Obama Scolds, Kerry Says Hebdo Attackers Had 'Legitimacy'

Legitimate Fears in US Over Da’esh Attacks Possibly Here Next

By Scott W. Winchell

John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and Bernie Sanders live in an alternate universe – it is no longer in doubt. If it were not so sad and dangerous, one would have to laugh.

Talk about delusional people, it’s time we re-examine that old r/K selection theory again to understand people who cannot face adversity with the words necessary, yet they spout inanities and scold us when we do not agree.

Why didn’t Kerry and/or Obama show up for the unity parade in Paris last winter after the Charlie Hebdo attack while Mr. Kerry did say that the attackers had “legitimacy” and then immediately realize he had to correct himself now? Why, because that was what you really meant, delusional:

...open mouth, remove all doubt!
…open mouth, remove all doubt!

“There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that,” Kerry said. “There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, ‘Okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.’ This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate.” (Read the rest here at the Daily Caller.)

Benjamin Netanyahu showed up, and dared to march arm-in-arm despite very serious threats to his well-being, while we get our own President once again complaining about our Republican candidates and anyone who just wants to keep their families safe here while he is on foreign soil.

It is just amazing how Obama bad-mouths Americans for wanting to be safe when 53% indicated they do not want any refugees here after what happened. Embarrassing displays both – again. Are you watching the same planet we are Mr. Obama?

“Widows and children,” really Mr. Obama? Where was Kerry and Obama when Al Assad was barrel-bombing women and children, or gassing them with chlorine in Syria?

What about the female terrorist who blew herself up killing a police dog today in a wild firefight with French authorities. Can’t women strap on suicide vests and aren’t children being trained by Da’esh now? Didn’t we hear that over 5,000 rounds were fired in that Saint Denis raid in France today where she blew herself up after learning that another attack was imminent?

The worst thing is the manner in which Obama spoke in yesterday, his delivery, the facial expressions, body language – he is a very petty man, just embarrassing, and so reprehensible. He scolds a very large swath of his own countrymen, no wonder Josh Earnest and the White House were walking their statements back today.

ied-isis-dabiqRemember, this was followed up by the Russian admission that their plane was blown up in the air and Da’esh even showed us a similar version of the bomb they used in their Da’biq magazine.

All this just in the last several days while our own homeland officials talk of Da’esh threats to Washington, D.C. and fears of major misdeeds over our holiday season.

What happens when a real bomb goes off on a plane in someone’s luggage over Kansas, or Ohio like it did over the Sinai? With TSA failing test after test, what’s to say another Sharm-el-Sheikh moment does not visit us here?

Didn’t two French planes that where threatened today have to abort their planned trips to Paris to return to the ground for inspection?

Da’esh has proven they can strike anywhere, are we next? Just now we learn that another video came out with threats to New York City and Las Vegas.

But Obama scolds us over the refusal of so many governors and American citizens for taking Syrian refugees in and Kerry says the attacks last January were legitimate. All while Sanders and Hillary can’t utter the words “Islamic Terror” in the Debate last Saturday night like Obama and Kerry.

What would the state of fears be if Da’esh or any terror group pulled off something as the busiest flying days approach next week or a football stadium has to be cleared on Thanksgiving Day or any other day on national television like what Germany had to do last night in Hannover? Will we be allowed to express our fears then?

America may have “bought crazy” in 2008 and 2012, but we ain’t buying anymore on this street corner – go sell crazy somewhere else Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Sanders.

It would be insane to accept refugees now so take your strawman arguments somewhere else as well – in our universe, our citizens’ safety comes first. We are just insulted and embarrassed.

White House on defense over Kerry, Obama comments on terror threat

By Fox News

The White House was on the defense Wednesday morning for statements made by President Obama — who labeled Friday’s Paris massacre that left 129 dead a “setback” — and Secretary of State John Kerry’s claim that the terrorists who in January attacked Charlie Hebdo had a “rationale.”

Asked about the comments during a contentious interview on Fox News, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest suggested too much attention was being paid to officials’ words.

“I would encourage you to spend just as much time focusing on the president’s actions as you do his words,” Earnest said on “Fox & Friends.”

Earnest noted that Obama, speaking in Turkey on Monday, also called the attacks “sickening.” Plus he said Obama called the French president to offer support — while strategizing with his own security advisers on the U.S. response.

President Barack Obama speaks at the G-20 meeting in Turkey.
President Barack Obama speaks at the G-20 meeting in Turkey.

Earnest said the president is consulting on “what sort of military steps we could take to ramp up our efforts inside of Syria and make sure we can support our French allies.”

But the words of both Obama and Kerry have stirred concerns about the gravity with which the administration is treating the threat.

Kerry discussed the Charlie Hebdo attack — an Al Qaeda affiliate attack against employees at a satirical publication that had published Prophet Muhammad cartoons — during remarks on Tuesday to U.S. Embassy employees in Paris.

He at first suggested there was “legitimacy” to those attacks but then corrected himself and said they had a “rationale.”

He said: “There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that.

%CODE%

There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.

This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people.”

Afterward, State Department spokesman John Kirby defended the secretary’s remarks.

The administration’s comments on the terror threat, though, have even started to draw some Democratic criticism.

After Obama said, in an interview shortly before Friday’s attacks, that ISIS is “contained,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told MSNBC that “ISIL is not contained.”

“ISIL is expanding,” she said.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who typically aligns with the president, scolded Obama in an op-ed.

“Obama’s tone in addressing the Paris atrocity was all wrong,” he wrote. “At times he was patronizing, at other times he seemed annoyed and almost dismissive.

The president said, essentially, that he had considered all the options and decided that even a large-scale terrorist attack in the heart of a major European capital was not enough to make him reconsider his policy.”

Meanwhile, Earnest continued to defend the military strategy and stand by plans to bring Syrian refugees into the U.S.

“That is still the plan,” Earnest said of the refugee plan. “The reason for that is quite simple. The first thing that people should understand, refugees who are admitted to the United States undergo more rigorous screening than anybody else who tries to enter the country.

Typically, it takes between 18 and 24 months for people to be cleared. … These are the victims of ISIL. These are the victims of that terrible war inside of Syria.”

New Hillary emails don't match her testimony – too big to jail?

Editor’s Note – It is clear that Hillary Clinton and her supporters have seemingly won a political victory but that does not erase the clear fact that she has lied, lied often, and lied about her lies under oath. Since Obama has ‘transformed’ the rule-of-law system we rely upon for a civil society and replaced it with rule by fiat and man, she may just get away with it.

We will never get closure on Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, and so many other scandals if we allow this to continue. Is she ‘too big to jail’?

While former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, currently a candidate for president of the United States, thinks she has dodged the Benghazi bullet (opinions still vary on that one) she is still under investigation for burbling classified information on her email server, states a Friday story in the McClatchy DC. As the Weekly Standard notes, at least one recently released email did contain classified data because part of it was redacted due to its being classified.

But one national security attorney named Edward McMahon Jr, claims flatly that Clinton is “too big to jail” regardless of her guilt or innocence in the matter.

Honorable???
Honorable???

The theory is that high-profile defendants such as Clinton get off for the same type of behavior that lower level officials go to jail for. The idea may come as a surprise to Scooter Libby, an aide for Vice President Dick Cheney, who was prosecuted for revealing the name of CIA analyst Valerie Plame to the media.

General David Petraeus, a former CIA director, was forced to plead guilty to a misdemeanor on the charge of mishandling classified documents when he showed them to his biographer, who also happened to be his mistress.

FBI Director James Comey, a Republican, would be the official who would recommend an indictment of Hillary Clinton. However Attorney General Loretta Lynch, an Obama appointee, would make the final approval. The situation sets up a nightmare scenario for the Democrats.

If Comey recommends an indictment and Lynch refuses, the charge of political justice follows as night follows day. On the other hand, if Lynch decides to indict, Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency is, for all practical purposes, over.

The real nightmare kicks in if Hillary Clinton, under indictment, refuses to drop out, choosing instead to do what she always does and play the victim. In that case, Vice President Joe Biden, tanned, ready and rested, may not be able to pull the Democrats out of the fire. Hillary Clinton would make history as the first major candidate for president under criminal indictment. (Examiner)

If Americans blithely look the other way, and leaders do not restore the rule-of-law, why bother having any law? An oath was taken to faithfully execute the law, but that is now a mere oxymoron.

There are two videos to view, one on her discrepancies between her testimony and email releases, and also whether she is too big too jail:

State Department emails conflict with Clinton’s Benghazi testimony

By Catherine Herridge – Fox News

Newly released emails conflict with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 11-hour testimony before the Benghazi Select Committee, according to a review of the transcripts and public records. One of the conflicts involves the role played by Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal.

Regarding the dozens of emails from him, which in many cases were forwarded to her State Department team, Clinton testified: “He’s a friend of mine. He sent me information he thought might be of interest.

Some of it was, some of it wasn’t, some of it I forwarded to be followed up on. He had no official position in the government. And he was not at all my adviser on Libya.”

But a newly released email from February 2011 shows Blumenthal advocated for a no-fly zone over Libya, writing, “U.S. might consider advancing tomorrow. Libyan helicopters and planes are raining terror on cities.”

Re-examining Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony:

%CODE%

The email was forwarded by Clinton to her deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan with the question, “What do you think of this idea?”

hillary-clinton-and-sidney-blumenthalA second email from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in March 2011 also advocated for a no-fly zone, with Blair stating, “Please work on the non-fly zone, or the other options I mentioned. Oil prices are rising, markets are down. We have to be decisive.”

In the end, Clinton advocated for the no-fly zone and was able to gather support within the Obama administration to implement it.

In another email from March 5, 2012, Clinton appears to use Blumenthal as what is known in intelligence circles as a “cut out,” a type of intermediary to gather information, allowing the policymaker plausible deniability.

In this case, the emails focused on the increasingly chaotic and fragmenting political landscape in Libya after dictator Muammar Qaddafi was removed from power.

In the one-page document, Blumenthal writes that Jonathan Powell, a former senior British government adviser to Blair, is “trying to replicate what we did in Northern Ireland by setting up secret channels between insurgents and government, and then, where appropriate, developing these negotiations.”

This type of backchannel discussion helped bring about the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement in Northern Ireland.

Clinton responded two hours later. “I’d like to see Powell when he’s in the building,” with her staff responding, “Will follow up.” In both instances, Clinton’s actions further undercut sworn testimony to the Select Committee that Blumenthal was “not at all my adviser on Libya.”

Another area of conflict involves security and aid requests. In an exchange with Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., Clinton told the House committee none of the requests for diplomatic security reached her.

“Too big too jail?”

%CODE2%

“That’s over 600 requests,” Pompeo said. “You’ve testified here this morning that you had none of those reach your desk; is that correct also?”

Clinton responded, “That’s correct.”

However, the State Department website, under a section on embassy security, states that the secretary has overall responsibility for the well-being of personnel on assignment.   The buck does not stop with “security professionals” as Clinton has testified.

It states: “The Secretary of State, and by extension, the Chief of Mission (COM), are responsible for developing and implementing security policies and programs that provide for the protection of all U.S. Government personnel (including accompanying dependents) on official duty abroad.”

Yet, the new emails show a request for humanitarian aid sent by the late Ambassador Chris Stevens did reach her desk. The Aug. 22, 2011 email from Stevens was circulated among Clinton staff and delegated for action in under an hour.

With the overthrow of Qadaffi, Stevens wrote that the Libyan opposition, known as the TNC, would soon release a statement saying it would “insure the delivery of essential services and commodities (esp. addressing the acute shortages of fuel, children’s milk, and medication for blood pressure and diabetes).”

Seventeen minutes later, Clinton responded, “Can we arrange shipments of what’s requested?”

Symbol of law and justice in the empty courtroom, law and justice concept.

While the request for humanitarian aid from Stevens did reach her office, during her testimony, Clinton emphasized, “Chris Stevens communicated regularly with the members of my staff.

He did not raise security with the members of my staff. I communicated with him about certain issues. He did not raise security with me. He raised security with the security professionals.”

The emails also further depict Clinton’s treatment of sensitive material. A February 2012 email shows Clinton sent an urgent message to an office manager that a white briefing book, used for sensitive and classified information, was left on her desk.

The office manager confirmed when it was correctly stored in the State Department safe.

The 7,000 pages released Friday leave no doubt that Clinton’s personal account mingled information now considered classified with the mundane such as social media requests and the taping of a television period drama.

On Feb. 1, 2011, Clinton sent a “Linkedin” request from a “Susan Kennedy” to a State Department IT specialist asking, “How does this work?”

An email from Feb. 23, 2012, from the State Department’s senior official on Near Eastern Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, called “Bingo!” is fully redacted, citing the B1 exception which is classified information.

And in January that same year, Clinton wrote to an aide, “I’m addicted to Downton Abbey which runs on Sunday night and reruns on Thursday at 8pmb. Since I missed it Sunday and will again tomorrow so wondering if we could tape a DVD for me.”

President Obama, meanwhile, is now under scrutiny after having told CBS’ “60 Minutes” he was not aware of Clinton’s personal account – even though the White House said Friday there are emails between the two, only they will not be available under FOIA requests until after Obama leaves office.

In the “60 Minutes” interview, when asked if he knew about Clinton’s use of a private email server, Obama twice said, “No.”

At this point, between 600 and 700 emails have been identified containing classified information. An intelligence official familiar with the review says there is no such thing as “retroactive classification,” the information is born classified, and the State Department only has the right to declassify information it produced.

While Clinton testified that 90-95 percent of her emails were captured by the State Department system, and nothing she sent or received was “marked classified,” the State Department said that estimate represents the campaign’s data and not their own.


Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

Hillary Clinton, the Skeletons in the Closet are Dancing

By Denise Simon

In the last month, many Clinton administration documents were being released as were required by law. To date, we have seen documents that relate to enemies lists and how to stage and rebuke scandals, all of which lead to the just how they think and their hidden missions.

Just this week included in the most recent round of documents, we find that Bill Clinton wrote a personal note to the Dar al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia asking to work together in proposed suggestions from the mosque. After 9/11, the FBI visited this mosque and at least two of the hijackers on that terrible day had worshiped there.

Hillary was fired, then told us "At this point, what difference does it make!"
Hillary was fired from the Watergate Commission for “lying and unethical behavior,” then told us in the Benghazi Hearings: “At this point, what difference does it make!”

Additionally, Mohammed al Hanooti was the Iman at the mosque for four years and he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Of particular note, Anwar al Awlaki was also a former Iman there. Al Awlaki was eventually killed in a drone attack in Yemen. Al Awlaki was a U.S. citizen with whom Major Nidal Hassan of Ft. Hood shooter fame communicated on numerous occasions. Al Awlaki was also a major contributor to Inspire magazine, the al Qaeda publication that advances the jihad doctrine around the world.

After the decision to kill al Awlaki by drone, Barack Obama and his staff had sought to keep the document trail regarding Awlaki classified, but a judge ruled today that those documents are to be released.

The Clinton’s have a long history of being on the wrong side, with particular emphasis placed on campaign money, aborting operations to kill Usama bin Ladin and approving pardons for corrupt placeholders, criminals, bombers, and jihadis.

In case you are seeking additional proof on the Clintons and need something more on Hillary as she seeks to win the Democrat nominee to be president in 2016, we cannot overlook her complicity in Benghazi. Their closets are full of skeletons, dancing in the dark and they need to brought out into the sunshine again, and often.

Then there is the movie entitled ‘Hillary: the Movie’ so you can revisit this lying, corrupt, elite couple produced by the one and only Citizens United. This is not to confused with e CNN documentary/mini-series that is still up in the air.  This movie exposing Hillary Rodhan Clinton was actually prevented from normal theater distribution aided by the likes of Harry Reid and other supporters of Hillary.

The movie can be viewed however here and includes appearances by Newt Gingrich, Frank Gaffney, Bay Buchannan, Dick Morris, Ann Coulter and many others who can help inform you:

%CODE%

Oh yeah, one more thing, remember Sandy Berger, you know the guy who stole documents from the National Archives? Well those documents turned out to be about the aborted mission to kill Usama bin Ladin under the Clinton administration, along with papers on the Sudan and the Millennium Plot. The FBI file is here.

On a last note, remember that Hillary Rodham Clinton was fired from the Watergate Commission for “Lying, Unethical Behavior.” Let’s also remember that she lied over ‘Travel gate’ and in testimony about ‘Hillary Care.’ Check these out in the article: “Hillary’ book of Lies.”

We don’t want a co-presidency in the White House again, and frankly this pair should have their citizenship revoked.

_____________

Edited by Scott W. Winchell

ARB Report not enough – Senators demand more

Editor’s Note by Denise Simon – This Benghazi ARB report is meaningless given those assigned to compile it. Why was there no inclusion of interviews of the survivors to the attack, why no inclusion of the members of the NSC or Panetta?

Why no inclusion of FBI findings or those of the CNN staff that was at the compound the same day? Why no inclusion of General Ham?

What is the justification for blaming Congress on lack of funds for security and then Kerry demands $1.6 billion?

Why no mention of the February 17th Brigade members or Ansar al Sharia? C’mon, there is no one that takes the hearings seriously most of all the Administration.

Senators demand review of intelligence operations on Benghazi

By Carlo Muñoz – The Hill

A trio of Republican Senators are demanding an independent review of all U.S. intelligence operations leading up to, during and after the deadly assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which ended in the deaths of four Americans including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

The review would be similar to the recently completed analysis by the independent Accountability Review Board (ARB) on the intelligence and security mishaps within the State Department that preceded the September attack, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said Friday.

“The American people were deceived … for an incredibly long amount of time,” on the Libya attack, McCain told reporters during the press conference on Capitol Hill.

Top officials in the U.S. intelligence community, as well as those at the Pentagon and State Department, must be held “accountable and responsible to the American people,” McCain added.

The board, led by former U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, found “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” of the State Department, but it also placed blame on Congress for cutting funds.

One senior State Department official has resigned in the wake of the ARB findings, and three others were put on administrative leave as a result of the scathing review.

The White House is already moving forward with instituting the recommendations put forth by the ARB, White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Thursday.

“We have an obligation to them, to their families, and all other Americans serving abroad to figure out exactly what happened and learn from those mistakes so that we can prevent this from happening again,” Carney told reporters on Thursday. “That was the purpose of the establishment of the Accountability Review Board.”

However, lawmakers say U.S. intelligence agencies should shoulder some of the blame in the run-up to Benghazi and that those agencies should be subjected to the same critical oversight as the State Department, Ayotte said.

“This was inevitable,” Graham said, regarding the failures by the American intelligence and diplomatic corps in anticipating and possibly preparing for the Benghazi attack.

Obama administration officials have repeatedly cited intelligence provided to the White House as the reason for its initial claims the consulate attack was the result of a anti-American protest gone violently wrong. Later, the White House acknowledged the strike was the work of Islamic militants based in northern Libya.

Top White House officials, including Clinton and Vice President Biden, claimed a lack of timely intelligence led to the administration’s flawed initial assessment of the situation in Benghazi.

Last month, Shawn Turner, spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, told The Hill that only changes made to the administration’s talking points on Benghazi were made by the intelligence community and not other “interagency partners” in the White House.

But given the ARB “thoroughly discredits the administration’s [initial] narrative,” a similar review is necessary for the U.S. intelligence agencies to find out what kind of analysis led the White House to its flawed conclusion, Ayotte said Friday.

The New Hampshire Republican also said that she, McCain and Graham had requested Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) call hearings to examine the Defense Department’s role in responding to the attack.

For their part, defense lawmakers agreed to  add 1,000 Marines to the Pentagon’s embassy security force, assigned to protect American diplomatic outposts across the globe, as part of the compromise version of DOD’s fiscal 2013 budget policy bill.

The DOD hearing called for on Friday will focus on what other measures the Pentagon needs to take, in order to ensure the security of U.S. diplomats stationed worldwide.

The final version of the legislation was approved by both chambers and was sent to the White House for the president’s signature on Friday.

However, the ARB-like review for the intelligence community and the possible Senate hearing on DOD’s role in Benghazi are, in the end, not about assigning blame, Graham said.

The lawmakers, according to Graham, are simply “trying to correct” the mistakes made in the run-up to the Benghazi strike and to ensure a similar attack does not happen again.

Hillary a mastermind behind Gunwalker?

By Anthony Martin

The Examiner

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - Fast and Furious?

Last week it was reported that the State Department and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were deeply involved in the scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious, or Project Gunwalker.

Today, however, new evidence has surfaced indicating that not only was Hillary deeply involved in the scandal but was one of the masterminds behind it.

According to investigative citizen journalist Mike Vanderboegh, sources close to the development of the Gunwalker scheme state that early on, Hillary and her trusted associated at State, Andrew J. Shapiro, devised at least part of the framework of what would later become Operation Fast and Furious. It was Shapiro who first described the details of the proposed scheme early in 2009 just after the Obama Administration took office.

Vanderboegh relates the following:

My sources say that as Hillary’s trusted subordinate, it was Shapiro who first described to the Secretary of State the details of what has become the Gunwalker Scandal.

The precise extent to which Hillary Clinton’s knowledge of, and responsibility for, the Gunwalker Plot, lies within the memories of these two men, Shapiro and Steinberg, sources say.

The sources also express dismay that the Issa committee is apparently restricting itself to the Department of Justice and not venturing further afield. The House Foreign Affairs Committee, they say, needs to summon these two men and their subordinates — especially at the Mexico Desk at State — and question them under oath as to what Hillary Clinton knew about the origins of the Gunwalker Scandal and when she knew it.

There is one other thing those sources agree upon. The CIA, they say, knows “everything” about the “Mexican hat dance” that became the Gunwalker Scandal.

The ‘Steinberg’ mentioned in the quote above is Hillary Clinton’s former Deputy Secretary of State, who was appointed directly by Barack Obama and was considered from the start to be an ‘Obama man’ whose objective was to carry out the wishes of the President in the State Department.

Hillary had said of Steinberg,

Clinton said Steinberg had been a “fixture” at meetings with the National Security Council (NSC) and frequently represented the US State Department at the White House.

That statement is key. Hillary herself stayed out of all meetings dealing with strategy concerning the euphemism the Administration used to designate Gunwalker, ‘strategy meetings on Mexico and the problem of drug and gun trafficking.’ Hillary’s absence would give the impression that she had no connection to the scheme while making sure that her views were represented by Steinberg and Shapiro, both of whom were fully complicit with the details that developed concerning how to pad statistics on U.S. guns in Mexico.

According to sources, Hillary was obsessed with gun statistics that would prove that ‘90% of the firearms used by Mexican criminals come from the United States.’ As previouly reported, that meme, repeated incessantly by Democratic Senators, Barack Obama, certan members of the ATF, Janet Napolitano, and Hillary Clinton was patently and blatantly false. The fact that they all knew it was false is borne out by the lengths to which each of the above named co-conspirators went to attempt to ‘prove’ that the 90% figure was true.

Again, Vanderboegh relates the following:

My sources say that this battle of the “statistics” was taken very seriously by all players — the White House, State and Justice. Yet, WHY was this game of statistics so important to the players? If some weapons from the American civilian market were making it to Mexico into the hand of drug gang killers that was bad enough. What was the importance of insisting that it was 90 percent, 80 percent, or finally 70 percent? Would such statistics make any difference to the law enforcement tactics necessary to curtail them? No.

This statistics mania is similar to the focus on “body counts” in Vietnam. Yet if Vietnam body counts were supposed to be a measure of how we were winning that war, the focus on the 90 percent meme was certainly not designed to be a measure of how we were winning the war against arming the cartels, but rather by what overwhelming standard we were LOSING. Why?

Recall what the whistleblower ATF agents told us right after this scandal broke in the wake of the death of Brian Terry: “ATF source confirms ‘walking’ guns to Mexico to ‘pad’ statistics.”

Thus, from the beginning the scheme was to pad statistics on U.S. guns in Mexico in order to be in a strengthened position to call for gun bans and strict gun control at a time when it was politically unpopular. Further, the scheme would involve a made-up statistic, out of thin air–90%–which then had to be proved by using civilian gun retailers along the southern border as unsuspecting pawns to walk U.S. guns into Mexico by ATF agents, straw purchasers, and others with connections to Mexican drug cartels.

And the evidence points to the fact that Hillary Clinton was one of the original Administration officials who was ‘in the loop’ on the scheme from the very beginning.