Hillary Clinton's "Watergate Moment," and the "Smoking Gun"?

Editor’s Note – Are we at a “Watergate Moment” now that we have learned of the “Smoking Gun” email that should be the straw that breaks the camel’s back concerning Hillary Clinton?

Will FBI Director Jim Comey send a set of criminal referrals to the Department of Justice as we believe he should?

The latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department early Friday contain what may be the smoking gun that forces the Justice Department to charge the former secretary of state with a crime, according to former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova.13HoursBenghaziBook

“This is gigantic,” said diGenova. “She caused to be removed a classified marking and then had it transmitted in an unencrypted manner. That is a felony. The removal of the classified marking is a federal crime.

It is the same thing to order someone to do it as if she had done it herself.”

On the June 17, 2011, email chain with senior State Department adviser Jake Sullivan, Clinton apparently asked Sullivan to change the marking on classified information so that it is no longer flagged as classified.

Clinton, using her private email server, asks for “the TPs,” apparently a reference to talking points being prepared for her. Sullivan, who is using his official State Department email, responds, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax.

They’re working on it.” Clinton responds, “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w[ith] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” (Read more here at Drudge.)

What will Lynch do if Comey does recommend prosecutions? We are certain Hillary Clinton should be disqualified from pursuing office for many other reasons not the least of which were he actions concerning Benghazi but this many individual felonious acts warrant a much swifter prosecution of the law than we have experienced because of her “special status”.

ClintonSullivanFBI

With the movie “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” coming to theaters next week, we believe America will demand that she be prosecuted.

We have not even mentioned all the questionable activity over the Clinton Foundation and numerous other issues but we are certain of one thing, America cannot afford another epic mistake in the election of our President after these past 7 years.

Hillary Clinton’s criminal probe will ‘come to a head’ in next 60 days; indictment likely, says ex-US attorney

By Frieda Powers – BPR BizPac Review

The ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails has not yet landed the Democratic candidate an interview with the FBI, but a former U.S. attorney thinks a criminal indictment could be coming in the next 60 days.

Former Republican U.S. attorney, Joe DiGenova, said a charge against Clinton personally would put the current administration in a very uncomfortable position, reported the Washington Examiner. The open FBI investigation is Clinton’s “biggest problem right now,” DiGenova said on the “Laura Ingraham Show” radio program, Tuesday.

%CODE%

DiGenova, a Republican who served as a federal prosecutor under former President Ronald Reagan, told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham that the FBI’s
investigation has reached a “critical mass” and the evidence against the former secretary of state is damning. (The Blaze)

“They have reached a critical mass in their investigation of the secretary and all of her senior staff,” he said. “And, it’s going to come to a head, I would suggest, in the next 60 days.”

Before making any findings public, the FBI would still likely need to interview the former secretary of state, DiGenova said. After months of investigating whether Clinton and her staff mishandled classified information on an unsecured network, FBI Director James Comey has not disclosed when the probe will conclude.

“It’s going to be a very complex matter for the Department of Justice, but they’re not going to be able to walk away from it,” said DiGenova. “They are now at over 1,200 classified emails. And, that’s just for the ones we know about from the State Department. That does not include the ones that the FBI is, in fact, recovering from her hard drives.”

While the Clinton campaign has insisted it is not a criminal investigation of the candidate personally, DiGenova maintained that the evidence otherwise is “compelling” and “overwhelming.” The Obama administration would find itself in a corner as the burden would lie with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to charge Clinton personally with a crime.

“The evidence against the Clinton staff and the secretary,” said DiGenova,  “is so overwhelming at this point that if, in fact, she chooses not to charge Hillary, they will never be able to charge another federal employee with the negligent handling of classified information. The intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment and they are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if she refuses to bring charges.”

“I believe,” DiGenova added, “that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable.”

 

Left Now Calls For Hillary to Come Clean or Get Out

Editor’s Note – Last night we heard that the FBI was able to recover emails from Hillary Clinton’s server and now some on the left are calling for her head and noted columnist and talking head Ron Fournier lists the reason below.

In addition, even the State Department is challenging Hillary’s many excuses, most notably on the chain of events leading to her turning over the so-called non-private ones. Her story is so frought with lies and distractions it makes the head spin:

Hillary Rodham Clinton has described her decision last year to turn over thousands of work-related e-mails as a response to a routine-sounding records request.

“When we were asked to help the State Department make sure they had everything from other secretaries of state, not just me, I’m the one who said, ‘Okay, great, I will go through them again,’ ” Clinton said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And we provided all of them.”

But State Department officials provided new information Tuesday that undercuts Clinton’s characterization. They said the request was not simply about general rec­ord-keeping but was prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system. They also said they first contacted her in the summer of 2014, at least three months before the agency asked Clinton and three of her predecessors to provide their e-mails.

It’s not just why and when they were turned over, it is also how. Remember, she had them printed out, thus hiding the meta-data and slowing down the search process. In any other criminal case, that is clearly obstruction of justice – 30,000 times. But we want to take Ron Fournier’s article one step further, like prison further.

Please read on as the left is learning and be sure to check on Ron’s 19 question for Hillary from September 9th, and then read here:

Hillary Clinton: Come Clean or Get Out

The email scandal is a distraction from the important work of the Democratic Party.

By Ron Fournier – National Journal

If the Demo­crat­ic Party cares to sal­vage a sliv­er of mor­al au­thor­ity, its lead­ers and early state voters need to send Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton an ur­gent mes­sage: Come clean or get out. Stop ly­ing and de­flect­ing about how and why you stashed State De­part­ment email on a secret serv­er—or stop run­ning.email-scandal-ron-fournier-has-19-questions-for-hillary_1

Tell her: We can’t have an­oth­er day like this:

Story 1: The State De­part­ment con­firmed that Clin­ton turned over her email only after Con­gress dis­covered that she had ex­clus­ively used a private email sys­tem. Ac­cord­ing to The Wash­ing­ton Post, the de­part­ment first con­tac­ted her in the sum­mer of 2014, at least three months be­fore the agency asked Clin­ton and three of her pre­de­cessors to provide their emails.

The story un­der­cuts Clin­ton’s claim that her de­cision to turn over self-se­lec­ted email was a re­sponse to a routine-sound­ing re­cords re­quest. She hasn’t been telling the truth.

Story 2: A fed­er­al court has helped un­cov­er more emails re­lated to the Benghazi raid that were with­held from con­gres­sion­al in­vest­ig­at­ors. Clin­ton has in­sisted she turned over all her work-re­lated email and com­plied with con­gres­sion­al sub­poen­as.

Again, she hasn’t been telling the truth.

Story 3: The FBI has re­covered per­son­al and work-re­lated e-mails from her private serv­er, rais­ing the pos­sib­il­ity that the de­leted in­form­a­tion be­comes pub­lic. “The FBI is in­vest­ig­at­ing how and why clas­si­fied in­form­a­tion ended up on Clin­ton’s serv­er,” Bloomberg re­por­ted.

While the Demo­crat­ic front-run­ner still in­sists there was no clas­si­fied in­form­a­tion on the un­se­cured serv­er, the FBI has moved bey­ond wheth­er U.S. secrets were in­volved to how and why. In the lan­guage of law en­force­ment, the FBI is in­vest­ig­at­ing her motive.

ron-fournier-360x220On Sunday, Clin­ton told Face the Na­tion host John Dick­er­son: “What I did was al­lowed. It was fully above board,” and “I tried to be fully trans­par­ent.” Both claims are ob­ject­ively and in­dis­put­ably false.

From the mo­ment this story broke in March, seni­or Demo­crats told me they were wor­ried about where the ques­tions would lead. Sev­er­al said they feared what the emails might show about the in­ter­sec­tion of Clin­ton’s work at the State De­part­ment and the fam­ily’s private found­a­tion.

One Clin­ton loy­al­ist, a cred­ible source who I’ve known for years, told me, “The emails are a re­lated but sec­ond­ary scan­dal. Fol­low the found­a­tion money.”

That is still spec­u­la­tion. But months of dis­hon­esty and de­cep­tion took their toll: A ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans don’t trust her, and the Demo­crat­ic nom­in­a­tion fight has shif­ted from a coron­a­tion to a com­pet­i­tion. A poll re­leased today by Bloomberg shows Clin­ton barely lead­ing so­cial­ist Bernie Sanders and Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden, who’s not even in the race.

For Demo­crats, this is an op­por­tun­ity wasted. A crowded GOP field has been taken host­age by a celebrity bil­lion­aire with a his­tory of bank­ruptcies, sex­ist be­ha­vi­or, and ra­cially of­fens­ive state­ments. Lack­ing a firm grip on policy or the truth, Don­ald Trump is the GOP front-run­ner.

His closest com­pet­i­tion, Dr. Ben Car­son, said Sunday he didn’t think a Muslim should be pres­id­ent, and his ef­forts to clean up the con­tro­versy have been as ham-handed as they are dis­hon­est.

Which brings me back to Clin­ton. Loy­al­ists ar­gue that her policy agenda speaks to Amer­ica’s new demo­graphy and ad­dresses 21st-cen­tury chal­lenges. Even if they’re right, the Clin­ton team has un­der­es­tim­ated the value that voters place on a can­did­ate’s char­ac­ter. One top Clin­ton ad­viser told me in the spring, “Trust doesn’t mat­ter.”

Hillary.Fournier

 

Oft-burned Amer­ic­ans un­der­stand that a policy agenda is a col­lec­tion of prom­ises. If they can’t count on Clin­ton to be hon­est, they can’t count on her to keep her word about in­come in­equal­ity, jobs, health care, and the en­vir­on­ment.

She an­nounced a plan Tues­day to re­duce pre­scrip­tion-drug costs, prom­ising to cap monthly out-of-pock­et ex­penses at $250 without curb­ing profits that fund re­search in­to life-sav­ing drugs. Can you be­lieve her?

Over­shad­ow­ing that news was her long-awaited de­cision on the Key­stone pipeline: Clin­ton now op­poses a pro­ject she was once in­clined to sup­port at the State De­part­ment, a flip-flop that she jus­ti­fied with a rhet­or­ic­al wave of the hand. “I think it is im­per­at­ive that we look at the Key­stone pipeline as what I be­lieve it is—a dis­trac­tion from the im­port­ant work we have to do to com­bat cli­mate change.”

A dis­trac­tion from the im­port­ant work. That could be her cam­paign slo­gan.

Emails, Distractions, and Details Muddle the Clinton Picture

We Must Remain Focused on the Macro-Hillary Picture

By Scott W. Winchell, SUA Editor

On Friday, the second tranche of court ordered releases of Clinton emails occurred and included 41 messages that reviewers determined contained classified material. There were a few Benghazi related emails in this a chronological release that pre-dated the attack, with at least one referring to security concerns.

But remember what she said at the UN; “there is no classified material… I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”  Oh, the sheer volume of the moving parts…that thumb drive!

Original Image By REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/Files
Original Image By REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/Files

Several sites have shown the content and how much information can be gleaned, but we are getting lost in the noise; we are not looking at the totality of all of her actions over a very long period. Once again, this is all done in a purposeful manner to keep people confused, like turning over print versions instead of electronic certainly see to that end.

She lied, broke the rules repeatedly, stalled, obfuscated, and the story changes almost daily while the State Department barely meets the court ordered release requirements.

“It says the process is slower because of intense scrutiny by U.S. intelligence agencies to ensure that emails from her private server don’t contain any sensitive or classified government secrets…2,206 pages of emails, roughly 12 percent of the 55,000 pages” were released.

Maybe if they had the electronic version it would be a wee bit faster. Again, a lot of noise, a lot of shiny objects, all piece meal, but definitely at a classified level or it wouldn’t take so long.

However, if we look at this from a 40,000 foot macro perspective, we can clearly see that Clinton should be the subject of an investigation either by the FBI or a Select Committee from Congress at a minimum, and for more than just the email scandal.

Hoping another shiny object would distract us, her campaign released tax records at almost the same moment, timed to do just that and today they released more medical records. With so many moving parts in this saga, it is easy to get lost in the details; look, a squirrel.

hillary-clinton-foundation-money-cashSo let’s begin with a macro question; at what time is any communication transmitted by the Secretary of State of the United States of America not of interest to foreign powers?

For that matter, what about political adversaries, or even the proverbial hacker in his basement on a joy ride to see what he can get into on the net? The answer of course is never, ask Sydney Blumenthal.

All members of a President’s cabinet are by definition some of the most powerful people in the world; all are targets, all the time. That is why we have rules and laws in place to preserve the safety of the information each deals with 24/7; it is called national security.

When it comes to the Secretary of State, the most important cabinet level position and the number four slot for Presidential succession, it is clear that all communications he or she engages in are de facto important and sensitive in nature, even if it’s just about what she wants to eat that day. When does something actually get classified? Is it not often after the fact anyway as we now see?hillary-clinton-what-difference-does-it-make-benghazi-dead-americans-9111

When considering whether or not a coded stamp is placed on any transmission designating it to be classified at some level is beside the point, and it is folly to split hairs about whether or not Hillary Clinton knew they were or were not.

All her correspondence is important to some enemy. Any responsible person, especially somebody who once resided in the White House knows this and is required to act accordingly, that is, unless you are a Clinton. Her denials are an insult to our intelligence.

What is worse, and we have to keep repeating this point, at no time ever, did Hillary Clinton have any right of ownership of her email as Secretary of State. None, not even “personal” ones! Each and every transmission she made after swearing an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution were automatically the property of the people – case closed!

The proof in just how important her communications are or were, is in the data dump we received yesterday where large portions of her transmissions were heavily redacted and many were classified after the fact as too sensitive to be released to the public. Not only is it a fact that she did not own them, she also harbored them outside the purview of federal security, a crime. Who cares what was in the headline at the NY Times.

Then there is the case of the personal lawyer and others with whom she gave access to view all of her transmissions, and that pesky thumb drive. When did she become the arbiter of who had clearance to view what is now confirmed to be sensitive intelligence? And, what about all those gaps?

ClintonEmailGap

The Clinton camp assures us that her personal attorney holds proper clearance, but he is not a State Department employee and has no right to harbor sensitive material let alone even seeing it, especially in a private setting, ask David Petraeus. And why has no one from the State Department sent security agents to secure that thumb drive from David Kendall?

“This raises very serious questions and concerns if a private citizen is somehow retaining classified information,” Grassley’s said in a letter sent late last week. He asked for more information on Kendall’s clearance and whether the lawyer was authorized to “be the custodian of classified national security information.” The FBI has not yet responded. (Politico)

Then there is the curious case of Huma Abedin, another Grassley letter to State:

“The letter sought the status of an inquiry into whether Abedin had violated conflict-of-interest laws related to her special employment situation, which allowed her to work simultaneously for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and a private firm with close ties to the Clintons.”

Huma-Abedin-and-Hillary-ClintonHow was it that Abedin was given such status, apparently over paid at that, and once again clearly brings the Clinton Foundation and all its moving parts back into the picture?

Everything the Clintons touch is part of a racket, pure and simple, and a personal ATM. From 40,000 feet it all forms a clear picture – Hillary Clinton is not only a dismal campaigner and speaker, she is as corrupt and untrustworthy as any has ever been.

The Clinton campaign worries about the damage that cannot be “unwound” that the NY Times caused in their opinion, but maybe they should worry more about the law and Judge Sullivan who on Friday turned up the heat a bit more:

A federal judge has ordered the State Department to ask Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to certify under penalty of perjury that she has turned over some of the work-related emails she kept on a private server during the four years she served as secretary of state.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan issued the order Friday in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit the conservative group Judicial Watch filed in 2013 seeking records about the employment status of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who worked as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff but later transferred to a part-time job as a so-called “special government employee.”

At such a hearing on Friday, Sullivan—a Bill Clinton appointee—told State to seek certifications from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and former Deputy Secretary of State Cheryl Mills that they’ve produced all records related to Abedin’s employment, even if they kept those records outside official State Department systems.

“As related to Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests in this case, the Government is HEREBY ORDERED to: (1) identify any and all servers, accounts, hard drives, or other devices currently in the possession or control of the State Department or otherwise that may contain responsive information; (2) request that the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department,” Sullivan wrote in an order issued Friday afternoon.

“If all such information has not yet been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals produce the information forthwith; and (3) request that the above named individuals describe, under penalty of perjury, the extent to which Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills used Mrs. Clinton’s email server to conduct official government business.” (Read the rest here at Politico.)

We should turn up the heat as well, and avoid being sucked into the maelstrom they want us to focus upon instead. Our attention must be maintained and we should read more about the “law and the Secretary of State”:

“…four sections of the law: the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the National Archives and Records Administration‘s (NARA) regulations and Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code.” (Read more at the NPR article written on this last April. Also see Title 44 here, and a time line on the creation of these laws.)

Wait for it though, rumors of another “bimbo eruption” will be sure to confuse and distract us from what we believe makes Hillary Clinton a criminal and unfit to hold any office in America… other than one in a prison cell.


A reprise of the following is warranted here:

THE CRIMINAL ARROGANCE OF HILLARY CLINTON – Bill Whittle

%CODE%

13 Words Only? Abedin Under Sen. Judiciary Comm. Scrutiny

Editor’s Note – Hillary, Hillary, Hillary! At what point does America as a whole declare the Clinton era over – once and for all? Democrats, is this the best your party can offer?

Everything associated with the Clintons reeks, and yet, so many in America still support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for President. She cannot be trusted on anything, and now we have rules for the press on what we can say or print about her?

The same person who erased her entire email server, was fired from the Watergate investigation for lying, and the myriad other scandals is just plain “unethical” and is the epitome of the now infamous list of the 13-words her supporters say we cannot use:Untitled

Amy Chozick, political reporter for the NY Times, received an email warning from a group called HRC Super Volunteers, “You are on notice that we will be watching, reading, listening and protesting coded sexism.” To that end they gave Ms. Chozick a list of 13 word she cannot use to describe the former Secretary of State.

According to HRC Super Volunteers the 13 sexist words are “polarizing,” “calculating,” “disingenuous,” “insincere,” “ambitious,” “inevitable,” “entitled,” “over-confident,” “secretive,” “will do anything to win,” “represents the past,” “out of touch,” and “tone deaf.”

We would like to add a few more words these “Super Volunteers” missed like corrupt, conniving, devious, narcissistic, untrustworthy, shady, nefarious, unscrupulous… the list could be pages long; great assets for the Oval Office, yes?

Everyone associated with her also reeks of corruption, whether it is Sidney Blumenthal , and his ‘leaked’ emails on her spy network, her husband and ‘Orgy Island,’ their foundation collecting foreign money, Sandy Berger with his smarmy, sticky fingers, and now her one-time confidential aid and shadow, Huma Abedin is finally getting the scrutiny she deserves.

It appears that Abedin, the woman closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood was also a “special” employee, double-dipping as Senator Grassley is alleging.

Hillary Clinton’s chief-of-staff, Huma Abedin, worked on the editorial board of a Saudi-financed Islamic think tank alongside a Muslim extremist accused of financing al-Qaida fronts.

The extremist, Abdullah Omar Naseef, is deeply connected to the Abedin family. Naseef is secretary-general of the Muslim World League, an Islamic charity known to have spawned terrorist groups, including one declared by the U.S. government to be an official al-Qaida front.

Now that Harry Reid is ‘over,’ is there any person with a “D” after their name more loathsome and corrupt? Where is that Department of Justice? “Even Nixon didn’t destroy the tapes” – Reince Priebus.

Senate GOP asking new questions about emails for Clinton and Abedin, who had special employment status

From Fox News

Senate Republicans are renewing efforts to learn why Huma Abedin, a top assistant to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was allowed to keep working at the agency under a special, part-time status while also being employed at a politically-connected consulting firm.

The new requests are being made by Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, following revelations that both women used a private Internet server and email accounts for State Department correspondence.

Grassley says the earlier requests to the department have been largely ignored, so the new ones have gone to the department’s inspector general and to Secretary of State John Kerry, seeking their involvement.

Grassley’s probe started in 2013, when he requested all communications between Abedin, after she switched from a full-time deputy chief of staff for Clinton to a part-timer, then started working for Teneo, a consulting firm that says it “brings together the disciplines of government and public affairs.”

FILE: Feb. 22, 2008: Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., with chief of staff Huma Abedin in Fort Worth, Texas. (REUTERS)
FILE: Feb. 22, 2008: Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., with chief of staff Huma Abedin in Fort Worth, Texas. (REUTERS)

A July 2013 letter from the department to Grassley, provide by the senator’s office, states Abedin worked full-time from January 2009 to June 2012. It also states Abedin did not list outside employment upon ending her full-time employment and that the department retained her as an adviser-expert at the hourly rate of a SGA GS-15/10.

The most recent available federal documents show the rate as $74.51 with a maximum pay of $155,500 annually.

“A number of conflict-of-interest concerns arise when a government employee is simultaneously being paid by a private company, especially when that company (is) Teneo,” Grassley said in the March 19 letter to Kerry that also raised concerns about Abedin and other department employees appearing to have been “improperly categorized” as special government employees, or SGEs.

Grassley says he specifically wants to know “what steps the department took to ensure that … Abedin’s outside employment with a political-intelligence and corporate-advisory firm did not conflict with her simultaneous employment at the State Department.”

The letter to department Inspector General Steve Linick also questions whether the department’s “excessive” use of SGE designations undermines ethics standards and if Clinton and Abedin’s private emails have the potential to impede the department from fulfilling Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, requests, over which the upper chamber’s Judiciary Committee has legislative jurisdiction.

Grassley says the department’s answers have so far been “largely unresponsive” and points to a November 2014 response that in part states “an individual may receive an SGE designation if he or she is joining the department from the private sector or is coming from another government position.”

However, Abedin came neither from the private sector nor another government position, Grassley argues.

“She converted from a full-time employee … with seemingly little difference in her job description or responsibilities,” he wrote.

Grassley also argues that the purpose of the SGE program is to help the government get temporary services from people with special knowledge and skills whose principal employment is outside the government.

However, Abedin essentially kept the same job and was subsequently hired by Teneo and the Clinton Global Initiative.

“It is unclear what special knowledge or skills Ms. Abedin possessed that the government could not have easily obtained otherwise from regular government employees,” Grassley wrote.

The State Department says Abedin was an SGE until February 2013, essentially doing the same job that she did as a full-time employee, advising on Clinton’s schedule and travel. It also states she reviewed department ethics guidelines but was allows to work part-time without a new security clearance.

Grassley also says the department’s current use of the SGE designation “blurs the line between public and private sector employees” and that department employees getting full-time salaries for what appears to be part-time work is “especially troubling.”

“The taxpayer deserves to know,” Grassley wrote.

Hillary Clinton’s abominable national security record

Editor’s Note – Gary Aldrich served in the FBI for 26 years and was assigned to the White House bracketing the Reagan and Clinton Administrations. In his White House post, he was the responsible for background checks for positions including White House Counsel, Chief of Staff, Secretary of State, Attorney General, FBI Director, and other cabinet posts.

Prior to his White House assignment, Aldrich held liaison positions in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. From 1969-1986, he served as FBI Special Agent Investigator in Austin, Los Angeles, Miami, and Washington, D.C. (Read more here.)

ALDRICH: Hillary Clinton’s abominable national security record

History of incompetence and dangerous decisions

By Gary Aldrich – Washington Times

Gary Aldritch

I have extensive experience in national security matters, including years served in the House, the Senate and the White House, where I was detailed as senior FBI special agent liaison and investigator with the Bush and Clinton White House counsel’s office.

There was never a question that national security was a top priority for George H.W. Bush’s executive branch. The security system was ironclad, serious and professional. The rest of the federal agencies followed the lead of the Bush White House.

Our national security group consisted of the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Defense and the Secret Service, all working united in a common mission. I cannot recall a single complaint that the Bush administration ignored warnings or suggestions of those ready to give their all — including their lives — to protect the president and his White House, and our national security. We performed our mission, and it was appreciated by the Bush team.

Contrast that with the mess that occurred when Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton took office. The administration, with few exceptions, did not take national security seriously. National and White House security were not priorities. We were shocked.

Because of an obvious disregard for security-related matters throughout the executive branch, career professionals left the Clinton White House and their respective agencies in droves. I knew many who did, and it was a sad day when another one would greet us in the hallways of the Old Executive Office Building with an announcement of retirement, transfer or outright resignation. I could not blame them. I also approached my FBI managers with my own request for reassignment.

Why did I want to leave one of the most unique assignments an FBI agent could achieve? The bad attitude the Clintons had toward national security made it impossible for us to perform our duties successfully. Their failure to properly assess threat levels, along with their unwillingness to acknowledge that they knew little about national security, was a recipe for disaster. We knew this from experience.

Mrs. Clinton eventually was accused in congressional testimony of ordering the hiring of Craig Livingstone — a former bar bouncer — to head the White House security office. Mr. Livingstone also headed up liaison with the FBI. His was not a serious appointment — he was a joke. Some of my security friends thought that this was Mrs. Clinton’s way of showing us that she held no respect for us.

Lacking respect did not discourage Mrs. Clinton from using security agencies as a hammer to attack and punish those who stood in her way. The FBI, the Secret Service and the Internal Revenue Service hounded and then prosecuted seven innocent men who worked for the White House travel office simply because they were standing in the way of Mrs. Clinton’s political interests and ambitions. She knew federal investigations would destroy those good men, but she wanted her friends in those slots, and that was all that mattered.

No one could understand why Mrs. Clinton would want to insert herself into security matters. She was neither elected nor appointed, and day-to-day security issues were considered dry or boring. Security usually is not micromanaged by the front office. Moreover, a good front office always staffs this important function with the best candidates. One possible reason for Mrs. Clinton’s unusual interest was that she and her husband had much to hide. There was no statutory authority for her to be so involved, but that didn’t seem to matter, either.

The Clintons left a wake of questionable activities behind them. Both had come up from the same crowd — the anti-war left, where Saul Alinsky taught that all truth was relative, a tool to be used to win. Having won the White House, Mr. Clinton had little interest in staffing, as documented in articles and books explaining the chaos, released after the fact.

Mrs. Clinton called on Arkansas Rose Law Firm associates to staff the Clinton White House Counsel’s Office. Most memorable among these was Vince Foster, who died in Fort Marcy Park of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. Foster, a seemingly decent man, was deputy counsel in charge of the overall security program in the White House. He possessed no background or education for the job. Foster’s deputy, William Kennedy, also a former co-worker of Mrs. Clinton, supervised Craig Livingstone. FBI and Secret Service agents did their best to work with this trio, but within days it was clear that there was not a dime’s worth of experience between them regarding White House security or national security. That didn’t seem to register in Washington, where perception trumps logic and truth.

Soon the predictable happened, as the Clinton White House became a swamp of scandal and chaos, eventually resulting in Mr. Clinton’s impeachment. We were lucky that nothing worse than the Monica Lewinsky scandal occurred. The Clinton White House — with a security system conceived and overseen by Mrs. Clinton — was an exceptionally soft target for espionage and also for a deadly terrorist attack.

Five House members recently raised questions about Huma Abedin, an aide in Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, whose family has ties with terrorist sympathizers. This aide should not be a candidate for close access. Only those completely above suspicion should ever be given close access to a Cabinet secretary’s daily business or schedule. Such a person would require the highest clearance possible. Agendas, comings, goings, identities, plans, what the president says and thinks — that is a virtual treasure trove of key data if a potential spy can access an inner circle participant. Of course, Mrs. Clinton’s choice for a constant travel companion could be an innocent person, but if the FBI director’s closest aide was the son of a Mafia boss, would that be deemed acceptable?

On the heels of this national security background investigation mystery, now there are four deaths — one of a U.S. ambassador — apparently because of other lapses in national and embassy security procedures at Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. She hired a former bar bouncer for White House security — who runs the State Department’s security office?

Mrs. Clinton has a documented track record of interference and poor judgment as she micromanaged the White House security program, sans credentials. In recent days, she has said that what happened in Libya is her fault, and maybe that’s the truth. The media ought to ask her some tough questions about State Department security, and then seek to get some straight answers.

More important, a preventable horror such as the one that happened in Benghazi, Libya, on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks should require an in-depth congressional hearing. No one should be allowed to hide behind weak, insincere apologies or cover up a national security collapse. Our nation and the families of the victims deserve better, and true accountability can prevent future national security debacles.

Gary Aldrich is president of The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty and author of “Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House” (Regnery, 1996).