Editor’s Note – Not surprising the Obama Administration choose to release this information on Christmas Eve. In a Politico article, they report;
Thursday’s document dump, put out by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in compliance with a Freedom of Information request, includes correspondence sent from American intelligence officials in 2011 and 2012.
The emails — edited to conceal what is considered to be sensitive information — provide few new details about the lethal September 2012 terrorist attack on the diplomatic mission in Libya or American-born Al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki.
In the first email, only two of 17 lines of text were not blacked out.
Another email consists of the text “Attached it the final draft; we need comment/coordination by 1000, Friday (tomorrow) 19 October 2012,” followed completely by blacked-out text.
Other emails consist of the text of news clippings from Reuters, the Washington Post and other organizations.
We at SUA must ask, ‘At this point, what difference does it make?’ Answer; it makes a lot of difference, we want to know what is being hidden?
Obama Administration Delivers Benghazi Document Dump for Christmas
The Obama administration dumped 16 pages of emails related to Benghazi on Christmas Eve, but the documents are heavily edited to conceal what was considered as sensitive information, so few new details have been revealed about the Benghazi attacks or al-Qaida recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki.
The documents were released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, reports Politico, and include intelligence officials’ communications from 2011 and 2012.
But only a few lines are visible in some of the emails. In one, just two of 17 lines of text were not redacted and in another, just the text “Attached it the final draft; we need comment/coordination by 1000, Friday (tomorrow) 19 October 2012,” is visible.
Further emails share news clippings, one February email in 2011 was sent to respond to a State Department in regard to al-Awlaki’s passport being revoked.
Al-Awlaki was killed later that year, in September, during a drone strike in Yemen.
It wasn’t until the next year that it was reported that the State Department reported revoking his passport. There were also memos in Thursday’s dump that include details about using existing protocol to protect intelligence.
The Obama administration has also released such information during the holidays including in May, when it released a trove of 296 emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s private server.
Editor’s Note – Vetting the candidates is hard work, you really have to dig hard into the past and pick apart everything that person ever did or said, that is unless you are Obama or a Clinton according to most on the left in media.
Candidates often forget we have the internet, FOIA laws, and video, yet when a Clinton gets caught, we get crickets from the MSM. When someone on the right gets caught – hell hath no fury…
On a day when another Presidential candidate is being questioned about accounts he wrote about many years ago that some claim are not true, Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) seems to skate along with little to no scrutiny from the mainstream media over laws she is alleged to have broken as Secretary of State and the lies about that video.
Of course we point out the hypocrisy that is evident, but when people like Charlie Rose are stunned by statements another candidate made on his show about HRC, he is stunned. However, no one is stunned when CNN went after Ben Carson, but Rubio’s factual statements about Clinton stun Rose?
How dare anyone point out the lies that are so obvious, the Queen is wearing no clothes? How do you not know this after three years and call yourself a journalist or anchor newsman?
HRC may be ‘too big to jail‘ but the American voter needs to know about the voracity and truthfulness of all the candidates, not just the enemy of the main stream media – those on the right. With almost daily revelations of just how corrupt HRC is/was, it is simply stunning that a CNN story can be so hot, yet a real hot issue is ignored.
The following revelation shows yet another facet of HRC, congenital liar. But politico tries its best to disprove what we all know, HRC regularly transmitted and received hundreds of “born classified’ information. It is really irrelevant whether they were ‘Top Secret” or not, the document referred to below, signed by HRC shows she knew what she was doing was wrong. Try spinning that Politico.
As the nation’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton was responsible for ascertaining whether information in her possession was classified and acknowledged that “negligent handling” of that information could jeopardize national security, according to a copy of an agreement she signed upon taking the job.
Experts have guessed that Clinton signed such an agreement, but a copy of her specific contract, obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through an open records request and shared with the Washington Free Beacon, reveals for the first time the exact language of the NDA.
“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,” the agreement states.
Clinton received at least two emails while secretary of state on her personal email server since marked “TS/SCI”—top secret/sensitive compartmented information—according to the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector general.
The State Department said in September that Clinton’s private email system, set up at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home, was not authorized to handle SCI.
The Democratic presidential frontrunner defended her unauthorized possession of SCI and her sending of emails containing classified information by claiming that the information was not marked as classified when it was sent or received.
The language of her NDA suggests it was Clinton’s responsibility to ascertain whether information shared through her private email server was, in fact, classified.
“I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI,” the agreement says.
The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the NDA.
According to government security experts, the type of information that receives a TS/SCI designation is sensitive enough that most senior government officials would immediately recognize it as such.
“TS/SCI is very serious and specific information that jumps out at you and screams ‘classified,’” Larry Mrozinski, a former U.S. counterterrorism official, told the New York Post in August. “It’s hard to imagine that in her position she would fail to recognize the obvious.”
Additional emails on Clinton’s server contained information that was “born classified,” according to J. William Leonard, who directed the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office from 2002 to 2008.
“If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it’s in U.S. channels and U.S. possession,” Leonard told Reuters in August.
Clinton’s NDA spells out stiff criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure of SCI.” The FBI is currently investigating whether Clinton’s private email server violated any federal laws.
In addition to her SCI agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar language, including prohibiting “negligent handling of classified information,” requiring her to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties.
It adds, “I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization” from the proper authorizes.
Mills sent classified information to officials at the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2012, an email released by the State Department in September shows.
Mills’ NDA required her to inquire about the classification of information in her possession if she was unsure about its status. However, her attorney said that she “presumed” that the information she sent to the foundation was unclassified because it had been sent to her at her unclassified State Department email address.
Editor’s Note – Just as people like Ed Klein write about how guilty Hillary is and that her advisors are telling her to secure the services of a criminal defense attorney, someone on the right steps on his own tongue and gives her the perfect foil to change the subject. Of course we all know that if it were not for the Select Committee’s fine work to date we may never have known about Hillary Clinton’s illegal email scandal.
Of course we do say illegal because it has been proven over and over but the vast population of America does not have the time to pay close attention to her lies and twisting stories. She depends upon keeping people in the dark, relying on short attention spans and memories with all her twists and turns, all the lies. Now she is pushing the new meme that she hopes will sweep the nation – that the Select Committee on Benghazi was always a political hit job and McCarthy’s statements prove it.
She has already come out and uses the fact that four Americans are dead and the Republicans are using them for political gain smear, all when clear minded people know she is the one responsible for their deaths. On the morning talk shows she said the following:
“Look at the situation they chose to exploit, to go after me for political reasons: the death of four Americans in Benghazi,” Clinton said. “I knew the ambassador. I identified him. I asked him to go there. I asked the president to nominate him.” (Business Insider)
All we will hear from now on from her campaign will be Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s name because of his gaffe. Hillary and team will push her age old meme that there is a vast right wing conspiracy that has been trying to take her and her husband down all these years.
Those of us who follow her closely like Ed Klein does know full well that the whole Clinton schtick has always been a RICO act. Normally a shtick is a comedy routine, but the one left laughing last laughs best and that could be Hillary surviving yet another scandal that would have meant a long term stay behind bars for the regular American thanks to a man who aspires to be the new Speaker of the House.
McCarthy may have been taken out of context, but in his zeal he just could not help himself assail Hillary in decline. Many think he is a Boehner clone and if conservative Americans allow him to be the next leader, we should all think of the Who’s ‘song lyrics, “here’s the boss, same as the old boss”. America, ‘don’t be fooled again’, push for Jason Chaffetz to be the next Speaker. Call your congressman today, but even Jason thinks it may be too late!
The usual suspects are now joining Hillary in a ‘form of righteous indignation’. Media Matters is already pushing a petition to force an ethics investigation into the select committee while the FBI is actually doing a criminal investigation on Clinton. The left does not seek truth, only power – at any cost. They know a gift when they see one and are exploiting it in grand fashion already.
We can only hope that the rule-of-law trumps the Clinton RICO machine and their connections in the DOJ are overcome by the severity and extent of her illegal ways. Ethics investigation? That is rich, just like the Clintons.
Ed Klein: Hillary Adviser Warning Her to ‘Lawyer Up’
Email scandal-plagued Hillary Clinton is reportedly getting some ominous advice from a longtime and trusted legal adviser: Lawyer-up. Edward Klein, author of “Unlikeable: The Problem with Hillary,” writes on his website.
The unnamed confidante suggests Clinton hire a criminal defense lawyer in case she’s indicted for mishandling classified documents on her private email server, and for allegedly lying under oath.
“This e-mail thing is spiraling out of control,” the Clinton adviser tells Klein. “To paraphrase John Dean of Watergate fame, it’s a cancer on her candidacy. Frankly, I am used to my advice on legal matters being taken very seriously and acted upon by the Clintons.”
“I’ve told them repeatedly that this FBI e-mail investigation could go in a very dangerous direction very quickly,” he adds, according to Klein. “But Hillary is still acting as though it’s a political smear job by right-wing zealots.”
The adviser tells Klein that Justice Department prosecutors expect the FBI probe on the case to wrap up as soon as the end of this year.
“Hillary needs to secure the services of an expert legal counsel—preferably a big-league defense attorney from the Republican side of the aisle,” the adviser tells Klein. “She needs someone to find out whether the FBI and Justice Department are likely to conclude that she’s violated federal laws governing national security.”
He also notes joking about the issue hasn’t helped her case. “By joking about her email problem and treating it like a PR issue, she’s only hurting herself, maybe mortally, with the prosecutors,” Klein quotes the adviser saying. “Insulting career FBI and Justice Department investigators is a very bad and ill-advised strategy. You don’t want to be blindsided.
And if you ignore it, pretend it is a partisan ploy, and act scornfully, it will blindside you.”
“There is going to be blood in the water,” the adviser warns. “The investigators are looking for weak links to get to the bottom of what went on with Hillary’s national security emails. And I’m afraid they will find it.”
Editor’s Note – Democrats are accusing Rep. Gowdy, Chairmen of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, of using the investigation for fundraising. Elijah Cummings and his troops are once again trying to take the focus off of Hillary.
Once again, they are doing a great disservice to those they represent; all for political ends in their now famous protection racket tactics.
The Democrats are doing their best to find something—anything—to puncture Gowdy’s image. Guilt transference to keep America in the dark and confused. Shameful…
Democrats Try to Erode Gowdy’s Standing on Benghazi
For Republicans probing Benghazi and Hillary Clinton’s private email use, Rep. Trey Gowdy’s just-the-facts-ma’am approach has been a shield against charges that it’s a nakedly political investigation.
But Democrats are doing their best to find something—anything—to puncture that image.
So now they’re pointing to the Select Committee on Benghazi chairman’s comments about the probe at a GOP event over the weekend. Gowdy spoke to the National Federation of Pachyderm Clubs, an organization of local GOP clubs that held a convention in Chattanooga.
Gowdy lauded Tennessee Republican Rep. Chuck Fleischmann for the Appropriations Committee push to withhold some State Department funding until the agency is more responsive to document demands from Gowdy’s panel.
“We have tried public shame, it didn’t work. We have tried threats and subpoenas and letters, that hasn’t worked.
What has worked is when we partnered with our friends on Appropriations and let the State Department and other agencies know: Your money will be cut if you do not provide us with documents,” Gowdy said to applause near the beginning of his remarks at the event.
Correct The Record, which is a pro-Clinton super PAC, and Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Benghazi panel, pounced on the comments, which were reported by theChattanooga Times Free Press.
“Trey Gowdy has politicized his investigation to benefit Republicans, proving that his Benghazi investigation is a political hit job against Hillary Clinton—nothing more, nothing less,” said Correct the Record President Brad Woodhouse, a longtime Democratic strategist and operative, on Monday.
Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, has sought to distance himself from Republican efforts to politically wound Clinton over Benghazi and her use of a private email server while secretary of State.
In March, Gowdy backed out of a planned GOP fundraiser in Richmond, Virginia, after finding out that the event would feature a discussion about Benghazi.
Later that month, The New York Times reported that Gowdy (among some congressional Republicans) was frustrated by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus citing the email controversy to attack the Democratic frontrunner.
But Cummings and Correct The Record alleged that Gowdy’s comments represented fundraising on behalf of Republicans, noting that the National Federation of Pachyderm Clubs describes itself as an “allied” organization of the Republican National Committee. Registration for their convention was $150-$200.
“Republicans continue to use the deaths of four brave Americans in Benghazi as a political rallying cry and fundraising tool, which is offensive, reprehensible, and contrary to the promises we made to the loved ones of those who were killed during the 2012 attacks,” Cummings said.
The GOP group and Gowdy’s aides dismissed the criticism, flatly disputing the allegation that it represented GOP fundraising.
“Associations and groups regularly charge fees to attend conventions to help offset expenses. Our convention included eight meals and many speakers.
Chairman Gowdy was not paid for his appearance, nor did we raise money at the luncheon at which he spoke. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings and the Democrats are flat-out wrong,” said Holly M. Lintner, the executive director of the National Federation of Pachyderm Clubs.
She and Gowdy’s committee office noted that Benghazi came up only briefly in Gowdy’s remarks to the convention.
Jamal Ware, a spokesman for Republicans on the Benghazi panel, defended his comments about efforts to force the State Department’s hand with the appropriations bill.
“Many news outlets have reported on a recent appropriations bill that withholds non-security related funds to incentivize the State Department to ensure the American people and Congress gain access to what should be public records,” Ware said.
“Chairman Gowdy noted this fact in his speech. If some do not see the importance of government transparency for the people and don’t think it should be mentioned, then that is their own issue, but Chairman Gowdy believes in it.”
Editor’s Note – Much is owed the men who sacrificed their all at Benghazi. This is especially the case concerning uncovering the truth in getting to the answers to the critical questions of the families of “THE BENGHAZI FOUR”. Is the GOP complicit, you decide! After all, why has it taken so long?
“They seek to hide and distract attention from their faction’s collaboration with key elements of the global infrastructure of terrorism (including, in connection with al-Qaida, the very forces responsible for the 9/11 attacks in the U.S.)”
In a post published on my blog in May 2013, I wrote about the Obama administration’s Benghazi cover-up: “They seek to hide and distract attention from their faction’s collaboration with key elements of the global infrastructure of terrorism (including, in connection with al-Qaida, the very forces responsible for the 9/11 attacks in the U.S.)”
I thought of this as I read Jerome Corsi’s report about the declassification of documents showing that the Obama administration aided the rise of ISIS. In the article Mr. Corsi quotes Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, who observed:
“If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaida terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president.
These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists.”
Fitton concludes by saying that the declassified documents “show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits.”
But back in 2013 when I wrote about the purpose of the Benghazi cover-up I also noted the incongruous reaction of key GOP leaders in Congress:
“Sen. John McCain cheerfully smiles upon Hilary Clinton despite the lies deployed at the behest of officials subject to her authority. Rep. Darrell Issa inscrutably declares that neither Obama nor Clinton are targets of the search for truth about the Obama administration’s decision to leave an American ambassador naked to our enemies.
This contributes to a ‘business as usual’ atmosphere in which it is supposed to be unthinkable to consider the possibility that the ambassador’s fate is a portent of the fate intended for the American people and our way of life.”
I’m sure that some of you assume that the nonchalance of the GOP’s leaders has a simple explanation: They were simply unaware of the Benghazi station’s role in shipping supplies to the anti-Assad jihadists in Syria.
My experience dealing with national security affairs makes that hard for me to believe.
To be sure, things may have deteriorated enormously since my government service during the Reagan years.
But given the obvious political repercussions, it makes sense to assume that Obama and Hillary Clinton would take steps to cover their political backsides by making sure a few key leaders in the U.S. House and Senate were brought into the loop.
After all, Saudi Arabia was probably a key player in the effort to supply the Sunni Muslims opposing Assad and his Shiite Iranian backers.
People such as those Rand Paul recently decried as “the hawks in my party” might very well have appreciated the cold-blooded nerve required for a policy of helping our enemies in al-Qaida destroy our enemies in Syria. (Just to be clear, I think Netanyahu got it right during his recent visit: Sometimes the enemy of our enemy is still our enemy.)
They might also have reveled in the thought that Obama and Clinton were the ones who would have to “take one for the team” (in this case the elitist faction interests they all serve) if and when the Benghazi cover story was blown.
Well, that cover is blown. The GOP’s habitually self-serving quisling leadership want us to accept the line that it was all Hillary Clinton’s fault. This despite the fact that the secretary serves at the pleasure of the person who occupies the Oval office.
Barack Obama bears the ultimate responsibility for the use or abuse of the U.S. government’s executive power. Barack Obama must have approved his secretary of state’s collaboration with America’s terrorist enemies.
Barack Obama must have signaled his assent to the years of stonewalling required to prevent the Benghazi cover-up from unraveling prematurely.
But what if the GOP leadership had deployed the impeachment process to launch a national inquest into what can be portrayed as traitorous policies, giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States? Would the truth have come to light sooner?
Would it have come out in time to prevent ISIS thugs from murdering a multitude of innocent Christians, Yazidis and even fellow Muslims? Would it have come in time to keep ISIS from graduating out of the junior leagues (to which Obama snidely assigned them) to become a major threat that is now extending itself to reach within the borders of the United States?
Who knows? All we know for certain is that the GOP leadership steadfastly, adamantly refused to meet their constitutional responsibility. If their excuse is ignorance, why did they reject the most effective means to remedy their ignorance?
What if they did so precisely because key GOP leaders in Congress knew something of the U.S. government’s role in supplying arms to the anti-Syrian jihadists? What if they did so because, by laying off Obama and his cohorts, they were averting scrutiny from their own complicity?
Given this possibility, critical questions cry out for true answers: Were key congressional leaders briefed on the Benghazi operation? If so, what did they know and when did they know it? If so, is their guilty complicity still preventing an effective U.S. response to the regime of atrocious terrorism that now threatens to blight what’s left of decent order in a world now descending into a sinkhole of fanatical violence?
In last week’s column, I reacted against the view that effective oversight exists in the U.S. government to prevent NSA’s mass data collection activities from threatening the constitutional rights, privileges and immunities of people in the United States.
Is that the same “effective” oversight meant to assure that the U.S. government’s covert activities do not verge into atrocity and treason?
If oversight failed, with literally atrocious results, when it comes to the Obama faction’s scheme to arm our terrorist enemies, what reason have we to believe it is succeeding when it comes to upholding the constitutional provisions that secure liberty itself?
Media wishing to interview Alan Keyes, please contact email@example.com.
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.