at Istanbul’s main airport who they suspect could be Islamic State militants planning to make their way to Germany, posing as refugees.
The Anadolu Agency said Wednesday the eight arrived in Istanbul from Casablanca, Morocco, and were interviewed by criminal profiling teams at Ataturk Airport. Citing police sources, the agency said one of the suspects had a hand-drawn picture of a planned route from Turkey to Germany, via Greece, Serbia and Hungary.
Anadolu said the eight claimed to be tourists visiting Istanbul but a hotel refuted claims they had reservations there.
More evidence that Hillary Clinton used Sidney Blumenthal as her advisor has come to light as new State Department emails have emerged, despite her testimony that Blumenthal was never her advisor:
FOX NEWS – Newly released emails conflict with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 11-hour testimony before the Benghazi Select Committee, according to a review of the transcripts and public records.
One of the conflicts involves the role played by Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal.
Regarding the dozens of emails from him, which in many cases were forwarded to her State Department team, Clinton testified: “He’s a friend of mine. He sent me information he thought might be of interest. Some of it was, some of it wasn’t, some of it I forwarded to be followed up on. He had no official position in the government. And he was not at all my adviser on Libya.”
But a newly released email from February 2011 shows Blumenthal advocated for a no-fly zone over Libya, writing, “U.S. might consider advancing tomorrow. Libyan helicopters and planes are raining terror on cities.” The email was forwarded by Clinton to her deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan with the question, “What do you think of this idea?”
A second email from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in March 2011 also advocated for a no-fly zone, with Blair stating, “Please work on the non-fly zone, or the other options I mentioned. Oil prices are rising, markets are down. We have to be decisive.”
In the end, Clinton advocated for the no-fly zone and was able to gather support within the Obama administration to implement it.
In another email from March 5, 2012, Clinton appears to use Blumenthal as what is known in intelligence circles as a “cut out,” a type of intermediary to gather information, allowing the policymaker plausible deniability. In this case, the emails focused on the increasingly chaotic and fragmenting political landscape in Libya after dictator Muammar Qaddafi was removed from power.
In the one-page document, Blumenthal writes that Jonathan Powell, a former senior British government adviser to Blair, is “trying to replicate what we did in Northern Ireland by setting up secret channels between insurgents and government, and then, where appropriate, developing these negotiations.” This type of backchannel discussion helped bring about the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement in Northern Ireland.
Clinton responded two hours later. “I’d like to see Powell when he’s in the building,” with her staff responding, “Will follow up.” In both instances, Clinton’s actions further undercut sworn testimony to the Select Committee that Blumenthal was “not at all my adviser on Libya.”
Hey nothing to see here. Hillary had a great week, so said the media, when Republicans grilled her and exposed that she lied about Benghazi. So that’s what matters here, not getting to the truth.
So move along.
Some senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal have privately concluded that a key sanctions relief provision – a concession to Iran that will open the doors to tens of billions of dollars in U.S.-backed commerce with the Islamic regime – conflicts with existing federal statutes and cannot be implemented without violating those laws, Fox News has learned.
At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section 5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. “shall… license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”
In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.
Indeed, ITRA also stipulated, in Section 218, that when it comes to doing business with Iran, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent firms shall in all cases be treated exactly the same as U.S. firms: namely, what is prohibited for U.S. parent firms has to be prohibited for foreign subsidiaries, and what is allowed for foreign subsidiaries has to be allowed for U.S. parent firms.
What’s more, ITRA contains language, in Section 605, requiring that the terms spelled out in Section 218 shall remain in effect until the president of the United States certifies two things to Congress: first, that Iran has been removed from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and second, that Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of weapons of mass destruction.
Additional executive orders and statutes signed by President Obama, such as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, have reaffirmed that all prior federal statutes relating to sanctions on Iran shall remain in full effect.
For example, the review act – sponsored by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) and Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Foreign Relations Committee, and signed into law by President Obama in May – stated that “any measure of statutory sanctions relief” afforded to Iran under the terms of the nuclear deal may only be “taken consistent with existing statutory requirements for such action.” The continued presence of Iran on the State Department’s terror list means that “existing statutory requirements” that were set forth in ITRA, in 2012, have not been met for Iran to receive the sanctions relief spelled out in the JCPOA.
As the Iran deal is an “executive agreement” and not a treaty – and has moreover received no vote of ratification from the Congress, explicit or symbolic – legal analysts inside and outside of the Obama administration have concluded that the JCPOA is vulnerable to challenge in the courts, where federal case law had held that U.S. statutes trump executive agreements in force of law.
Administration sources told Fox News it is the intention of Secretary of State John Kerry, who negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran’s foreign minister and five other world powers, that the re-opening of the “foreign sub” loophole by the JCPOA is to be construed as broadly as possible by lawyers for the State Department, the Treasury Department and other agencies involved in the deal’s implementation.
But the apparent conflict between the re-opening of the loophole and existing U.S. law leaves the Obama administration with only two options going forward. The first option is to violate ITRA, and allow foreign subsidiaries to be treated differently than U.S. parent firms. The second option is to treat both categories the same, as ITRA mandated – but still violate the section of ITRA that required Iran’s removal from the State Department terror list as a pre-condition of any such licensing.
It would also renege on the many promises of senior U.S. officials to keep the broad array of American sanctions on Iran in place. Chris Backemeyer, who served as Iran director for the National Security Council from 2012 to 2014 and is now the State Department’s deputy coordinator for sanctions policy, told POLITICO last month “there will be no real sanctions relief of our primary embargo… We are still going to have sanctions on Iran that prevent most Americans from… engaging in most commercial activities.”
Likewise, in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy last month, Adam Szubin, the acting under secretary of Treasury for terrorism and financial crimes, described Iran as “the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism” and said existing U.S. sanctions on the regime “will continue to be enforced… U.S. investment in Iran will be prohibited across the board.”
Nominated to succeed his predecessor at Treasury, Szubin appeared before the Senate Banking Committee for a confirmation hearing the day after his speech to the Washington Institute. At the hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) asked the nominee where the Obama administration finds the “legal underpinnings” for using the JCPOA to re-open the “foreign sub” loophole.
Szubin said the foreign subsidiaries licensed to do business with Iran will have to meet “some very difficult conditions,” and he specifically cited ITRA, saying the 2012 law “contains the licensing authority that Treasury would anticipate using… to allow for certain categories of activity for those foreign subsidiaries.”
Elsewhere, in documents obtained by Fox News, Szubin has maintained that a different passage of ITRA, Section 601, contains explicit reference to an earlier law – the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, on the books since 1977 – and states that the president “may exercise all authorities” embedded in IEEPA, which includes licensing authority for the president.
However, Section 601 is also explicit on the point that the president must use his authorities from IEEPA to “carry out” the terms and provisions of ITRA itself, including Section 218 – which mandated that, before this form of sanctions relief can be granted, Iran must be removed from the State Department’s terror list. Nothing in the Congressional Record indicates that, during debate and passage of ITRA, members of Congress intended for the chief executive to use Section 601 to overturn, rather than “carry out,” the key provisions of his own law.
One administration lawyer contacted by Fox News said the re-opening of the loophole reflects circular logic with no valid legal foundation. “It would be Alice-in-Wonderland bootstrapping to say that [Section] 601 gives the president the authority to restore the foreign subsidiary loophole – the exact opposite of what the statute ordered,” said the attorney, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations over implementation of the Iran deal.
At the State Department on Thursday, spokesman John Kirby told reporters Secretary Kerry is “confident” that the administration “has the authority to follow through on” the commitment to re-open the foreign subsidiary loophole.
“Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president has broad authorities, which have been delegated to the secretary of the Treasury, to license activities under our various sanctions regimes, and the Iran sanctions program is no different,” Kirby said.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the G.O.P. presidential candidate who is a Harvard-trained lawyer and ardent critic of the Iran deal, said the re-opening of the loophole fits a pattern of the Obama administration enforcing federal laws selectively.
“It’s a problem that the president doesn’t have the ability wave a magic wand and make go away,” Cruz told Fox News in an interview. “Any U.S. company that follows through on this, that allows their foreign-owned subsidiaries to do business with Iran, will very likely face substantial civil liability, litigation and potentially even criminal prosecution. The obligation to follow federal law doesn’t go away simply because we have a lawless president who refuses to acknowledge or follow federal law.”
A spokesman for the Senate Banking Committee could not offer any time frame as to when the committee will vote on Szubin’s nomination.
With favorables improving, unfavorables decreasing and two-thirds of the electorate now believing Trump can win the nomination, the latest YouGov National Poll shows Donald Trump dominating the rest of the field.
This is the eighth consecutive regional and national poll with Jeb Bush in single digits; a devastating reality for the RNC/GOPe machine.
The debate this week will be their final opportunity to save Jeb – the pressure is astronomical, and you can guarantee Fiorina and Rubio will be called upon to deliver the goods and take out Trump.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, doesn’t even need the debate. Full poll results here.
An FBI “A-team” is leading the “extremely serious” investigation into Hillary Clinton’s server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information,” an intelligence source told Fox News.
The section of the Espionage Act is known as 18 US Code 793.
A separate source, who also was not authorized to speak on the record, said the FBI will further determine whether Clinton should have known, based on the quality and detail of the material, that emails passing through her server contained classified information regardless of the markings. The campaign’s standard defense and that of Clinton is that she “never sent nor received any email that was marked classified” at the time.
It is not clear how the FBI team’s findings will impact the probe itself. But the details offer a window into what investigators are looking for – as the Clinton campaign itself downplays the controversy.
The FBI offered no comment, citing the ongoing investigation.
A leading national security attorney, who recently defended former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in a leak investigation, told Fox News that violating the Espionage Act provision in question is a felony and pointed to a particular sub-section.
“Under [sub-section] F, the documents relate to the national defense, meaning very closely held information,” attorney Edward MacMahon Jr. explained. “Somebody in the government, with a clearance and need to know, then delivered the information to someone not entitled to receive it, or otherwise moved it from where it was supposed to be lawfully held.”
Additional federal regulations, reviewed by Fox News, also bring fresh scrutiny to Clinton’s defense.
The Code of Federal Regulations, or “CFR,” states: “Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s) shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”
A government legal source confirmed the regulations apply to all government employees holding a clearance, and the rules do not make the “send” or “receive” distinction.
Rather, all clearances holders have an affirmative obligation to report the possible compromise of classified information or use of unsecured data systems.
Current and former intelligence officers say the application of these federal regulations is very straightforward.
“Regardless of whether Mrs. Clinton sent or received this information, the obligations under the law are that she had to report any questions concerning this material being classified,” said Chris Farrell, a former Army counterintelligence officer who is now an investigator with Judicial Watch. “There is no wiggle room. There is no ability to go around it and say I passively received something – that’s not an excuse.”
The regulations also state there is an obligation to meet “safeguarding requirements prescribed by the agency.” Based on the regulations, the decision to use a personal email network and server for government business – and provide copies to Clinton attorney David Kendall – appear to be violations. According to a letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Kendall and his associate did not have sufficient security clearances to hold TS/SCI (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information) contained in two emails. Earlier this month, the FBI took physical custody of the server and thumb drives.
The regulations also require a damage assessment once a possible compromise has been identified “to conduct an inquiry/investigation of a loss, possible compromise or unauthorized disclosure of classified information.”
Farrell said, “There is no evidence there has been any assessment of Mrs. Clinton and our outlaw server.”
Citing the ongoing investigation, a State Department spokesman had no comment, but did confirm that Clinton’s immediate staff received regular training on classification issues.
Clinton told reporters Friday that she remains confident no violations were committed.
“I have said repeatedly that I did not send nor receive classified material and I’m very confident that when this entire process plays out that will be understood by everyone,” she said. “It will prove what I have been saying and it’s not possible for people to look back now some years in the past and draw different conclusions than the ones that were at work at the time. You can make different decisions because things have changed, circumstances have changed, but it doesn’t change the fact that I did not send or receive material marked classified.”
The Clinton campaign did not provide an on-the-record comment on the matter when given questions by Fox News.
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.
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.”
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.
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…
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.
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.
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
Last night on Megyn Kelly’s Fox TV show she announced a 1.5 week vacation returning on 8/24. Lil Miss stated she hadn’t taken a vacation in six months. Of course the 8-day memorial day break, and 6-day July Fourth break, don’t count as vacation for the intense 4 day work-week schedules of a princess pundit, or something.
However, given the scope of the fallout from Megyn’s intentional set-up of candidate Donald Trump, and the severity of the backlash therein, it’s not difficult to see why the outline of this NY Magazine article is essentially correct.
Unfortunately for Ms. Kelly, the reality of her position has slapped her in the face like a cold fish
NY Mag […] Having backed down to the GOP front-runner and all but sacrificed one of his biggest stars to appease the conservative base – a.k.a. Fox viewers – Ailes has set a dangerous precedent. The message is clear: Fox reports, but the audience decides. (link)
LOL, only in the mind of a progressive publication would listening to your customer be considered “a dangerous precedent“; I digress. Alas, ego’s the size of Princess Megyn need respite, from the fish. And princesses never eat crow.
For those who have followed the story, which began weeks prior to the debate, the attack by Megyn Kelly was entirely predictable. A full week before the debate itself, we warned of Kelly’s transparently obvious intentions toward Donald Trump – HERE July 30th.
Kelly actually had a plan to begin the attack on Monday August 3rd, three nights before the debate. What she planned was to lay the groundwork for a sexist narrative, and then follow up with the attack on debate night. Kelly is nothing, if not predictable.
Somehow, Team Trump caught wind of the set-up, and while Mr. Trump was in Scotland his team cancelled the Monday appearance. However, it is highly doubtful Trump actually knew the severity of what was planned.
Perhaps the cancellation contributed to the even more severe vitriol viewed by over 25 million debate watchers three nights later. Everything about it was planned by Megyn, for Megyn – the center of her own condescendingly self-important universe.
As the days ticked down to the confrontation, the severity of her tone increased – the objective was brutally evident, again, in an interview with Ted Cruz. on the Monday Trump cancelled. Again, we warned x 2.
Post Debate – When you get the cold fish slap, you have two decisions to make.
#1 You can: a.) Admit your intentions, b.) Ask for forgiveness, and c.) put forth your humility.
~ OR ~
#2 You have to surround yourself with sycophants, hide in your bunker, and refuse to take responsibility.
Kelly chose the latter. Essentially removing the last vestiges of credibility, diminishing herself more, and broadcasting the transparency of guilt. Public cold fish-slaps, which you try to hide, never end well – everyone sees them.
However, on the positive side, and thanks to the assistance from the go-to punditry (Dana “Baby Bush” Perino), Kelly and Co. used neon orange paint on the next tripwire.
In an effort to wipe away the remaining fish scales, Megyn and Perino set up the next Rupert pro-Bush strategy a little more obviously than last time. [ie. the advancement of Ben Carson.]
LOL, Carson, Kasich and Bush even sounds like a group of republican lawyers.
Now they will go all back-door on Trump by going with the “temperament” narrative. The only acceptable Republican is one who comes bubble wrapped for safety.
Kaisch, Bush and the ever soft-spoken Carson will be sold as temperate and comparative candidates to the grossly vulgarian Trump.
It’s that reachy-over-the-aisle narrative, with an intellectual high-brow MSM twist.
Think: crust-less cucumber and mayonnaise sandwiches on wonder bread, along with a side of rice cakes and Perrier w/ lime. Mmmm mmmm safe and delicious, swear. Just ask George Will and Charles Krauthammer, they’ll tell you all about it.
Full disclosure. I ate, well, sort of, one of those rice cakes once, just once. Flippin’ thing tasted like I’d bitten into a Styrofoam coffee cup. As far as palates go, it was profoundly typical – and brutally similar to – what I envision a professional republican would taste like. Never again, and never since.
Of course they’ve already got iCarly kick-started to take lead on the “Trump is Sexist” angle; and God please, I hope Trump has the opportunity in debate #2 to compare his immensely smart and successful daughter Ivanka, to the brutally inept and scripted talking point that calls herself Fiorina.
The narrative collapses when you think about Trump being so sexist he puts his daughter in charge of his Empire.
Actually, I shouldn’t publicly write that wish because I’ll just be giving a head’s up to the target of it. Oh well… I was, after all, previously speaking of cold fish.
Time for some sorbet: