Hillary Clinton’s “there’s no evidence of that” line of defense over her email mess continues to crumble in the face of . . . new evidence.
For all her talk of how using a private email account for her work running the State Department was just fine, it’s now plain she left top-secret information vulnerable to hackers.
More evidence is likely to come out. The FBI’s probe has now expanded to include another private server she used, a backup service with Connecticut-based Datto Inc.
And now the Associated Press has confirmed that her main server was the target of repeated cyberattacks from China, South Korea and Germany. And those came after she left office, when her team belatedly agreed to use some threat-monitoring software.
In other news, a FOIA request from the watchdog group Citizens United has uncovered the fact that Hill’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, was forwarding classified info to the Clinton Foundation — so staff there could support Bill Clinton’s work in Africa.
Add to this new details about Hillary’s emails with longtime aide Sidney Blumenthal — emails that somehow didn’t make it into the data she finally handed over once word broke that she’d failed to share her work product with the government.
Her extensive communications with him include the naming of a CIA source (obviously classified) as he pushed for action in Libya — action that would benefit his clients.
“It is curious Secretary Clinton took so much of her advice from someone who had never been to Libya, professed no independent knowledge of the country and who the White House blocked her from hiring,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads the select committee trying to finally get to the full facts on the deadly Benghazi attack.
Curious? Hey, in Clintonworld, blending policy with pocket-lining is routine — national security be damned.
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 – As the former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates’ book ‘Duty’ reveals to us, as well as the leaders of all other nations, the Obama administration’s policies are driven purely by politics. It is now obvious, and despite their excuses and rationalizations, it is indeed true that politics trumps policy in the Obama White House, often to the detriment of our troops and our world reputation.
So too can it then be said that their policy towards Islam is politically entrenched and that certain groups within Islam carry great influence in our leadership’s policy decisions regarding Islam and terrorism. In the article posted below regarding what Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney talked about in a recent interview conducted by WMAL in Washington, D.C., Bob Unruh of WND talks of the assertion the General makes about the Islamic infiltration of our government by the Muslim Brotherhood and how it has helped mold their political stance regarding Islam and terrorism in a most demonstrable manner.
Early in the first term of the Obama administration, it became apparent to those of us who follow things Islam and terrorism closely, that Obama made a decision regarding his policy stance on Islam by changing the very definition of the “War On Terror” calling it an “Overseas Contingency Operation” and expunging all reference and training materials of anything that shed a negative light on Islam in any manner. Why?, we asked. Was it his Islamic upbringing? Was it his financial ties and support to and by many Muslims? Or was it ineptitude, naivete, and ignorance?
When the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth cannot, or will not define the threat and will not define the enemies, or even name our enemies, how are we as a nation ever to succeed against terrorists and other enemies? Barry Rubin wrote an article this week entitled ‘You still don’t understand Islamism, do you you?‘ where he shows in stark clarity that a political decision was made and policy would follow it regarding terrorism and Islam.
In that article, Rubin shows the depth to which they have confused the subject so much that many supposed ‘experts’ and ‘mavens’ in the media consistently get things wrong. The mere fact that a known loyalist and trainee of Osama bin Laden, Sufyan Bin Qumu, was the leader of Ansar al Sharia, the terrorist group who perpetrated the attack in Benghazi, but that it was not an al Qaeda group is mere semantics and is ludicrous.
In fact, early on, Cheryl Mills in the State Department reported internally that it was an al Qaeda group called Ansar al Sharia, then later it was changed to a movie trailer that ignited the attack and not al Qaeda. Then the NY Times tried to make that point in its now infamous report on Benghazi and was roundly criticized as fluff and greatly refuted by testimony and the facts.
There was a secret debate happening in the Defense Department and the CIA in which some people thought that all Muslims were a problem, some believed that only al-Qa’ida was a problem, and still others thought the Muslim Brotherhood was a problem.
The main problem, however, was that all Islamism was a political threat, but it was the second position that eventually won over the Obama administration. Take note of this, since 2009, if you wanted to build your career and win policy debates, only al-Qa’ida was a problem. The Muslim Brotherhood was not a threat; after all, it did not participate in September 11. This view was well known in policy circles, but it was easy to mistake this growing hegemony as temporary. (Read the rest here, it is a must read.)
Now this confusion, rooted in the political underpinnings of the Obama Administration’s “policies set by politics” standards that most in the West are confused about who is who in Syria. Is Obama backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, or is it al Qaeda, or is it the so-called “moderates,” or is it the secular nationalistic FSA? We know it is not that last group.
In another recent article, Hannah Allam writes for the McCLatchy Washington Bureau that there is “No winner for the West in Syria” because its a “good” al Qaeda versus a “bad” al Qaeda condition from which we must chose. It is hard to identify the players without a scorecard thanks to all the confusion of cultures and influences, along with external policies set by politics. Politics emanating from the USA, Russia, Iran, France, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and beyond.
However she leaves out a lot of historical facts along with the understanding of why the Syrian civilian population changes loyalties almost daily due to the humanitarian crises. She also leaves out the western influences prior to the dictatorial and tyrannical regime where Jews and Christians made up a large portion of the historical context. Also missing is any reference to the largest number among the rebels, those who are secular and nationalist, the many who wish to join the West rather than any Islamist state.
Also recently, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said this of the politics and semantics:
“Whether it was al Qaeda or a subsidiary or a holding company or a limited partnership, to quote Hillary Clinton, ‘What difference does it make?’ Who cares whether it was al Qaeda proper or a subsidiary? Four Americans are dead, and it wasn’t a spontaneous reaction to a video. It was planned,” Gowdy said.
Now we have to ask, what is the message to those who defend us in uniform? What are foreign leaders and our allies supposed to think? The strategy is clouded in uncertainty and is rudderless. Please read the following article by Bob Unruh on Lt. Gen. McInerney’s interview:
GENERAL: Muslim Brotherhood Inside Obama Administration
‘There are a whole host of people in this government’
Retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Tom McInerney, who served as both assistant vice chief of staff and commander in chief of U.S. Air Forces Europe, has surprised interviewers on a radio program by confirming the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood inside the U.S. government.
Another key figure with Muslim Brotherhood ties is Mohamed Elibiary, a member of the Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council.
McInerney was being interviewed Thursday by WMAL in Washington about a tell-all book by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates that strongly criticizes President Obama and Vice President Biden for making politically motivated decisions regarding national security.
McInerney said Gates was doing the nation a service by exposing decision-making in the Oval Office but said he should have done it sooner. He also noted that the Muslim Brotherhood influences have been causing major problems throughout the Middle East.
Then he added, “We’ve got Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. government today.”
Asked by the talk-show hosts for their names, he said, “I haven’t got their names exactly but there’s a list of them, at least 10 or 15 of them in the U.S. government.”
He cited the organization’s influence in Homeland Security and the secretary of state’s office under Clinton, where Abedin has worked.
“Her parents are Muslim Brotherhood. And her intuitions are in that direction,” he said.
“There are a whole host of people in this government.”
He said Islam experts Frank Gaffney or Claire Lopez would have the details.
The lawmakers asked the inspector generals at the departments of Homeland Security, Justice and State to investigate, prompting Democrats and Republicans to rush to Abedin’s defense.
However, as WND reported, Abedin worked for an organization founded by her family that is effectively at the forefront of a grand Saudi plan to mobilize U.S. Muslim minorities to transform America into a strict Wahhabi-style Islamic state, according to an Arabic-language manifesto issued by the Saudi monarchy. Abedin also was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Student Association, which was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group in a 1991 document introduced into evidence during the terror-financing trial of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation trial.
The internal memo said Muslim Brotherhood members “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
Lopez, a CSP senior fellow, wrote at The Gatestone Institute: “The careful insinuation of Muslim Brothers into positions from which they can exercise influence on U.S. policy began long before the attacks of 9/11, although their success has accelerated dramatically under the administration of President Barack Obama.”
She said the “massive Muslim Brotherhood organization network in the U.S., so patiently built up over the decades since that first Oval Office meeting in 1953 [with President Dwight D. Eisenhower], eventually gave it a prominence and (false) reputation of credibility that was unmatched by any other Islamic groups, moderate or otherwise.”
She said the Brotherhood achieved “information dominance” during the George W. Bush administration that only intensified in the following years.
“Not only did figures associated and identified with the Muslim Brotherhood achieve broad penetration at senior levels of U.S. policy making, but voices that warned of their true agenda (such as Stephen Coughlin’s) were actively excluded,” she said.
That information dominance has contributed to startling consequences, most evident in the U.S. policy toward the al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-dominated revolutions that many call the ‘Arab Spring,’ but which in fact are more accurately termed an ‘Islamic Awakening,’” she said.
Under the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Obama administration, U.S. policy has undergone such a drastic shift in the direction of outright support for these jihadist movements – from al-Qaida militias in Libya, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and both al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebels in Syria — that it is scarcely recognizable as American anymore.”
See Gaffney discussing the issue with Glenn Beck:
In the WMAL interview, McInerney said Gates’ book should alert Americans about what should be done to protect national security.
“The Middle East is coming apart with this administration’s policies. Look at Libya. We should never have gone into Libya. … We’ve got Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. government.”
WND columnist Diana West wrote it likely wasn’t by chance that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “reading from prepared notes, absurdly described the Muslim Brotherhood to the House Intelligence Committee last year as a ‘largely secular’ organization.”
“Is it an accident that in June the State Department issued a visa to Hani Nour Eldin of Egypt to meet with senior White House officials? Eldin is a member of Gama’a al-Islamiyya, a terrorist organization once led by Omar Abdel Rahman, ‘the blind sheikh’ convicted of the first attack on the World Trade Center. In the person of Rahman’s successor, Refai Ahmed Taha, the group is one of the five signatories of Osama bin Laden’s February 1998 ‘World Islamic Front Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders.’ Isn’t it imperative to review the policy mechanism that permitted a member of bin Laden’s jihad front into the White House?”
“Impeachable Offenses” also reported that then-CIA director John Brennan announced the Obama administration was calibrating policies in the fight against terrorism to ensure Americans are never “profiled.”
His speech was arranged by a Muslim Brotherhood-tied group that has deep relations not only with other Brotherhood fronts but to the White House and national security agencies.
Brennan’s NYU session was organized by the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA. ISNA, whose members asked Brennan scores of questions during the event, stated the meeting was intended to initiate a “dialogue between government officials and Muslim American leaders to explore issues of national security.”
ISNA was founded in 1981 by the Saudi-funded Muslim Students Association, which itself was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood. The two groups are still partners.
ISNA is known for its promotion of strict Saudi-style Islam in mosques throughout the U.S.
Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz describes ISNA as “one of the chief conduits through which the radical Saudi form of Islam passes into the United States.”
According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, ISNA “is a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation.”
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.