The White House and the State Department are pushing back with unusual vigor against a New York Times article Monday that reports that “Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations.” The revelation, based on the most recent reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Institute for Science and International Security, contradicts President Barack Obama’s repeated claims to have “frozen” Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon. The new information also suggests that Iran is, or will be, in violation of the interim nuclear deal.
Instead of expressing concern about Iran’s behavior, State Department spokesperson Marie Harf and White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes have tried to discredit, discount and deny the Times story.
Harf unleashed a series of angry tweets on Wednesday attacking the article and its author, while Rhodes tweeted his assurance that Iran has “consistently” lived up to its end of the bargain. Both are insisting that any apparent non-compliance by Iran is either inadvertent or mistaken, and that the Iranian regime will meet its obligations to reduce its nuclear stockpile drastically by June 30.
Richard Nephew reaffirms Iran has not violated JPOA and has consistently met its obligation to cap stockpile on time
4:58 PM – 3 Jun 2015
Why Iran’s growing uranium stockpile won’t derail a nuclear deal
Recent media reports have raised questions about whether Iran is adhering to its commitments under an interim nuclear agreement, even as Tehran and six world powers enter the final weeks of negotia..
View on web
(The report to which Rhodes refers actually admits that the Iranian non-compliance “is an issue,” but argues, unconvincingly, that the excess material is “not a bomb’s worth,” and that “there should be some understanding for the complexity of the task on the part of the Iranians,” through Iran committed to that task knowing how difficult it might be.)
The trouble for the Obama administration is that no one believes it anymore, least of all the State Department press gallery, which chafed at Harf’s evasions on Wednesday.
There are several reasons for the administrations fading credibility. One is that the interim deal turned out to be far more lenient than even senior national security officials had been led to believe (it does not cover ballistic missiles, for example).
But the most important reason that no one believes the Obama administration is that the president has taken the military option off the table, most recently in an interview on Israeli television in which he said that there is no military solution to the problem.
Obama has demonstrated that he will do anything to preserve the façade of a nuclear deal–even though the Iranians continue to insist that they will not allow spot inspections of known nuclear facilities, much less military sites, to ensure compliance, and even though Iran continues its war against American allies and calls for “death to America” itself.
Iran would behave quite differently if it really worried about complying with the interim deal, and assuring the world that it had only peaceful intentions.
The simplest explanation for Iran’s failure to freeze its enrichment of uranium, or to convert the excess enrichment material in time, is that Iran knows it has a unique chance to build a bigger stockpile, and that Obama will not walk away.
Obama’s PR flacks cannot admit what Iran is doing, because then they would admit Obama has lied to the world. They protect Iran because in protecting Iran, they protect Obama.
Effectively, they are now tools of the Iranian regime.
In the predawn hours Wednesday, pro-Russian separatist tanks and artillery bombarded Ukrainian troops in the eastern town of Marinka, spurring Ukrainian military officials and media to speculate whether a major separatist offensive, anticipated for months, had begun.
“There were many casualties. Krasnohorivka and Marinka are on fire,” Ukrainian Member of Parliament and Kyiv-1 Battalion Commander Yevhen Deidei wrote on his Facebook page Wednesday.
“Close combat is taking place along the front line,” he added. “The militants are going for a breakthrough.”
According to the Ukrainian military, about 1,000 pro-Russian separatists launched the attack around 3 a.m. Wednesday in an attempt to encircle Ukrainian forces. Speaking to reporters in Kyiv Wednesday afternoon, Ukrainian military spokesman Andriy Lysenko said Ukrainian forces were successfully repelling the ongoing attacks and holding their positions.
“The situation is under control,” Lysenko said. He added that 25 Ukrainian soldiers had so far been wounded in the fighting, with no fatalities. “It’s a miracle,” he said.
Separatist leaders issued contradictory statements, claiming they had seized control of Marinka.
Fifteen separatist fighters died in the fighting, according to separatist statements reported by Ukrainian and Russian media. Eduard Basurin, defense spokesman of the Donetsk People’s Republic, blamed Kyiv for provoking Wednesday’s attack.
“We are not conducting offensive operations, we just take adequate measures against strengthening the genocide of the people of Donbas,” Basurin said, according to the Russian news agency TASS.
“DPR cities have been shelled by the Ukrainian army, not by battalions or other units,” he added, using an acronym for the separatist republic. “Only commanders of the Ukrainian armed forces can issue an order to open fire.”
There was widespread speculation throughout Ukrainian social media Wednesday as to whether the early-morning barrage was the beginning of a large-scale combined Russian-separatist offensive, which U.S. and Ukrainian officials have been warning about for months.
As of Wednesday afternoon, however, there did not appear to be concurrent attacks of similar intensity at other places along the contact line, leading the Ukrainian military to downplay fears of a major offensive. “[T]his attack is taking place on a narrow part of the front and therefore we currently cannot speak about a massive offensive by the enemy,” Lysenko said.
The heavy weapons allegedly used Wednesday are banned from the front lines, according to the Feb. 12 cease-fire, which is now in danger of complete collapse.
The attack comes one day after members of the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine, comprising delegates from Ukraine, Russia and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, were set to meet in Minsk to discuss the Ukraine conflict and the fragile truce.
The attack also precedes a June 7 meeting of the G7 in Germany. On the group’s agenda are sanctions on Russia due to its support for Ukrainian separatists.
The G7 comprises the world’s seven major developed economies, including Germany, the United States, Canada, Japan, France, the United Kingdom and Italy. Russia joined the G7 in 1998, making it the Group of Eight, but was dropped from the group last year after annexing Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula.
“Today, Russia once again violated the Minsk agreement,” Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said Wednesday, speaking from the military facility in western Ukraine where the U.S. Army is training the Ukrainian National Guard.
“Before the G7 meeting, Russia deliberately disrupted the trilateral meeting of the contact group yesterday, and today instructed its terrorists to launch a military operation,” Yatsenyuk said. His remarks were published on the Ukrainian government’s website.
Wednesday’s attack on Marinka followed a string of attacks across the contact line on Monday and Tuesday, with the heaviest fighting in Shyrokyne, 10 miles east of Mariupol, and around the separatist stronghold of Donetsk farther to the north.
Marinka is about six miles west of Donetsk. Separatists also attacked the village of Krasnohorivka, three miles north of Marinka, on Wednesday, according to the Ukrainian military.
Tanks and armored personnel carriers have been sent to reinforce Ukrainian units in the area, Kyiv said, and Ukrainian checkpoints into the separatist territories, which had been allowing civilians to pass, have been shut down.
In earlier interviews with The Daily Signal, U.S. military officials said there were no plans to pull U.S. soldiers out of Ukraine early if the fighting in eastern Ukraine escalated. About 300 U.S. Army paratroopers are currently deployed to Yavoriv in western Ukraine, about 800 miles from the front lines, to train the Ukrainian National Guard.
Last month U.S. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, published a letter calling on the United States to do more to help Ukraine defend against a “blatant Russian invasion.”
“As multiple global crises compete for our attention, we must not neglect the situation in Ukraine,” Portman wrote in the letter published on Cleveland.com.
“The current cease-fire is not credible, and the Obama administration and some of our European allies need to stop pretending that it is,” he added. “Thousands of Russian troops remain inside Ukraine and thousands more are right across the border. Every day, Ukrainian positions come under attack.”
In the letter, Portman pushed for the U.S. to send Ukraine military hardware and weapons, and framed the conflict as part of a broader struggle to deter Russian aggression in the region.
“Russian aggression in Ukraine won’t go away or resolve itself simply because we wish it to be so,” he wrote. “It’s time for the president to start shaping outcomes, and stop getting shaped by them.”
Recently released emails detail then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s interest in arming Libyan opposition groups using private security contractors before the fall of Muammar Qaddafi in 2011 – though at the time, the opposition was not formally recognized by the U.S. or United Nations, which prohibited arming without following strict guidelines and oversight.
The issue remains so sensitive that the emails recently released by the State Department redacted a key line on the matter. But the unredacted version of the same email, released to the congressional Benghazi Select Committee and first posted by The New York Times last Thursday, showed Clinton appearing to endorse the idea of using private contractors to her then-deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan.
“FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered,” Clinton wrote to Sullivan on April 8, 2011, attaching an intelligence report from Hillary’s adviser Sidney Blumenthal. The opposition was known as the Transitional National Council, or TNC.
Another email released by the State Department shows that five days earlier, on April 3, 2011, Bill Clinton said he would not rule out arming the Libyan opposition. The story was circulated by Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s principal personal adviser at the State Department, to “H.” While it’s not clear who “H” is, based on the message traffic it is likely Hillary Clinton or possibly adviser Huma Abedin.
Later that same year, a Sept. 10, 2011 email with a subject line “Rogers” said, “Apparently wants to see you to talk Libya/weapons.”
At the time, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee was Mike Rogers, who abruptly announced he would not seek re-election in the spring of 2014. Rogers did not immediately respond to questions seeking comment. Fox News also filed its own Freedom of Information Act request for the documents in October 2012.
Current and former intelligence and administration officials consistently have skirted questions about weapons shipments, first documented by Fox News in October 2012, one month after the Benghazi terrorist attack, and what role the movement played in arming extremist groups the U.S. government is now trying to defeat in Syria and Iraq.
Through shipping records, Fox News confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means “The Victory,” was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun – 35 miles from the Syrian border – on Sept. 6, 2012, five days before the Benghazi terrorist attack. The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG’s and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS.
On the movement of weapons, in an interview broadcast May 11, former acting CIA director Mike Morell said the CIA and U.S. government “played no role. Now whether we were watching other people do it, I can’t talk about it.”
Heavily redacted congressional testimony, declassified after the House intelligence committee’s Benghazi investigation concluded in 2014, shows conflicting accounts about the movement of weapons from Libya to Syria were apparently given to lawmakers.
On Nov. 15, 2012, Morell and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified “Yes” on whether the U.S. intelligence community was aware arms were moving from Libya to Syria. This line of questioning by Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, who is now the intelligence committee chairman, was shut down by his predecessor Rogers, who said not everyone in the classified hearing was “cleared” to hear the testimony, which means they did not have a sufficient security clearance.
An outside analyst told Fox News that Rogers’ comments suggest intelligence related to the movement of weapons was a “read on,” and limited to a very small number of recipients.
Six months later, on May 22, 2013, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, now chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, asked if the CIA was “monitoring arms that others were sending into Syria.” Morell said, “No, sir.”
Several individuals connected to Benghazi and Hillary Clinton’s term at the State Department now work at the D.C. consulting firm Beacon Global Strategies. Among them are Clinton’s principal gatekeeper Philippe Reines; Morell, who’s listed as a senior counselor; and Andrew Shapiro, who was a Clinton policy adviser at the State Department whose portfolio included ridding Libya of shoulder-launched missiles called MANPADs. Critics argue no group knows more about Benghazi or has such a vested interest in the outcome of the congressional Benghazi investigation.
Just so you can keep ’em all straight. Summarized and sanitized for your protection!
* New Hillary Emails Confirm She Received Classified Info on Private Email
* Hillary Was Pushing For Tax Breaks To Benefit Clinton Library Donors
* Clinton Foundation Had $26M In Contributions It “Forgot” To Disclose
* Stop me if you’ve heard this one; Hillary took money from more companies seeking influence
* ‘Clinton Cash’ author: George Stephanopoulos guilty of “hidden-hand journalism”
* Clinton Cash’ Author Reveals Other Ties Stephanopoulos DIDN’T Admit or Apologize For
* ABC, Stephanopoulos Clinton Foundation Hypocrisy Staggering
* Hillary Clinton personally took money from companies that sought to influence her
* Clintons Earned $30 Million in 16 Months, Report Shows
* Former Obama CIA Chief: Hillary’s Emails Compromised By Our Enemies
* Guess Who Delayed Response to Stephanopoulos Scoop So Politico Could Publish First?
* Clinton Foundation donors include dozens of media organizations, individuals
* Stephanopoulos Another Example Of Revolving Door Journalism
* Why Did a Nigerian Company Pay Bill Clinton $1.4MM for 2 Speeches?
* Clinton Crime Fund Reportedly Took Funds From Human Rights Violators
* Four Clinton Foundation Trustees Charged Or Convicted Of Financial Crimes
* Benghazi Committee Gets Some Subpoeaned Docs from State Dept. Two Years Later
* Clinton Foundation spent more on office supplies than on charity gifts in 2013
* 181 Clinton Foundation donors who lobbied Hillary’s State Department
* The Fall of the House of Clinton
* Hillary’s Day of Wrath
* Clinton Foundation distributed useless drugs to AIDS patients
* For the Clinton Defense
* ABC This Week With George Stephanopoulos owe their viewers an Apology
* Who is really drawing out the Benghazi investigation?
* “Hillary Thinks She Is Bigger Than God”
* Hillary now raising funds off of evidence of her corrupt fundraising
* Muslim Brotherhood Payrolled By Clinton Foundation
* How long can this train wreck continue?
* Bill Clinton sold us to the ChiComs; Hillary sold us to the Russians
* White House Refuses to Comment on Shady Deal Hillary Made With Russia
* Many Clinton charity donors got State Dept. awards under Hillary
* Clintons Lied on Tax Forms, Claiming No Foreign Money to Foundation
* Oops: Clinton Foundation Re-Filing Five Years of Tax Returns Over “Errors”
* State Dept. Documents Reveal Concern about Bill Clinton’s Activities with “Saudi Entities”
* Did Clinton’s Backdoor Adviser Illegally Lobby for Putin Ally?
* The long, complicated story of Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi subpoena
* Obstruction of Justice – A Must For Hillary
* The Latest Bombshell from Mrs. Clinton’s Lawyer
* Clintons Received Money from ‘Front for the Government of Iran’
* Did Hillary Run Her Own Intelligence Operation?
* Lawsuit: Clintons are guilty of racketeering, influence peddling
* Business dealings of Hillary Clinton’s brother raise new questions
* Trey Gowdy: House may go to court to get Clinton email server
* On Benghazi, a timeline of State Department obstruction
Hillary Clinton Lies… A Lot
* Clinton camp issues clarification on deleted emails, claims “every” message was reviewed
* The Hillary Email Scandal: Who Profits?
* The Mendacious, Charmless, Painfully Mediocre And Unelectable Hillary Clinton
* Hillary’s Train Wreck Press Conference: Spin, Lies and Unanswered Questions
* Carefully scripted Hillary knocked out of comfort zone
* Internet Catches Hillary in Three Provable Email Falsehoods
* Hillary emerges from behind stonewall for tightly controlled press conference
* Mystery location of Clinton email server seen as ‘matter of national security’
* Hillary Tries To Quell Email Controversy, But Only Creates More Questions
* Trey Gowdy: Hillary’s Server Or Hillary’s Testimony
* Hillary’s brother got the gold mine, Haiti got the shaft
* “It will be a crime if she knowingly withholds documents pursuant to subpoena”
* Clinton e-mail scandal disqualifies her for president
* Hillary Clinton’s Possibly Fatal Email Mistake
* Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton: What We Musn’t Forget About Benghazi
* New FOIAs Probe Clinton Secret Email System, Lawsuits May Follow In 20 Days
* White House: Hillary And Obama Did Email Each Other
* Why Would Foreign Governments’ Donations to the Clinton Foundation Not Count as Bribes?
* Wealthy at Scandal-Plagued HSBC Have Donated/Bribed $81 Million to Hillary’s Bribery Storefront
* Hillary fired US Ambassador to Kenya for using personal email account
* Server, Serve Her: Clinton Crumbling
* Hillary Clinton Still Doesn’t Get It
* Hillary’s Brother Gets Exclusive Mining Permit from Haiti After Taxpayers Sent Country Billions
* Emailgate May Be the Final Scandal to Sink Hillary Clinton
* Hacker Reveals Contents from Hillary’s Private E-Mails and Shows Who She Was Talking To
* Bigger Question: Did Hillary use unsecured email for Classified Info?
* Hillary Clinton leaked e-mail story to New York Times before tweet
* MSNBC: Hillary Personal Email Use at State “Staggering, Shocking, and Ridiculous”
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
– Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae
The bugle echoes shrill and sweet,
But not of war it sings to-day.
The road is rhythmic with the feet
Of men-at-arms who come to pray.
The roses blossom white and red
On tombs where weary soldiers lie;
Flags wave above the honored dead
And martial music cleaves the sky.
Above their wreath-strewn graves we kneel,
They kept the faith and fought the fight.
Through flying lead and crimson steel
They plunged for Freedom and the Right.
May we, their grateful children, learn
Their strength, who lie beneath this sod,
Who went through fire and death to earn
At last the accolade of God.
In shining rank on rank arrayed
They march, the legions of the Lord;
He is their Captain unafraid,
The Prince of Peace… Who brought a sword.
– Joyce Kilmer
Well, you heard it here first.
Today, the State Department released Benghazi-related email from the private server and one of the (at least) two private email accounts on which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conducted official business – recklessly and in violation of laws and guidelines relating to the exchanging and preservation of electronic communications. Within hours, the Obama administration was forced to concede that at least one of the emails contained classified information.
Mrs. Clinton has previously and dubiously claimed that she did not discuss classified information on her private email account(s). Despite today’s disclosure, she is standing by that claim as, apparently, is the State Department. Her rationale is that the information in question – which relates to suspects in the Benghazi attack and remains highly sensitive - was not classified “secret” at the time of the email exchange. Instead, it was upgraded to “secret” status just today by the FBI, which was plainly alarmed at the prospect of its disclosure.
I warned about this situation back in March, when Mrs. Clinton’s violation of federal laws and guidelines in connection with using private email to conduct official business first surfaced. The problem with the rationalization offered by Mrs. Clinton and the administration is twofold.
First, at the time of the Benghazi attack, Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state and an old hand at dealing with classified information. She thus had to have known at the time of the communication in question that information of the type she was dealing with should have been classified as “secret” even if it had not been so classified yet. Obviously, the FBI instantly recognized the significance of the information upon learning that it was about to be disclosed.
Second, it is frequently the case that highly sensitive information is not classified (or not yet classified); nevertheless, government officials are instructed that it is not to be disclosed publicly and not to be discussed on non-government email systems.
As I explained back in March:
Mrs. Clinton [in her press conference] stressed that she never stored classified documents on her private e-mail system. To the uninitiated, this sounded like the strongest point in her defense. Mostly, however, it is a red herring, exploiting the public’s unfamiliarity with how classified information works – and fueling no small amount of irresponsible speculation over the last few days about how the nature of her responsibilities meant classified material must have been stored on her private system. In the government, classified documents are maintained on separate, super-highly secured systems… [I]n general, Mrs. Clinton would not have been able to access classified documents even from a .gov account, much less from her private account – she’d need to use the classified system… That said, there are two pertinent caveats.
First, since we’re dealing with Clintonian parsing here, we must consider the distinction between classified documents and classified information – the latter being what is laid out in the former. It is not enough for a government official with a top-secret clearance to refrain from storing classified documents on private e-mail; the official is also forbidden to discuss the information contained in those documents. The fact that Mrs. Clinton says she did not store classified documents on her private server, which is very likely true, does not discount the distinct possibility that she discussed classified matters in private e-mails…
Second, most of the important but mundane information exchanged in government is not classified. It is a truism that too much information in Washington is classified. Still, it is also true that, for government officials, dealing with classified information is very inconvenient – you are usually not allowed to read it on your office computer, certainly not on your personal computer, not while commuting to work, not at home, etc. Thus, much of the information that government officials deal with is categorized as “sensitive but unclassified” (SBU).
To listen to the commentary over the past week, and to listen to Mrs. Clinton yesterday, one would think there are only two realms of government information: something is either a national defense secret or the seating chart for Chelsea’s wedding reception. Most information, though, is neither classified nor private. When I was a federal prosecutor, for instance, the SBU information I routinely dealt with included: grand-jury transcripts, the secrecy of which must be maintained by law; investigative reports by the FBI, DEA, NYPD, and other investigative agencies; wiretap affidavits that disclosed that investigations were underway, the suspects, the evidence, the wiretap locations, and the identity of government undercover agents, informants, and witnesses; memos outlining investigative or litigation strategies to deal with organized crime and terrorism organizations; plans to orchestrate arrests in multi-defendant cases where flight risk was a concern; financial information of subjects of investigations; personal information (sometimes including family financial and medical information) of lawyers and staff whom I supervised; contact information (including home addresses) of agents with whom I worked on cases often involving violent crime and public corruption; contact information (including home addresses) of judges in the event it was necessary to get a search warrant after hours; and so on.
None of that information was classified. I was permitted to – and needed to – have it ready to hand, but it was also my duty to maintain it in a secure, responsible manner… a duty that became even more important once I was a boss and was expected to set an example for junior lawyers and staff to follow. And mind you, I was just a government lawyer. I was not the secretary of state.
The inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of SBU can do enormous damage. It can even get people killed. That is why the State Department has elaborate rules about SBU – rules that include instructing State Department employees to conduct their e-mail business via government e-mail accounts on government communications systems that have “the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of resident information” (U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Affairs Manual, vol. 12, sec. 544.3 ). As Fox News relates, it was on the basis of these concerns that Mrs. Clinton, as secretary of state, directed State Department employees in June 2011 to “avoid conducting official Department [business] from your personal e-mail accounts.”
Thus far, there has been disclosure of only a fraction of Mrs. Clinton’s existing private email – i.e., the email that she did not unilaterally delete despite being on notice that it was relevant to government investigations. Yet it is already clear that, as secretary of state, she did business in a way that was, at a minimum, grossly irresponsible… and quite possibly worse. She had to have realized the near certainty that an official of her stature would have been targeted for surveillance of her private emails by foreign intelligence services. Yet, in her determination not to leave a paper trail that might damage her political prospects, she ignored the risks. The Justice Department, which has prosecuted high government officials for mishandling national defense information, should be investigating – and that includes acquiring custody of Mrs. Clinton’s private server.
Conservative political pundit Charles Krauthammer reacted to the release of the first batch of Hillary Clinton emails, calling the “whole release” a “farce.”
“This is an echo of what her own press secretary said, who said there isn’t a shred of evidence. And as I’ve said there is no shred of evidence because she shredded the evidence. This whole release is a farce,” the syndicated political columnist said. “What is being released now… is stuff that was scrubbed and cleansed and decided upon, chosen by her own people, acting in her own interest, rather than… people with obligation to the public.”
“So we are getting the cleaned up version,” he continued. “And I think they are succeeding, the Clinton people. Because everybody is hungrily looking through stuff pre-scrubbed. They are not going to find anything. The Clinton’s are secretive and deceptive, but they are not stupid.”
Krauthammer then explained how he thought the process will benefit Clinton in the presidential election.
“Whatever is indicating has been scrubbed and removed. So we are going to have this long saga of the release. She will take the credit for, ‘I asked for it to be released, I wanted it to be released.’ But it’s the wrong stuff. And when people attack her later in the campaign, she will say it’s all been released, the press has looked at it,” he said.
Hillary Clinton slept through the president’s daily briefing on Benghazi. She didn’t wake up until 10:45 AM.
What difference does it make?
The State Department is releasing a batch of the Hillary emails, because the best way to make sure no one notices is to do it on the beginning of Memorial Day weekend. Hidden in one email is a pretty deplorable absence of interest and care from Hillary.
The night a U.S. ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, Hillary Clinton sent a message three senior State Department officials.
The recepients were Jake Sullivan, Deputy Chief of Staff to then-Secretary of State Clinton, Cheryl Mills, an adviser to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and Counselor and Chief of Staff to the Secretary, and Victoria Jane Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.
“Cheryl told me the Libyans confirmed his death. Should we announce tonight or wait until morning?” Clinton says in the email, time stamped 11:38 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2012.
The email had as its subject line: “Chris Smith.” The murdered ambassador was Chris Stevens.
The Secretary of State didn’t even know the name of the U.S. ambassador to Libya – even after terrorists stormed an American compound and killed him.
How deplorable is that. And this is who the Democrats want to make president? Disgusting.
Not that there was ever much doubt. Three days after the Benghazi attack, the White House admitted it had pressured Google and YouTube to yank “Innocence of Muslims” as some sort of terms-of-use violation. Google refused. A week after that, having failed to twist a major corporation’s arm into censoring a politically unhelpful bit of free speech on its behalf, the State Department started running ads in Pakistan denouncing the movie, in hopes that jihadi savages would be appeased by the show of national contrition and not target any more embassies. Also around this time, YouTube did agree to censor “Innocence of Muslims” by blocking it in Egypt and Libya, the two nations that saw the most violent attacks on U.S. diplomats on September 11, 2012. Hillary Clinton had to have known about and signed off on all this, we naturally assumed. And now here’s evidence that she did: Although the message below is vague, I assume it’s referring to the ban that Google imposed on the video in Africa.
Leaning on corporate cronies to suppress Americans’ speech for political ends would be a disqualifying offense for a candidate in a sane world.
Fun fact: On the very day that e-mail was sent, the man who made “Innocence of Muslims” was arrested by the feds on a “parole violation.” Hillary’s leisure reading in the weeks before that was interesting too:
From the Washington Post:
The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups.
Thursday’s disclosure is one of a number of instances in recent weeks in which the foundation has acknowledged that it received funding from sources not disclosed on its Web site.
The ethics agreement was reached between the foundation and the Obama administration to provide additional transparency and avoid potential conflicts of interest with Hillary Clinton’s appointment as secretary of state.
The agreement placed restrictions on foreign government donations, for instance, but the foundation revealed in February that it had violated the limits at one point by taking $500,000 from Algeria.
There was one entity clearly associated with a foreign government that provided speaking fees, of $250,000 to $500,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton: The energy ministry in Thailand.
The U.S. Islamic World Forum also provided $250,000 to $500,000 to the foundation for a speech by Bill Clinton, according to the new disclosure. The event was organized in part by the Brookings Institution with support from the government of Qatar.
In addition, the list is studded with overseas corporations and foundations.
They included the South Korean energy and chemicals conglomerate Hanwha, which paid $500,000 to $1,000,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton.
China Real Estate Development Corp. paid the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by the former president. The Qatar First Investment Bank, now known as the Qatar First Bank, paid fees in a similar range. The bank is described by Persian Gulf financial press as specializing in high-net-worth clients.
The Telmex Foundation, founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, provided between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary Clinton.
Read the rest of the story here.