State Department Finds Another 150 Of Hitlery’s Emails That Contain Classified Information

Report: State Department Finds Another 150 Hillary Emails Containing Classified Info – Daily Caller

.

.
The latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails set to be released by the State Department Monday evening include 150 which contain now-classified information, a spokesman for the agency has confirmed.

Through two mass releases so far – one in June and another last month – the State Department retroactively classified 63 emails Clinton sent or received during her tenure as secretary of state.

That’s in addition to several others which the Intelligence Community inspector general discovered contained information that was classified as “top secret” at the time they were sent.

During a daily press briefing Monday afternoon, State Department spokesman Mark Toner confirmed that approximately 150 of the 7,000 emails that will be released contain information that has been “upgraded” to classified. He said that while State Department staffers are still processing the emails before publishing them online Monday night, none of the emails are believed to contain information that was classified at the point of origination.

Toner said that the new release puts the State Department ahead of a schedule mandated by a federal judge in May.

“We’re producing more documents than we have in the previous three releases,” said Toner. U.S. district court judge Rudolph Contreras ordered the agency to release Clinton’s emails on a graduated schedule at the end of each month.

Clinton has downplayed the existence of classified information in her 30,000-plus emails. When the scandal over her use of a private email account and private server first broke in March, she maintained that none of her emails contained classified information. She has since altered that claim by saying that none of the emails that traversed her server contained information that was marked classified when originated.

.

.

Leftist Treason Update: FBI ‘A-Team’ Investigating Hitlery For Violating Espionage Act

FBI ‘A-Team’ Leading ‘Serious’ Clinton Server Probe, Focusing On Defense Info – Fox News

.

.
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.

.

.

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


.
H/T Universal Free Press

.

.

Video Surfaces Of Hillary’s Minions Destroying Hard Copies Of Her Deleted Emails


.
H/T Moonbattery

.

.

*VIDEO* Rep. Gowdy Explains Why Hitlery Is A Liar To Clinton Apologist On CNN


.

.

Federal Judge Sets Trial Date For RICO Case Against Bill And Hillary

Judge Sets Trial For RICO Claims Against Clintons – World Net Daily

.

.
A federal judge in Florida has scheduled a trial for January for a case charging Bill and Hillary Clinton with RICO violations.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations case was filed by Larry Klayman, of Freedom Watch, who alleges over the last decade, the Clintons have participated in “acts” that constitute a “criminal enterprise” that was designed to enrich them.

WND reported earlier this year when the case was filed that it alleged actions by Hillary and Bill Clinton, in coordination with their family foundation, constituted RICO crimes.

Klayman for years has been a Washington watchdog, having engaged Bill Clinton in court battles during his presidency. He’s also taken on terror interests and foreign influences in the United States, and just over the last year or so has won a federal court judgment against the National Security Agency’s spy-on-Americans program as well as bringing a case against Barack Obama over his amnesty-by-executive-memo strategy.

According to Klayman, the Clintons, through mail and wire fraud and false statements, misappropriated documents which he was entitled to receive and possess under the Freedom of Information Act regarding Hillary Clinton’s involvement in releasing Israeli war and cyber-warfare plans and practices.

Hillary Clinton orchestrated this release to harm and thwart Israeli plans to preemptively attack Iranian nuclear sites to stop the Islamic nation’s march to producing atomic weapons, according to Klayman.

The claim also explains Klayman used the nation’s FOIA to try to get details from the State Department regarding waivers to do business with Iran – “acts [that are] alleged to be the result of the defendants selling government influence in exchange for bribes from interests which have donated to The Clinton Foundation, paid huge speaking fees to the Clintons and other means.”

WND’s attempts to obtain a comment from the New York office for Bill Clinton or the foundation have not been successful.

The order comes from Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach.

Klayman told WND that it’s time for the Clintons “finally [to] be held legally accountable.”

He alleges their “criminal enterprise” dates back at least 10 years.

It was when the Clintons left the White House in 2000 that, Hillary Clinton has claimed, they were broke.

Estimates are that since that time period, they have been paid well over $100 million, oftentimes in $250,000 and $500,000 increments for speaking.

The Clintons’ foundation also has been embroiled in scandal recently, with details being revealed about how foreign interests made donations to the Clinton-controlled organization during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as a senior government official.

“Defendants have systematically and continuously, over the last ten (10) years and more, conducted a corrupt enterprise in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act,” the filing claims, “all of which acts are continuing in nature.”

Plaintiff sues the defendants, as individuals operating a criminal enterprise, for violating plaintiff’s statutory rights to obtain documents under the Freedom of Information Act… for violating plaintiff’s due process rights, vested property rights, constitutional rights, and for misappropriating property,” the filing says.

The complaint explains, “Plaintiff has filed many Freedom of Information Act requests for public records created or held by the U.S. Department of State… which records are of the public interest and importance to the citizens of the United States… As it has now been revealed, a primary reason that the plaintiff did not receive the records to which the plaintiff is entitled by law is that Defendant Hillary Clinton – upon information and belief together with Cheryl Mills and Defendant Bill Clinton and other Clinton ‘loyalists’ – set up a private computer file server operating a private, stand-alone electronic mail system.”

It alleges Clinton’s “off the books” plan “concealed from the plaintiff public records to which the plaintiff was entitled to under the FOIA Act.”

It continues, “Using those concealed communications held on the private email server, upon information and belief, the defendants negotiated, arranged and implemented the sale of influence and access to U.S. government officials and decision-makers and official acts by State and other instrumentalities of the U.S. government in return for gratuitous and illegal payments – bribes – disguised as donations to defendant The Clinton Foundation and extraordinarily high speaking fees paid to Defendant Bill Clinton and Defendant Hillary Clinton.”

The case filing estimates the Clintons have “amassed a personal fortune (outside of The Clinton Foundation) of over $105 million.”

Klayman had only just filed court papers requesting the judge take control of Hillary Clinton’s email server, because there could be “material evidence that is in imminent danger of being lost.”

“The plaintiff files this motion respectfully requesting that the court order the preservation of that information contained on a private computer file server (‘server’) that then Secretary of State Defendant Hillary Clinton (‘Secretary Clinton) used to conceal the U.S. government records off-site, rather than at a U.S. Department of State facility,” he wrote.

.

.

Your Daley Gator Hitlery Clinton News Roundup

Hillary Discussed Highly Sensitive Information, Now Classified “Secret,” On Her Private Email, As We Predicted – Andrew C. McCarthy

.

.
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.

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

Related articles:

.
Krauthammer Sounds Off On Hillary Email Dump, Explains Why He Thinks ‘Whole Release Is A Farce’ – The Blaze

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 Slept Through Security Briefing On Benghazi Attack – Gateway Pundit

Figures.

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?

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

.
Hillary Didn’t Even Know Ambassador’s Name After He Was Murdered In Benghazi – Right Scoop

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.

From the Washington Times:

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.

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

.
E-mails: Hillary Knew That State Department Asked YouTube To Block Anti-Muslim Movie Overseas – Hot Air

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:

.

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

.
Clinton Foundation Discloses Millions In Additional Payments Under Pressure – Big Government

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.

.

.

Four Clinton Foundation Trustees Charged Or Convicted Of Financial Crimes, Including Bribery And Fraud

Revealed: Four Clinton Foundation Trustees Charged Or Convicted Of Financial Crimes – Big Government

.

.
Shocking revelations show that at least four Clinton Foundation board of directors have either been charged or convicted of financial crimes, including bribery and fraud.

This newest, startling revelation is just one more of many in Peter Schweizer’s bombshell book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, the book that has sent the Hillary Clinton campaign and the media scrambling.

The book shows that there are many problems with the Clinton charity. In fact, the Clinton Foundation is so unlike a real charity that even charity watchdog group Charity Navigator refuses to rate the Clinton Foundation because of its “atypical business model.”

One of those problems is the fact that the Clintons put big donors and close pals on the board for reasons that are hard to fathom. In fact, at least four of these “board members” have either been charged or convicted of serious financial irregularities, crimes including bribery and fraud.

The most well-known of these board members is Vinod Gupta.

“Vinod Gupta, the founder and chairman of the database firm InfoUSA, was a major Clinton financial supporter who served as a foundation trustee,” the book says.

In 2008 he was charged with fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for using company funds to support his luxurious lifestyle. He was alleged to have used more than $9.5 million in corporate funds to pay for personal jet travel, millions for his yacht, personal credit card expenses, and the cost of twenty cars. He settled with the SEC for $4 million.

Gupta also paid Bill Clinton a $3 million “consulting fee,” an act of misuse of corporate funds that brought shareholders to file a suit against him. The company eventually settled with shareholders to the tune of $13 million, Clinton Cash reports.

Another such person involved with financial irregularities is foundation trustee Sant Chatwal, who has convictions for illegal campaign financing, obstruction of justice, and a list of other charges.

Then there is trustee Victor Dahdaleh, who “was charged by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in Great Britain with paying more than 35 million pounds in bribes to executives in Bahrain to win contracts of more than 2 billion pounds,” the book notes.

Clinton Cash goes on to report that Dahdaleh “has worked for the American aluminum company Alcoa as a ‘super-agent.’ (The billionaire had his bail revoked in the case because he contacted prosecution witnesses.) Dahdaleh was found not guilty after the SFO offered no evidence against Dahdaleh because a key witness, Bruce Hall, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to corrupt but refused to testify. Alcoa ended up pleading guilty in the US case arising out of the transaction and settled with the US Justice Department for $384 million. Dahdaleh was not charged in the United States individually.”

Finally, there is current Clinton Foundation board member and trustee Rolando Gonzalez Bunster, who “has been named in a fraud case in the Dominican Republic involving his company InterEnergy. The charges were filed by the Dominican government’s Anti-Corruption Alliance (ADOCCO). In 2013, Bunster was charged along with officials of a government agency concerning alleged ‘ballooned’ fees charged to the government. The company dismisses the charges as ‘baseless allegations.’”

These are just a few of the troubling things that Clinton Cash reveals about the Clinton Foundation.

.

.

Clinton Foundation Lies As More Secret Donors Uncovered

More Clinton Foundation Secret Donors Uncovered, And Foundation Lies About It – American Thinker

.

.
Not only did the Clinton Foundation conceal the names of 1100 big foreign donors to an affiliate, it has lied about doing so. First, the concealment, via Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger of the Washington Post:

A charity affiliated with the Clinton Foundation failed to reveal the identities of its 1,100 donors, creating a broad exception to the foundation’s promise to disclose funding sources as part of an ethics agreement with the Obama administration.

The number of undisclosed contributors to the charity, the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, signals a larger zone of secrecy around foundation donors than was previously known.

Details of the organization’s fundraising were disclosed this week by a spokeswoman for the Canadian group’s founder, mining magnate Frank Giustra.

Giustra is the billionaire who greased the skids for approval of the sale of American uranium mines to the Russians.

Now, for the Clintion Foundation lie. Helderman and Hamburger:

S foundation official this week defended the arrangement with the Giustra group, noting in a blog post that Canadian law prevents charities in that country from disclosing their donors without the donors’ permission.

The Canadian partnership has in recent days begun to reach out to its 28 largest donors, each of whom gave donations equivalent to at least $250,000 in U.S. dollars, to seek permission to release their names, said a person familiar with the foundation, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist exposes the lie:

The Clinton foundation claims that it couldn’t be totally transparent about who was doing business with this Giustra Partnership because of Canadian law barring them from listing individual donors. And in this CNN story, a Giustra spokesman claims that they didn’t brief the Clinton Foundation on donations to the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership:

Giuistra’s spokesperson would not detail the group’s donors, but said that no one from the Clinton Foundation was briefed on donations to The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) because that would have broken Canadian law.

But @morgenr found a few instances of the Clintons publishing this information on Canadian web sites (snip)

According to an expert on Canadian charitable organization law, however, the Clinton Foundation claim that public disclosures are barred by federal law rests on shaky ground. Adam Aptowitzer, an attorney with Drache Aptowitzer LLP, told The Federalist that Canadian federal law does not have a blanket prohibition on public disclosure of the names of charity donors.

“Federal law prohibits disclosure related to commercial activity: things like selling, renting, or bartering of a list. Fundraising is not a covered activity under PIPEDA, the federal privacy law,” Aptowitzer said. Federal privacy laws in Canada prohibit the disclosure of personal information in the course of commercial activity.

“I don’t see how the public disclosure of a donor’s name constitutes commercial activity,” Aptowitzer concluded. “There’s no transaction; there’s no consideration.”

As Aptowitzer notes, Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) discusses disclosure of personal information but it covers only commercial activities. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada specifically declares that charities are exempted:

It should be noted that PIPEDA does not apply to organizations that are not engaged in commercial activity. As such, it does not generally apply to not-for-profit and charity groups, associations or political parties, for example – unless the organization is conducting a commercial activity (fundraising is not considered a commercial activity).

The Federalist also reached out to the Canada Revenue Agency, the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the primary federal overseer of charitable organizations in Canada, and asked if the agency was aware of any blanket statutory ban on donor disclosure.

“The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is responsible for administering only those provisions of the Income Tax Act that relate to the registration and monitoring of charities and other qualified donees,” Magali Deussing, a public affairs representative for the CRA, told The Federalist. “Although the Income Tax Act regulates whether the CRA can disclose taxpayer information (including donor information), it does not regulate whether a registered charity or other qualified donee can disclose donor information.”

Either way, if the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership’s Canadian bundler somehow felt that they needed to ask for permission, they could easily do that. Just looking at other large Canadian foundations shows us that other foundations don’t hide their donors using claims it’s illegal to disclose donor information in Canada.

All the big donors to United Way in Toronto, for instance, are named on the charity’s web site, including roughly how much they gave. If donors “requested” anonymity, United Way gave it but no one who gave at the Platinum Club ($5M+), Gold Club ($2.5M-$5M) or Million Dollar Round Table ($1M-2.5M) levels did so. All the folks who made endowment and bequest gifts – with a few exceptions – were listed on the United Way Toronto’s website. None who gave at the $500K+ level requested anonymity. Or the $200K-$500K level. And so on and so forth. Why should United Way Toronto have such a higher standard for transparency than the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership? This is particularly true considering the nature of the mining deals charitable work being done by the Clinton groups.

In an update, Hemingway debunks the respone of the Clinton Foundation:

[UPDATE: After this article was initially published, the Clinton Foundation sent The Federalist two links (here and here) allegedly supporting its contention that federal law in Canada prohibits public disclosure of the names of charitable organization donors. Unfortunately for the Clinton Foundation, neither link supports the organization’s rationale for deliberately withholding donor information from the public. In fact, one of the links actually includes information that directly contradicts the Clinton Foundation’s assertion.

According to a guide for non-profit compliance that is prominently linked on the page provided by the Clinton Foundation, fundraising activities of non-profits are specifically exempt from the privacy protections in Canada’s federal privacy law. Why? Because, as the article below states, public disclosure of non-profit donors does not constitute “commercial activity” and is therefore not at all prohibited:

Most non-profits are not subject to the Act because they do not engage in commercial activities. This is typically the case with most charities, minor hockey associations, clubs, community groups and advocacy organizations. Collecting membership fees, organizing club activities, compiling a list of members’ names and addresses, and mailing out newsletters are not considered commercial activities. Similarly, fundraising is not a commercial activity.

.

.

Leftist Corruption Update: How Foreign Cash Made Bill And Hillary ‘Filthy Rich’

How Foreign Cash Made Bill And Hillary ‘Filthy Rich’ – New York Post

.

.
Hillary Rodham Clinton used her clout as secretary of state to do favors for foreign donors who gave millions to her family foundation – and who paid millions more to her husband, Bill, in speaking fees, a new book charges.

Records show that of the $105 million the former president raked in from speeches over 12 years, about half came during his wife’s four-year tenure at the State Department.

The claims in “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” come just a week after she launched her presidential campaign.

They raise questions about shady foreign money flowing into the Clinton Foundation – and what actions Hillary took in her official capacity in exchange for the cash.

“During Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions,” writes author Peter Schweizer, according to The New York Times, which first reported the story.

“Some of these transactions have put millions in their own pockets.”

Schweizer – a former speech-writing consultant for President George W. Bush – said he found a clear “pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable US policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds.”

One example of an alleged quid pro quo cited by the Times and other sources involved the State Department’s backing of a free-trade agreement with Colombia that benefited a company founded by a big donor to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary opposed the trade deal when running for president in 2008 because of the South American country’s poor record on workers’ rights.

But then the company, Canadian-based Pacific Rubiales, and its founder, Clinton Foundation board member Frank Giustra, donated “millions” to the foundation, The International Business Times reported.

In 2010, the State Department under Hillary lauded Colombia’s human rights record, allowing Giustra’s company to reap huge profits.

The book also examines lucrative development contracts awarded to foundation donors following the devastating Haitian earthquake in 2010. And it reports that Hillary’s brother, Tony Rodham, sat on the board of a small North Carolina mining company that in 2012 got one of only two coveted “gold exploitation permits” from the government of Haiti – the first issued in more than 50 years, according to the website Breitbart.

Bill Clinton himself was paid $1 million by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline as the State Department was considering the project, Schweizer charges.

Records show that Bill’s earnings from appearance fees – both foreign and domestic – spiked at $17 million in 2012, Hillary’s last year at State.

During Hillary’s four-year stint as secretary of state, the ex-president earned about $48 million of a $105 million speaking haul amassed between 2001 and 2013.

More than half of the $48 million was paid by companies in China, Japan, Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the Cayman Islands, among others.

The author writes that “of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”

Bill Clinton is believed to be the richest living ex-president and one of the 10 wealthiest ever.

Most estimates put the power couple’s combined net worth at $100 million to $200 million.

Some of the fees were paid at the Clintons’ request to their foundation – netting domestic donors a fat tax break. But most went directly to Bill, and the fees make up the family’s main source of income, The Washington Post reported.

Following Hillary’s decision to run for president, the foundation itself announced last week it would accept donations only from Australia, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada, Germany and Norway.

The 186-page book will go on sale May 5, but Hillary wasted no time dismissing it.

“We’re back into the political season and, therefore, we will be subjected to all kinds of distraction and attacks and I’m ready for that. I know that that comes, unfortunately, with the territory,” she said Monday in Keene, NH.

“It is, I think, worth noting that the Republicans seem to only be talking about me. I don’t know what they’d talk about if I wasn’t in the race, but I am in the race and hopefully we’ll get on to the issues,” she added.

Allison Moore, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, responded by bringing up Hillary’s use of a private email account for official business and her deletion of thousands of emails.

.

.

Clinton Crime Update: House Select Committee On Benghazi Summons Hillary To Testify

Benghazi Panel Summons Clinton – Washington Examiner

.

.
A House panel Tuesday formally requested Hillary Clinton to testify about the private server and email account she used while serving as secretary of state.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, sent a request to Clinton’s personal attorney, David E. Kendall, requesting that Clinton appear before the committee no later than May 1 for a transcribed interview about the server and email.

The request comes after Kendall told Gowdy that the server had been wiped clean and that it would be impossible to recover the 30,000 emails Clinton deleted last year.

Gowdy, in his request to Kendall, also asked Clinton to “reconsider” her refusal to turn over the server to a neutral third party, which he called “highly unusual, if not unprecedented.”

Clinton said she only deleted personal emails and turned over every work-related message to the State Department, which is reviewing the data to filter out classified information.

“Because of the Secretary’s unique arrangement with herself as it relates to public records during and after her tenure as Secretary of State.” Gowdy wrote, “this Committee is left with no alternative but to request Secretary Clinton appear before this Committee for a transcribed interview to better understand decisions the Secretary made relevant to the creation, maintenance, retention, and ultimately deletion of public records.”

In Tuesday’s letter, Gowdy warned that Clinton’s decision not to turn over the server, “the House of Representatives as a whole will need to consider its next steps.”

Rep. Elijah Cummings, of Maryland, who serves as the top Democrat on the Benghazi panel, said in a statement to the Washington Examiner that Gowdy’s depiction of Clinton is inaccurate because Clinton has always been willing to talk to the panel under oath.

“Secretary Clinton agreed to testify months ago – in public and under oath – so the Select Committee’s claim that it has no choice but to subject her to a private staff interview is inaccurate,” Cummings said. “Rather than drag out this political charade into 2016 and selectively leak portions of a closed-door interview, the Committee should schedule the public hearing, make her records public and re-focus its efforts on the attacks in Benghazi.”

The House has the power to subpoena the server, but neither Gowdy nor House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, will say whether it will use that authority. Boehner has demanded Clinton turn over the server.

Gowdy said he wants a neutral party to examine the deleted emails to find out of there is any information related to the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The House panel wants to examine the State Department’s role before, during and after the attack.

Gowdy noted in the letter that even though Clinton said she deleted the emails, it is “technically possible,” to retrieve them.

.

.

Clinton Crime Update: Private Emails Reveal Ex-Hillary Aide’s Secret Spy Network

Private Emails Reveal Ex-Clinton Aide’s Secret Spy Network, Which Included Activity In Libya – Weasel Zippers

.

.
Hillary was running her own clandestine operation in Libya.

Via ProPublica

Starting weeks before Islamic militants attacked the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, longtime Clinton family confidante Sidney Blumenthal supplied intelligence to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered by a secret network that included a former CIA clandestine service officer, according to hacked emails from Blumenthal’s account.

The emails, which were posted on the internet in 2013, also show that Blumenthal and another close Clinton associate discussed contracting with a retired Army special operations commander to put operatives on the ground near the Libya-Tunisia border while Libya’s civil war raged in 2011.

Blumenthal’s emails to Clinton, which were directed to her private email account, include at least a dozen detailed reports on events on the deteriorating political and security climate in Libya as well as events in other nations. They came to light after a hacker broke into Blumenthal’s account and have taken on new significance in light of the disclosure that she conducted State Department and personal business exclusively over an email server that she controlled and kept secret from State Department officials and which only recently was discovered by congressional investigators.[…]

The dispatches from Blumenthal to Clinton’s private email address were posted online after Blumenthal’s account was hacked in 2013 by Romanian hacker Marcel-Lehel Lazar, who went by the name Guccifer. Lazar also broke into accounts belonging to George W. Bush’s sister, Colin Powell, and others. He’s now serving a seven-year sentence in his home country and was charged in a U.S. indictment last year.[…]

It’s unclear who tasked Blumenthal, known for his fierce loyalty to the Clintons, with preparing detailed intelligence briefs. It’s also not known who was paying him, or where the operation got its money. The memos were marked “confidential” and relied in many cases on “sensitive” sources in the Libyan opposition and Western intelligence and security services. Other reports focused on Egypt, Germany, and Turkey.

Keep reading

.

.

Clinton Crime Update: Hillary Scrubbed Email Server Clean After Being Subpoenaed To Turn Over Emails

Hillary Clinton Scrubbed Email Server Clean After She Was Asked To Turn Over Emails – Gateway Pundit

.

.
Hillary Clinton scrubbed her private email server clean – after she was served a subpoena to hand over her emails to the State Department.

The Politico reported:

Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday.

“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.

Clinton was under a subpoena order from the panel for all documents related to the 2012 attacks on the American compound there. But David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, said the 900 pages of emails previously provided to the panel cover its request.

Kendall also informed the committee that Clinton’s emails from her time at the State Department have been permanently erased.

Gowdy said that Clinton’s response to the subpoena means he and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will now contemplate new legal actions against Clinton.

.

.

The Other McCain goes there?

YEP! He did, and I agree Monica is more doable

Maybe it takes a Southern good ol’ boy to understand why Bill Clinton liked more cushion for the pushin’, as fellows say down home.

Not that Sydney Leathers is particularly thin, but when it comes to the question of which gal looks like she’d appreciate a dinner date at Cracker Barrel — country fried steak and gravy, turnip greens, pinto beans, hashbrown casserole, biscuits and cornbread — I don’t think there can be any question: Monica is the plus-size winner.

What a lovely girl! Her green eyes are beautiful, her dark hair is beautiful and her mouth . . . Well, of course, I’m a happily married man, but this is strictly a hypothetical scenario, remember?

That’s why I was so strongly in favor of President Clinton’s impeachment. He was under oath when he was asked about Monica and, if he had any regard for truth, Bill would have had no choice but to answer: “Oh, hell, yes. I did that gal every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Honestly, I just couldn’t help myself. That chubby young gal flashing her thong panties at me? Like the song said, I took one look and I was fractured. Tried to walk and I was lame.”

What could I add? 

 

Long-Time Clinton Aide Involved In Cover-Up Of Benghazi And Ambassador/Underage Hooker Scandal

Long-Time Clinton Aide Involved In Cover-Up Of Benghazi And Ambassador/Underage Hooker Scandal – Yid With Lid

.

One of the closest members of the Hillary Clinton team and a long-time aid of both Hilary and Bill Clinton , Cheryl Mills is named in the internal memo from State Department Office of Inspector General about the coverup of Ambassador wrong-doing.

The memo, believed to have been based on anonymous complaints from rank-and-file agents in the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security that arose during a 2012 inspector general’s review of the bureau, has sent shock waves through Foggy Bottom since becoming public Monday.

At its core, the document outlines a variety of cases in which high-ranking department officials quashed internal investigations into accusations of sexual assault, drug dealing, solicitation of sexual favors from prostitutes and minors, and other improper activity against American diplomatic personnel overseas.

The State Department has vigorously criticized the memo. Spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki told reporters repeatedly this week that the accusations are “unsubstantiated.”

A spokesman for the inspector general’s office has called the memo a “preliminary” document that triggered investigations into suspected criminal activity and claims that earlier probes were blocked by State Department higher-ups. Outside law enforcement specialists have been called in to conduct the investigations.

With bipartisan pressure mounting from lawmakers on Capitol Hill to ensure such claims are investigated and resolved, Secretary of State John F. Kerry weighed in Wednesday, saying he takes the investigative process “very seriously” and that “all employees of this department are held to the highest standards, now and always.”

Mills, who served as chief of staff to Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state, was accused in a recent congressional hearing of attempting to stifle congressional access to Gregory Hicks, who held a senior post in Libya at the time of the attack. At least she is consistent. Ms Mills was the State Dept. Staffer who Hicks said ordered him not to talk to Rep. Jason Chaffetz alone.

She has worked as a Clinton loyalist for more than two decades, first as a lawyer who helped facilitate Mr. Clinton’s transition into the White House after the 1992 election. She was named White House counsel in the Clinton administration and became a key litigator and public face of the defense team during his 1999 impeachment and trial on perjury and obstruction of justice charges related to a sexual-harassment lawsuit.

The IG memo does not only talk about Howard Gutman, the U.S. ambassador to Belgium, and the charge “that the ambassador routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children.” It talks about how Mrs. Mills may have attempted to block an investigation last year into suspected misconduct by Brett McGurk, whom President Obama had nominated to become ambassador to Iraq.

The memo outlines how agents from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s special investigations division had opened an probe into Mr. McGurk, who was working at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad at the time, on suspicion that had been improperly emailing government information with his girlfriend, a Wall Street Journal reporter.

“Some of the information may have been cleared for release, but other information reportedly was not,” states the memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times after it was first reported by CBS News.

Investigators “never interviewed McGurk, allegedly because Cheryl Mills from the Secretary’s office interceded,” the memo states. “Email from Mills reportedly shows her agreeing to a particular course of action for the case, but then reneging and advising McGurk to withdraw his name from consideration for the ambassadorship.”

Mr. McGurk withdrew his name from consideration for the post last June.

Initial bad behavior by an Ambassador, potential Ambassador or any federal official is usually not the fault of that person’s supervisor or the head of the department, office, agency, etc. It only becomes the fault of the supervisor when that bad behavior is not corrected and/or is covered up from the American people.

Both in the case of these State Department scandals and Benghazi the evidence seems to show that Cheryl Mills, one of Ms. Clinton’s key aids was in charge of cover-up and clean-up for her boss Hilary Clinton.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Document Reveals Cover-Ups By Clinton State Department Concerning Sexual Assault, Prostitution And Drugs

State Department Memo Reveals Possible Cover-Ups, Halted Investigations – CBS

CBS News has uncovered documents that show the State Department may have covered up allegations of illegal and inappropriate behavior within their ranks.

.

The Diplomatic Security Service, or the DSS, is the State Department’s security force, charged with protecting the secretary of state and U.S. ambassadors overseas and with investigating any cases of misconduct on the part of the 70,000 State Department employees worldwide.

CBS News’ John Miller reports that according to an internal State Department Inspector General’s memo, several recent investigations were influenced, manipulated, or simply called off. The memo obtained by CBS News cited eight specific examples. Among them: allegations that a State Department security official in Beirut “engaged in sexual assaults” on foreign nationals hired as embassy guards and the charge and that members of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s security detail “engaged prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries” – a problem the report says was “endemic.”

The memo also reveals details about an “underground drug ring” was operating near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and supplied State Department security contractors with drugs.

.

.
Aurelia Fedenisn, a former investigator with the State Department’s internal watchdog agency, the Inspector General, told Miller, “We also uncovered several allegations of criminal wrongdoing in cases, some of which never became cases.”

In such cases, DSS agents told the Inspector General’s investigators that senior State Department officials told them to back off, a charge that Fedenisn says is “very” upsetting.

“We were very upset. We expect to see influence, but the degree to which that influence existed and how high up it went, was very disturbing,” she said.

In one specific and striking cover-up, State Department agents told the Inspector General they were told to stop investigating the case of a U.S. Ambassador who held a sensitive diplomatic post and was suspected of patronizing prostitutes in a public park.

The State Department Inspector General’s memo refers to the 2011 investigation into an ambassador who “routinely ditched… his protective security detai” and inspectors suspect this was in order to “solicit sexual favors from prostitutes.”

Sources told CBS News that after the allegations surfaced, the ambassador was called to Washington, D.C. to meet with Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, but was permitted to return to his post.

Fedenisn says “hostile intelligence services” allow such behavior to continue. “I would be very surprised if some of those entities were not aware of the activities,” she said. “So yes, it presents a serious risk to the United States government.”

A draft of the Inspector General’s report on the performance of the DSS, obtained by CBS News, states, “Hindering such cases calls into question the integrity of the investigative process, can result in counterintelligence vulnerabilities and can allow criminal behavior to continue.”

John Miller spoke with Mike Pohelitz, a retired Senior Agent at the DSS who was involved in one of the cases listed in the Inspector General’s memo. Pohelitz said he was told to stop investigating one of the cases and that the order likely came from the upper ranks of the DSS.

“I got the information through my DS channel,” he told Miller. “But it had to come from somebody higher than DS, I’m sure.”

According to Fedenisn, when a high-ranking State Department security officials was shown a draft of their findings that investigations were being interfered with by State Department higher-ups, he said, “This is going to kill us.” In the final report however, all references to specific cases had been removed.

“I mean my heart really went out to the agents in that office, because they really want to do the right thing, they want to investigate the cases fully, correctly, accurately… and they can’t,” Fedenisn said.

Fedenisn, a DSS agent for 26 years, was a part of the team that prepared the draft report and is now a whistleblower who has taken her concerns to Congress.

Two hours after CBS News made inquiries to the State Department about these charges, investigators from the State Department’s Inspector General showed up at her door.

In a statement provided to CBS News, the State Department said they will “not comment about specific allegations of misconduct, internal investigations or personnel matters. Not all allegations are substantiated. It goes without saying that the Department does not condone interference with investigations by any of its employees.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Benghazi Calling – By Edward L. Daley


.

Democrat Officials Convicted Of Fraud In Getting Obama, Clinton On 2008 Indiana Ballot

Dem Officials Convicted of Fraud In Getting Obama, Clinton On 2008 Ballot – Big Government

In 2008, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton got on the ballot illegally in the presidential primary in Indiana. On Thursday, two Democratic political operatives were convicted on all counts relating to the scheme.

.

Former St. Joseph County Democratic party Chairman Butch Morgan Jr. was found guilty of felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and forgery, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe was found guilty of felony forgery counts and falsely making a petition. It was apparently a plan hatched by Morgan, who told Democratic officials and workers to fake the names and signatures on petitions so Obama and Clinton would be eligible for the state ballot. Blythe forged scores of names on the petitions.

Former Board of Registration worker Lucas Burkett was originally part of the scheme but then quit; he waited three years before he came clean with the plan. Meanwhile, Obama and Clinton, who both could have been thrown off the ballot if the petitions had been challenged, marched merrily on.

In Indiana, presidential candidates need 500 signatures from each of the state’s nine congressional districts to qualify for the ballot. With the help of the illegal plot, both candidates managed to garner enough signatures in St. Joseph County, which is the 2nd Congressional district; Obama netted 534 signatures, Clinton, 704.

An Indiana State Police investigator said the police perused the Obama petitions and, “selected names at random from each of the petition pages and contacted those people directly. We found at least one person (and often multiple people) from each page who confirmed that they had not signed petitions or given consent for their name and/or signature to appear.” The audacity of the forgers was so great that they even forged the signature of Joe Kernan, a former governor of the state.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Trial Begins For Officials Accused In Obama, Clinton Ballot Petition Fraud

Trial Begins For Officials Accused In Obama, Clinton Ballot Petition Fraud – Fox News

The trial is underway for a former Democratic official and a Board of Elections worker who are accused of being part of a plot that has raised questions over whether President Obama’s campaign – when he was a candidate in 2008 – submitted enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified for the presidential primary ballot.

.

The two face charges of orchestrating an illegal scheme to fake the petitions that enabled then-candidates Obama, and Hillary Clinton, to qualify for the race in Indiana.

Former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic Party Chairman Butch Morgan Jr. faces multiple felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe is charged with nine felony forgery counts and one felony count of falsely making a petition of nomination. The proceedings began Monday in South Bend.

Morgan is accused of being the mastermind behind the plot, by allegedly ordering Democratic officials and workers to fake the names and signatures that Obama and Clinton needed to qualify for the presidential race. Blythe, then a Board of Elections employee and Democratic Party volunteer, has been accused of carrying out those orders by forging signatures on Obama’s petitions.

Two former Board of Elections officials have already pleaded guilty to charges related to the scheme and could testify against Morgan and Blythe.

Former board worker Beverly Shelton, who allegedly was assigned the task of forging the petitions for Hillary Clinton, pleaded guilty in March to charges of forgery and falsely making a petition. The board’s former Democratic head of voter registration, Pam Brunette, pleaded guilty in April to felony forgery, official misconduct, and falsifying a petition.

The alleged scheme was hatched in January of 2008, according to affidavits from investigators who cite former Board of Registration worker Lucas Burkett, who told them he was in on the plan at first, but then became uneasy and quit. He waited three years before telling authorities about it, but if revelations about any forgeries were raised during the election, the petitions could have been challenged during the contest. Any candidate who did not qualify with enough legitimate signatures at the time could have been bounced from the ballot.

The Indiana trial has raised questions about whether in 2008, candidate Obama actually submitted enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified.

Under state law, presidential candidates need to qualify for the primary ballots with 500 signatures from each of the state’s nine congressional districts. Indiana election officials say that in St. Joseph County, which is the 2nd Congressional District, the Obama campaign qualified with 534 signatures; Clinton’s camp had 704.

Prosecutors say that in Obama’s case, nine of the petition pages were apparently forged. Each petition contains up to 10 names, making a possible total of 90 names, which, if faked, could have brought the Obama total below the legal limit required to qualify. Prosecutors say 13 Clinton petitions were apparently forged, meaning up to 130 possibly fake signatures. Even if 130 signatures had been challenged, it would have still left Clinton with enough signatures to meet the 500-person threshold.

An Indiana State Police investigator said in court papers that the agency examined the suspect Obama petitions and “selected names at random from each of the petition pages and contacted those people directly. We found at least one person (and often multiple people) from each page who confirmed that they had not signed” petitions “or given consent for their name and/or signature to appear.” The case was charged citing 20 forgeries – not the total number of possible fake entries – because that was considered a sufficient amount to prosecute.

Numerous voters told Fox News that they never signed the petitions.

“That’s not my signature,” Charity Rorie, a mother of four, told Fox News when showed the Obama petition with her name and signature. She said it “absolutely” was a fake.

Charity told Fox News that her husband’s entry was also a forgery, and that they have not been contacted by investigators or any authorities looking into the scandal.

“It’s scary, it’s shocking. It definitely is illegal. A lot of people have already lost faith in politics and the whole realm of politics, so that just solidifies our worries and concerns.”

Robert Hunter, Jr. said his name was faked, too.

“I did not sign for Barack Obama,” he told us. As he examined the Obama petition in his hands, Hunter pointed out that “I always put ‘Junior’ after my name, every time… there’s no ‘Junior’ there.”

Even a former Democratic Governor of Indiana, Joe Kernan, told Fox News that his name was forged.

The allegations were first uncovered by Indiana native and Yale University senior Ryan Nees, who wrote about the revelations for the political newsletter, Howey Politics Indiana.

“What’s worrisome about this scheme is that it wasn’t a single bad actor going rogue. Rather, four people were charged as co-conspirators, and two of the four have already pleaded guilty,” Nees told Fox News.

Nees believes that had the petitions been challenged during the presidential election, “it’s unlikely either candidate would have qualified for the ballot.”

He said the fraud was clearly evident, “because page after page of signatures are all in the same handwriting.” He noted that no one raised any red flags “because election workers in charge of verifying their validity were the same people faking the signatures.”

Both Morgan and Blythe have pleaded not guilty, and when approached by Fox News in 2011, Blythe refused to talk about the case.

Morgan’s attorney declined our request for an interview, and Blythe’s attorney has not responded to our efforts for comment.

The petition process is vital to candidates’ campaigns.

In the 2012 presidential race, Republican candidate Newt Gingrich was tripped up by that process in Virginia. He failed to qualify for the GOP primary ballot in that state, because authorities said hundreds of signatures on his campaign’s petitions were faked. A Gingrich campaign worker has pleaded guilty, and another still faces charges.

Petition fraud also cost Michigan Republican Rep. Thaddeus McCotter his public office. McCotter, who also ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, has accused former campaign workers of intentionally faking his congressional primary race petition signatures. The result was that McCotter did not submit the legal number of signatures needed to qualify for the ballot, and that failure forced him to resign his congressional seat last July. While McCotter was not implicated in any wrongdoing, two former campaign aides pleaded no contest to criminal charges, and one pleaded guilty.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Chris Matthews volunteers to dry hump Hillary’s leg or something

I think Matthews and his cohorts here, Joan Walsh, and David Corn really should head up Hillary 2016. Let these Left Wing fruitcakes be the “brains” and faces of her campaign

 

Matthews replied, “If you’re watching, Madam Secretary, all three of us have brilliant ideas. All of us have great ideas. And I especially put myself in that group with Joan and David. We know how to do this, we’ll get you in there.”

Although there may have been a little tongue in Matthews’ cheek, everyone watching knew full well that he meant it, and that his mission in the next 44 months – as well as that of likely every MSNBC contributor and guest – is to get Clinton in the White House.


Joan Walsh, David Corn, and Crazy legs Matthews have “brilliant ideas”? More like delusions of competence. These three could not think their way out of a wet paper bag.